Sex: My British Job. Channel 4

From memory, the NZ report had 4 researchers - 2 of whom were prostitutes, and 1 a member of the IUSW. So forgive me, wino, if I suspect a little bit of bias there

The Australian report had the red umbrella pro-prostitution symbol on it - so at a guess I would say it was pro-prostitution. Just a hunch.

So, I think on balance, I would prefer to listen to the UK Home Office figures, as Grennie posted.

Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes by linking to these supposedly "academic" studies - they are biased. They are researched and written by people with a real vested financial interest in the legalisation of prostitution. Because they can legitimately make more dosh out of exploiting women.

Legalisation of prostitution will do nothing to make the treatment of women in the film any better - in fact, research shows it would just increase the number of them.

The NZ report asked women questions while their pimps were present. Would you tell the truth about your job if a stranger asks you questions while your boss is present? No. Then why do you expect women to tell the truth when their abusive pimp is present?

Why are you putting the word survivor in quotation marks when referring to Rebecca Mott. Don't you believe her?

wino - You dismissed Home Office studies I posted information from, that didn't support your point of view.

The only groups I have ever seen using red umbrellas in this field, are those funded and supported by the pro prostitution lobby.

I know women who have worked in the sex industry in Australia. They tell a very different story to the one you present. And in Nevada there have been lots of exposes about women locked up in brothels and not allowed to leave without permission of the pimp, brothels employing mentally disabled women with a mental age of a child, etc. So no, things are not hunk dory in these countries.

Sabrina:
I have not linked to a single study “funded by the pro-prostitution lobby”. The studies I linked to were either academic papers published in the peer reviewed literature and funded by the countries respective research councils (the Danish one by the Sfi-the Danish social Science Research council) those in the UK by the social science research councils, the Home office or the Police.

Those in Australia mostly by the Australian Medical Resaeach council and those in NZ by their research council or by Parlaiment as part of the evaluation of the 2003 decriminalization bill. Where is the “pro-prostitution lobby”?

Your so called ”debunking” of the NZ report is based on your failure to understand “community based participatory research” which is a well known technique in Social Sciences when studying marginalized communities (look it up en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community-based_participatory_research) on the grounds that prostitutes organisations as well as academics , outreach organizations were involved in getting access to the community-you presumably think this invalidates the entire survey.

You “debunk” an Australian survey because the cover has red umbrellas on the front (!). Why don’t you take some deep breaths and read the reports fully? Watch the Scamber video? Oh no-your mind is closed-can’t do that.

And Flora I have spent my entire professional life dealing with issues of evidence, of proof and using statistics so won’t take lessons from you who does not understand purposive sampling will not read anything she claims is unrepresentative yet then cites the “survivor” Rebecca Mott as an example of how prostitution really is.

I don’t expect I will convince any one of you-it is hard to argue someone out of a position they did not argue themselves into-because in the end your believes are based on faith-an irrational belief held despite the evidence.

"why must there be an assumption that anyone who does not support the prohibitionist line must be paid by the pimp punter international conspiracy-or whatever"

It's not an assumption about anyone it's just that you are bizarrely invested in this issue. Your posts don't demonstrate a concern with issues of evidence, they demonstrate a fundamental failure to understand how to evaluate evidence, a high level of cherry-picking to support your viewpoint and a disregard for those women who don't fit into your idealised outlook of prostitution.

I think that was a problem with the pentameter operation too - trafficked women are terrified of admitting they have been trafficked because of 1) repercussions to their families back home and 2) fears that they will be repatriated and end up back in the hands of their traffickers.

Do you still support legalisation even though there is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that in places where prostitution is legalised, demand for prostitutes increases, and also illegal trafficking increases? Hence legalisation would just put more women in the situation of the C4 film. In Nevada, things are not 'better' for women in legal brothels - check out the Louis Theroux film in a legal Nevada brothel. Look at the first woman featured's eyes as she is led off by the punter - and tell me that's her true 'choice'.

Please don't link to any more studies that are funded by the pro-prostitution lobby again - it just wastes a whole lot of time for people to read and de-bunk these studies. So far, on the Invisible Man threads all the studies you have linked to have been too flawed/biased/funded by the red light campaigners to change anyone's minds here.

So, in your own words please...

flora: No of course I don't get paid-why must there be an assumption that anyone who does not support the prohibitionist line must be paid by the pimp punter international conspiracy-or whatever. I am concerned with issues of evidence -showing that the prohibitionist line is built on a tissue of lies distortions and misuse of evidence.

Sabrina: Hard to know how the illegals would be helped. In Australia they can get special visas provided they give evidence against their exploiters-meanwhile they can continue to work -but are frequently deported afterwards. In NZ and some Australian states (where prostitution is decriminalized or legalized prostitutes have rights, for instance there has to be safe sex, they can refuse clients and they have rights against exploitative conditions of employment. but this applies to the legal sector-whereas illegal immigrants tend to work in the unregulated sector.

