Talk

Advanced search

Liberal feminists/sex work is work proponents....

(107 Posts)
BertrandRussell Sat 12-Jan-19 13:59:57

.....do you think the DWP should be able to sanction a person who refuses to earn money as a prostitute when applying for benefits? If not, why not?

NothingOnTellyAgain Sat 12-Jan-19 14:12:48

Good question.

Another question is around health and safety at work >

If it's a job like any other then relevant legislation should apply but this would render the job pretty much undoable.

So how does that work.

Melanippe Sat 12-Jan-19 14:28:39

Another question is how to they make sex workers COSHH compliant under the auspices of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002? What PPE would making working with bodily fluids safe, and how should "sex workers" be held responsible for using and maintaining this PPE? How do they ensure that "sex workers" remain safe when refusing to remove PPE for their "clients"?

LangCleg Sat 12-Jan-19 14:54:39

You'll never get a coherent answer to that one!

Another related question: what about consumer rights? Do punters get refunds for "faulty service"? if not, why not?

AngryAttackKittens Sat 12-Jan-19 15:04:00

And what about denial of service? What if a person is denied service and files an unfair discrimination lawsuit?

If you're (entirely reasonably) balking at that then you don't really think prostitution is a job like any other.

Pachyderm1 Sat 12-Jan-19 15:09:43

I don’t think the DWP should be able to sanction you for refusing any job which you have a strong aversion to. What if I don’t want to work in an abbatoir, killing pigs all day? I definitely shouldn’t have to. It’s the same for sex work. People should have the right to refuse any job they feel unable to do, and it shouldn’t come with sanctions.

The fact that you seem to think it’s acceptable to sanction people for refusing other jobs they don’t want to do is pretty revolting. Being out of work doesn’t mean you should suddenly be deprived of the right to make choices about what is right for you. The government should be working with people who are long-term unemployed to help them find suitable jobs - not forcing them into unwelcome positions with the threat of financial hardship.

AngryAttackKittens Sat 12-Jan-19 15:12:03

Well, that was quite a leap. I wonder what other things that OP is to be assumed to be in support of.

OdeToDiazepam Sat 12-Jan-19 15:14:34

Patchy people have said for years that the unemployed should take any job to tide over

When I used to go to the job centre we were told abc.. any job, a bettter job, career

You can be sanctioned for not applying and attending interviews etc

The base line is, no, sex work is obviously not valid work and shouldn't be treated as such

BoglingToAswad Sat 12-Jan-19 15:14:39

No, I don't.

Saying sex work is work and workers deserve the same rights and protections as other workers, is not saying sex work is like any other job.

I believe a woman who chooses to be a sex worker (and there are a lot of us) should not be stigmatized socially or put in a dangerous situation by the law, but that does not mean that I think all women should consider sex work as a job for themselves. It is most certainly real work, but the personal nature of it obviously means it should never be forced on anyone.

I don't have time today to get into this, but if you are looking for genuine answers to this question I would ask on a forum that is frequented by 'liberal feminists/sex work is work proponents' rather than this board, which is a bit of an echo chamber at times.

Pachyderm1 Sat 12-Jan-19 15:19:14

Well, that was quite a leap. I wonder what other things that OP is to be assumed to be in support of.

Her post implies that it’s ok for the DWP to sanction people for refusing to take some jobs. If she doesn’t think that, why single out sex work?

sackrifice Sat 12-Jan-19 15:21:39

If sex work is work, why aren't men doing it in droves?

TallulahWaitingInTheRain Sat 12-Jan-19 15:24:22

If people are in a position where they are being coerced to do work they don't want to do, that isn't very nice, for sure. But if they are in a position where they are being coerced to have sex they don't want to have, they are being raped. Not liking your job does not make you a crime victim. Being raped does.

AngryAttackKittens Sat 12-Jan-19 15:24:24

What other hidden implications do you see in the really rather short OP?

Funkyfunkybeat12 Sat 12-Jan-19 15:26:10

No. Nordic model is the best. Support sex workers and have proper social support structures.

BertrandRussell Sat 12-Jan-19 15:37:43

“The fact that you seem to think it’s acceptable to sanction people for refusing other jobs they don’t want to do is pretty revolting.”
Eh??

