The greens and prostitutes

This is probably a completely stupid naive question, but if prostitution is legalised is it also legitimised? Are we going to reach a position whereby sex work positions are advertised and men/women on benefits are required to apply for them as they would be any other job? Or does it just move sex work into a grey area inside of the law where prostitutes are safe from prosecution (good) as are pimps, brothel owners and punters (not so good)?

I've just cancelledmy membership of the scottish greens over this issue. I can't support a party that proposes decriminalising violence against women. I also watched a prostitution survivor get bullied and silenced in their women's facebook group by a gang of liberal 'feminists' who were all about choosey choosey choice and 'Sex is just work' patter.

These two issues are bothering me too (prostitution and the gaffs of their equalities spokesperson). I too don't know enough yet about either the Nordic or New Zealand models, so this thread is really helpful. I do find I am generally swayed by the often convincing arguments put forward by feminists on MN on matters I have not yet fully considered.

I think the Green's remaining grace for me, with the prostitution issue particularly, is that their policies are formed democratically within the party. So if this is a key issue that might prevent someone from otherwise voting green, then perhaps there's some merit to joining the party as a member (doesn't mean you have to vote for them!) so that you can influence policy change on this.

The gaffs by the equalities spokesperson I agree, is a concern, although reassuring to hear Natalie's stance as leader. I do hope though, that with the extra funding coming from membership surge, this will help the party firm up and maintain their standards throughout. They do seem to be a party willing to listen and make changes accordingly. I have never been unimpressed with Caroline Lucus and wish there were more like her and Natalie Bennet throughout the party!

I thought I'd post in here so that I can place mark. For me this is the one reason I'd not vote Green. Which leaves me in a position of possibly not voting at all for the first time in my life.

I want a party that actually considers women, which the Greens seem to be trying to do, but they appear not to be very in tune with current studies on the matter and general common sense. I also think it is well intentioned, but possibly stuck in the 90's when this idea was 'cool'. Now it smacks of being the chick who is cool with the way men do things, 'coz she's not a prude, innit. Or some weird hippy idea of free 'love'. Not sure which is worse!

Hope that makes sense (lost for vocab today)

I think there are a lot of pros and cons that people on both sides seem to ignore. My biggest issue with all the claims is the nordic model will not stop prostitution and I have read that the police cannot make sure claims about any decrease simply because it is underground and no one actually knows what goes on. And this whole business in Sweden where the claims are the women are not prosecuted is a bit off as from the various articles available on line of what has happened is a lot of women are charged with other crimes so that women will not report rapes if they are by a client for fear of arrest or deportation if they come from abroad. So topline figures may look better but I do wonder how accurate they are.

On the other side women will still be tricked into working even when legal options are available. So long as there is money to be made there will always be those who want to abuse the system and they will operate whichever model is in place.

The thing i dont understand about it is that peiple are now attempting to put forward the REAL view of consent, ie that coertion is not consent.

How can that work with full decriminalisation?

However, I do think that at the moment, this is still an improvement on the current law, and hope that it would lead to crinimalising the clientele in future?

I read an article, and I have no idea where, but possibly linked from here, which was written by/about a woman in one of the new (ish) German super-brothels.

There was nothing safe, regulated, or good about the work she was doing, and she was planning to just be doing it while she qualified to do something else. She still couldn't really go to the police with problems because she didn't want people to know what she was doing, she had to switch her self off for the entire day because the job was just constant unwanted sex - it was horrific.

I can't support the greens because of this. Having read articles covering all sides and viewpoints I cannot support government sanctioned prostitution being the norm.

Why on earth would anyone support the legalization of prostitution if the evidence didn't support it being effective?

There is very little evidence that is not influenced by the political views of the person collecting the evidence. Most of it is highly contentious. Many people involved in the prostitution issue have formed their views on political principles, either a libertarian approach to choice, a patriarchal desire to maintain the availability of women for sexual services to men or an analysis of prostitution as a factor in the oppression of women.

There is some good evidence that decriminalisation leads to an increase in trafficking and also an increase in demand. That is highly logical because an increase in demand requires an increase in supply.

There is also good evidence that decriminalisation does not reduce street prostitution, which is the most harmful type. This is because the men specifically seek the street prostitution experience and the women often have addiction and other problems that would make them unemployable in a brothel.

There is a lot of money in prostitution for the pimps so they have heavily invested in promulgating the myth of sex-loving empowered prostitutes.

IceBeing - I see your point here, this is a common assumption.

I'm afraid the evidence does suggest that legalising prostitution leads to greater demand and therefore greater numbers of women being exploited and abused: www.catwa.org.au/files/images/Nordic_Model_Pamphlet.pdf

The drugs analogy doesn't really work here. I personally think drugs should be legalised, and not simply because the current laws don't prevent people from taking drugs, but also because there aren't any ethical problems with taking mind altering substances IMO. As long as you don't drive etc., there's no reason why getting high should hurt anyone else. There might be some negative health effects, but then the same is true of alcohol.

Buying sexual access to women's bodies, however, is highly unethical. Even if we made it entirely safe - no STDs, no violence, no rape - there would still be the central act of sex without meaningful consent. Perhaps there are some people in the world who really truly see sex as no big deal, have no emotional attachment to their sexual partners, couldn't give a monkeys whether or not they fancy them, and have nothing invested in their own sexual desires and identities. Maybe these people exist, but I don't think I've ever met one of them. For most people, sex is different from other social interactions and desiring your sexual partner is fundamentally important. This is why rape is such a traumatic act of violation, after all.

And actually plenty of voters do support the legalisation of prostitution, particularly men who like buying sex, which is quite a lot of men! Latest estimates are about 1/8 British men have bought sex at least once (I think! Anyone with better stats please correct me if I'm wrong). Then there are all the people who buy into misogynist ideas about women's bodies being commodities to be bought and sold.

There are plenty of people who see no problem with the idea in theory of selling sex as a form of work, but then ask them if they'd want that for their sister/daughter/mother and they're appalled. We're so used to this idea of a class of invisible women who no one really cares about - prostitutes aren't real people in the minds of many voters.

This twitter exchange between Rachel Moran and Laurie Penny is amazing...

twitter.com/RachelRMoran/status/547580854974025728

This idea that prostitution is alright for some women, just not for me is so offensive. Laurie Penny really gets told here!

There are a lot of jobs around that are neither desirable nor aspirational, but people still do them! Girls presumably aren't volunteering to be 'binmen', but there are a disproportionate number of women working in the cleaning sector. People will take up work they hate, for crap pay, and under terrible conditions, if their economic situation is dire enough (whether these are global, national or personal circumstances) and if there is enough government pressure to take up any form of paid work (sanctions etc). And trafficked women don't volunteer, they are coerced.
I like your optimism re the Green Party - as I said before, I'm not in the UK, but I really do hope you're right!
This has been a really interesting chat - like you, I was on the fence about this for a long time until I started reading some of the empirical studies on the effects of decriminalization - you can't beat the facts! I've really got to get to bed now, but would be happy to pick this up again!

"Do people really think that if prostitution is legal, girls will be asking for or getting careers advice in how best to get into it?" This is already happening, OP. It's called pimping and trafficking. And again, an expansion of the market always leads to an expansion in 'recruitment'.

I don't doubt that Natalie Bennett is acting in good faith. I read a paper by her published in the International Green Journal a couple of years ago, supporting the decriminalization of sex work, so this isn't a new ploy in the run-up to the election. But her paper, and presumably current thinking, a) pertains not to prostitues, but to the much broader category of "sex workers" (see all the arguments above) and b) is based exclusively on findings in New Zealand, where decriminalization has been very very tightly linked to governement regulation safeguarding the rights and health of sex workers. And this has indeed had a positive effect. But it does not address the problem of increased trafficking, nor does she mention other countries where the decriminalisation of sex work has had absolutely no effect on worker safety. And, I'm sorry, I'm not in the UK, but do you really think that intense government regulation of any industry sector to protect the workers rather than the bosses is ever going to happen? Because decriminalisation without regulation sounds the far more likely option.

Basil, I hate to contradict SoccerFunDay's very good post, but this part:
"I’m pretty convinced that decriminalisation would make it safer for women who are already involved in sex work, particularly those who currently work on the streets. Surely they're less likely to get raped and beaten in fully legal socially acceptable brothels." simply isn't true.
Women working in perfectly legal brothels and strip clubs are humiliated, harrassed, assaulted and raped. Prostituted women working in brothels are coerced into servicing drunk or violent johns. (source: www.prostitutionresearch.com/pdf/Prostitutionin9Countries.pdf). And I'm not even going to go into the emotional and psychological damage and devastatingly high rate of PTSD that sex workers suffer from in equal measure in countries where it is illegal and where it is has been decriminalized (Vanwesenbeeck's studies on sex work in Amsterdam found that 75% to 90% of prostituted women reported symptoms of PTSD). Decriminalizing sex work will not magically result in pimps and johns respecting women and their right to refuse sex or protecting their physical and mental health. I agree with all the other points, the thought of making "sex work a socially mandated career choice" is terrifying.

Rebecca Mott's blog speaks clearly about the damage prostitution causes.

Plus what Basil, Scallops and Chazzer have said, far more calmly than I can.

I agree, scallops, Natalie Bennett's broad definition of "sex work" - which encompasses webcam work, stripping and phone sex is unhelpful and definitely skews the issue. Prostitutes experience a far higher risk of sexual and physical violence, STIs, trafficking, coercion and coercive drug dependence than any other sex worker. Decriminalizing sex work might possibly benefit phone sex providers and brothel owners, but it will not make prostitutes any safer.

Here's Rachel Moran

I'm just going to post SoccerFunDay's post from the WebChat thread because she said it so perfectly:

"The criminalisation/decriminalisation is all about non-ideal choices I think.

I’m pretty convinced that decriminalisation would make it safer for women who are already involved in sex work, particularly those who currently work on the streets. Surely they're less likely to get raped and beaten in fully legal socially acceptable brothels. I completely get this argument and think it's fair enough.

But what decriminalisation ALSO does is:

1. set a societal norm that it's AOK to fuck people who, at a very basic level, have no wish to fuck you. This is immensely problematic when so many men already don't understand (or choose to ignore) the basic principle of consent.

2. set a societal norm that women's bodies exist to be used sexually by men, and that so long as money changes hands this is also AOK. Women are orifices to be ejaculated into and their humanity is irrelevant

3. make sex work a socially mandated career choice that will inevitably be most attractive to the most vulnerable, most abused, most fucked-up and most addicted very young girls and women - and then leave them at the mercy of 'punters', who are surely one of the most troubling, abusive groups in any society

4. give a broad social mandate/approval to skeevy dickhead men who get off on pimping out vulnerable women and making money from the process

So do we better protect women who are on the streets NOW, or do we work towards much more comprehensive protection of endless generations of women to come? Because you can't do both.

Sex work is not like any other profession or job. It requires huge physical vulnerability and trust, and the correlation between 'men who hate women' and 'men who like paying to fuck women' is immense. Do we want to give a broad societal mandate to that?"

It's had terrible effect in Germany .. Google Rachel Moran speech ...