And yes illegals are subject to drowning etc (as were the cockle pikers of Morecombe bay) and unsafe working pracices.

Prostitution is not suited to everybody by any means.

Wino: what sort of people does prostitution suit do you think?

'the bleatings' of those who 'witter on about pimps trafficking and the rest.'

Shocking dismissal of horrendous abuse.

I dunno, wino.
It seems to me you are more concerned with the poor old punter rather than the rights of the prostitute.
Can it be true?

wino, how do think legalising prostitution help the women in that film?

And do you think that illegal immigrants who work in restaurants and the like are at the risk of physical violence and rape that the prostitutes are?

wino do you get paid for what you do regarding prostitution?

Yes I did see it-also read the reviews and a previous Guardian article (www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/15/brothel-regret-not-working-sex-trade where the journalist wrote about her experiences)

The brothel madame was a very nasty piece of work-unfortunately illegal immigrants (smuggled, visa over-stayers or working in contravention of their visa conditions) are easy prey for exploitative employers-and not just in the sex industry ( in fact the sex industry is only minor part of the exploitation-restaurants, agriculture and other sectors also exploit illegals). However-as operation Pentameter 1& 2 showed after raiding many brothels while there are illegals working in the sex trade they do not meet the criteria of trafficked-either knowing they were entering the sex trade before they arrived or-as one of the people in the TV piece (and the article) entering it freely after doing other menial jobs in the catering industry-and regretted not doing sex work earlier as (to her) the money was good.

The brothel shown was at the bottom end (you can tell from the prices which are almost half the "going rate" of those advertising on the internet in London) of what is a very diverse industry-some conditions are exploitative but a great many are not. (see for instance Scambler G 2007 Sex Work Stigma: Opportunist Migrants in London Sociology 41: 1079 DOI: 10.1177/0038038507082316)

Did you watch the C4 program at all, inwino?

Gosh
Quick reply to one point "You've also yet to answer why you are so keen to prove prostitution is so marvellous and if you would do prostitution yourself"

Prostitution is not suited to everybody by any means. But for those who choose to do it, it should be decriminalised. and I say choose advisedly as in the vast majority of cases it is a choice-a constrained choice maybe but there is no evidence in the vast majority of cases (despite the bleatings of prohibitionist/abolitionists who witter on about pimps traffickers and the rest) for coercion of any kind

Wino, just out of interest, do you think we'd all be better off if prostitution didn't exist or do you think it serves a useful function in society?

"Thanks for that, WhenTheRed, I hadn't realised that was the IUSW position, though I can understand why it is."

Neither am I, seeing as the IUSW is heavily populated by pimps and punters and it's those voices that are heard.

Greenie
Here is a little exercise. Go to the website from which you downloaded all these "facts"-now follow up the citation trail. You will often find the references are missing-the reason being that the prohibitionist websites are cut and pastes of each other often forgetting to cut and paste the full references (so what is referred to by Home office 1994a or b?). If you can find the reference read it and try and find where in the work cited does the so called "fact" appear. You will more often than not find that the cited document does not say what is claimed. Believe me I have done this with these websites and followed through the citation trails-but not got the time today to pull it all apart-but I will. In the meantime read the Weitzer articles please.

Thanks for that, WhenTheRed, I hadn't realised that was the IUSW position, though I can understand why it is.

They way you tried to prove that prostitution in NZ is so hunky dory, despite their still being high high rates of rape?

I think you overestimate yourself.

You've also yet to answer why you are so keen to prove prostitution is so marvellous and if you would do prostitution yourself.

You want to dismiss research from such neutral bodies as the UK Home Office?

Grennie
Those so called "facts" (lifted from demand change and Object or the Eaves websites) are not facts at all but barefaced lies and distortions-but I am afraid typical of those put around by prohibitionists /abolitionists both in the UK and other countries.

A good dissection of much of these claims has been done by Prof Ronald Weitzer at George Washington University who is a professor of sociology. Website here (departments.columbian.gwu.edu/sociology/people/90) from his website some publications (normally behind subscription barriers) are available. I would recommend you (and others) read Weitzer R 2010 “The Mythology of Prostitution: Advocacy Research and Public Policy,” Sexuality Research and Social Policy, v.7: 15-29-which deals with many of these types of distortions and also Weitzer R 2009 "Sociology of Sex Work," Annual Review of Sociology, v. 35: 213-234.

While the above works deal with abolitionist claims in general those made by the Object etc websites (mostly about the situation in the UK) are easily disposed of. This was done at length by many respondents to Rhoda Grants consultation on the possible decriminalisation of the purchase of sex in Scotland-but now pulled from her website. If you really want-after reading the Weitzer material I can dispose of each of those claims with ease.

If any other job in countries like the UK, led to the above facts, there would be a total outcry. Because it is women in prostitution, and because a tiny number may choose and have a fairly positive experience, the vast majority get ignored.

People who talk about prostitution as being just another job, either don't know what they are talking about, or are lying. Read the stories of women who used to be in prostitution to get an idea of the reality for most women.