FlyingOink Sat 12-Jan-19 15:50:31

Saying sex work is work and workers deserve the same rights and protections as other workers, is not saying sex work is like any other job.
Thing is, rights aren't worth a bean if they're not protected and enforced. You would need a sex workers' union and an actual employer. Enforcement of a contract between two people is much harder to do, ask any tradesman who's had to sue for his fee, or a householder who's been ripped off by a cowboy. It has to go to court.
How would a woman enforce condom usage, except if she worked for/with people willing to use force against her client? And if those people are protecting her isn't there a good chance they could also coerce her? Whose responsibility is it to ensure she isn't trafficked, or drugged, or raped, or beaten, or impregnated, or killed?
Genuine questions - how does this work for other self employed women who might go into strangers' homes, like cleaners, mobile hairdressers, masseurs, childminders? And is what is in place legally for those roles sufficient to meet the needs of someone who gets naked and vulnerable with a client?
Bearing in mind the spate of girlfriends/lovers beaten to death because they "liked rough sex" how could a sex worker's safety ever be even improved, never mind guaranteed?
How would she get life insurance or car insurance with such a high risk job? Would she pay an increased rate, like a steeplejack would, or would insurers refuse to cover her?
Would it affect her standing in a custody battle?
How much tax would she pay, and would she be under financial pressure to do jobs off the books?
Could she get a mortgage with her earnings?
Could she insure her looks? How could she predict cash flow long term if her punters suddenly went off her?
Could she claim discrimination if advertisers refused to carry her adverts?

And in answer to the OP, similar has already happened www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1482371/If-you-dont-take-a-job-as-a-prostitute-we-can-stop-your-benefits.html

LangCleg Sat 12-Jan-19 16:49:54

Her post implies that it’s ok for the DWP to sanction people for refusing to take some jobs.

No, it doesn't. The OP references the current situation re benefits and jobseeking. The fact it exists doesn't imply any support from the OP. Neither do the other questions: we have laws for consumer rights - my asking if these apply to punters doesn't imply my support for punters.

Unless, of course, you are the one arguing that multiple legislation should be undone to accommodate full legality of prostitution. Are you?

Rufusthebewilderedreindeer Sat 12-Jan-19 16:54:26

What other hidden implications do you see in the really rather short OP?

Eating puppies and sending children up chimneys i reckon

She didn't actually say that she wouldnt eat a puppy or send a child up a chimney sooooooo...

BertrandRussell Sat 12-Jan-19 17:00:59

“Turns spit with roasting puppy impaled on it. Lights votive candle on Nigel Farage shrine”

FlyingOink Sat 12-Jan-19 17:03:34

It'll take you ages to roast a puppy with a votive candle.

MargueritaPink Sat 12-Jan-19 17:06:27

I have no personal experience of claiming benefits but from this the sanctions apply where a claimant is doing nothing or not adequately doing anything about looking for a suitable job or has left a job for no good reason. Not that they are allocated any old job.

Jobseeker’s Allowance sanctions: how to keep your benefit payment - GOV.UK
www.gov.uk/government/publications/jobseekers-allowance-sanctions-leaflet/jobseekers-allowance-sanctions-how-to-keep-your-benefit-payment#what-must-i-do-to-keep-my-benefit-payment.

I don't see anything in this which says a claimant would be sanctioned for not taking a job in an abattoir. The sanctions are for failing to apply/attend interviews.

So far as the case referred to in The Telegraph I'm as anti-prostitution as anyone but I think that case has been discredited as not being true.

Ereshkigal Sat 12-Jan-19 17:15:24

Also dealing with bodily fluids and risking communicable diseases would require the wearing of PPE by law plus I would assume robust risk assessment and third party insurance, if "sex work is work".

donquixotedelamancha Sat 12-Jan-19 17:46:35

I have no personal experience of claiming benefits but from this the sanctions apply where a claimant is doing nothing or not adequately doing anything about looking for a suitable job or has left a job for no good reason. Not that they are allocated any old job.

I do. I've done that job. The sanctions apply when somebody repeatedly refuses to apply for jobs for which they meet the minimum specification. They are definitely expected to accept 'any old job'. When I did it there was a lot of wiggle room for advisers not to apply the sanctions- not the case now, I understand.

My mind boggles that anyone thinks sex work is 'just work'. I'm agog at the hoops people will go through to justify it. Under current law, if employing prostitutes were legal then claimants would have to apply like any other job.

Of course we should try to minimise the inherent harms for people who are currently prostitutes- on the way to eliminating this exploitative and demeaning practice.

Micke Sat 12-Jan-19 18:09:07

The public liability premiums would surely be crippling too.

And it's not only the prostitute herself of course - if she pays a cleaner, they are also dealing with body fluids now as part of their job - and being such a specialist cleaner they'll presumably need to charge a premium for their protective gear and disposal.

On that subject, how does it work? Are women cleaning hotel rooms similarly thrown under the bus bodily fluids-wise? I've never heard of the kind of protective gear/disposal being used that would be required if they were (for example) dealing with waste from a GP's clinic, but I can't see that it's that different (sharps aside)

AwdBovril Sat 12-Jan-19 18:18:20

Sex work is work...

Taking that to it's logical conclusion, any woman (or man, presumably) could be required to work in the sex industry. Regardless of their age, physical appearance, etc. Would disability or health concerns preclude a person from being required to work in this field, I wonder?

Taking it one step further, their potential clients could be accused of age related discrimination if they refused to "employ" someone who was, for example, too old for that client's particular preference.

If the sex worker repeatedly had clients cancel or become abusive, would they be able to claim for constructive dismissal? Against who?

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »