The greens and prostitutes

www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/crime-court/i_m_invisible_i_m_the_ripper_serial_rapist_told_victim_1_3998741

Serial rapist of sex workers jailed for 12.5 years. Good!!

I was discussing this 'greens' prostitution policy' with DP today.

I told him if he voted for them I'd stop giving him lifts in my car.

I wouldn't vote for them anyway but I'm really worried/annoyed that a party that people think of as 'good for women' is actually very misogynistic.

I've just been 'discussing' this with someone campaigning for the SNP - they've been aligning a fair bit in Scotland and now Sturgeon has suggested English voters need to vote Green to get Labour.

When I raised it, the response I got was, 'you're damned lucky if that's all you've got to worry about.'

I was then talking to a publisher about work and was asked if I had any 'sex industry stories' (I'm a ghost writer). I am actually working with someone who wants to tell her story about being abused by a UK gang, so mentioned this. The response to that? 'Oh, that sounds a bit miserable really - anything a bit lighter?'

If this section of MN didn't exist, and I didn't lurk every day, I'm not sure what I would do.

A focus on making the 'demand' of prostitution illegal and 'supply' of sex from individual prostitutes (not brothels) legal has the following pro's:

1. Reduces violence, by giving physical abusers criminal records. Which is already in place to a degree in form of GBH but as we've seen in Sheffield police ignore reports of abuse from prostitutes because it is a 'grey area'.
2. Reduces demand and promotes men to seek healthy relationships. They can pay for sex discretely but will know if they abuse they will face consequences such as prison / be outed and lose their job / family etc. It takes power away from the punter.
3. Prostitutes seek alternatives to earn money without having criminal records. Government should be focussing on further education, reducing fees, increasing accessibility and investing in careers / skills.
4. Reduces misogynist views, increases overall value and view of women as equal in society and reduces oppression / inferiority.
5. Allows individuals to operate discretely, reduces trafficking and brothels, reduces sex being marketed as a commodity. No-one should profit from the sale of someone else's sexual organs.
6. Individuals reports of abuse should be acted on by police, support networks should be in touch. If the individual doesn't press charges there is no criminal record for punter, depending on level of abuse the decision can be taken out of her hands.

I think there are no perfect answers by looking at extreme ends of the spectrum but by reducing the negative impact on individuals and society while allowing them to make free choices is a good thing. I actually fail to see any cons if you consider the balanced view that it will never be eradicated completely; just needs to be regulated more closely.

Why the assumption that "their" accounts are representative? Some may say their lives will become more difficult and hazardous, but what if "they" are actually only a tiny minority of prostitutes?

Hrmm. I suppose it seemed representative to me because what the women put forward seemed reasonable. If the context were changed from sex to any situation where a supply is legal but consumption illegal I could see similar situations evolving. The two core problems they talked about were a lack of time to get a handle on the personality of the john, because being engaged in a criminal activity they wanted to limit their presence and exposure, wanting to go to places they felt safe rather than places the sex worker felt safe. Under time constraints with jumpy clients the women had difficulty working out in advance if the john would be a decent client and abide by what they permitted or whether he would be unreasonable, unstable or even dangerous. The second problem was inability to operate in a safe house/environment because if clients realised the location had become known to police they would no longer go there. The situations you mention, child and house removal, were not brought up.

The Green's stance on prostitution has put me off voting for them - they were a contender for my vote, as I feel aligned to them in many other ways.

My issue with prostitution is the abuse of women which goes hand in hand with it. I'm not really bothered how many Brook Magnantis come on here and say they are happy with it- the fact remains that women who have been abused, who are drug addicted, who are impoverished, do it out of pure desperation.

Even more poignantly, women and girls are trafficked to do it totally against their will. One thing that happens fairly consistently with legalisation/decriminalisation is that the demand for prostitution goes up - give it the veneer of legal/social acceptability, a veneer of 'all's fine with prostitution' then more punters are happy to see it as just a transaction, just a job for women.

What happens when demand outstrips supply? Or when people see an opportunity to make money out of exploiting people? More women are trafficked. Research has shown this to be the case, and is the very reason Sweden introduced the Nordic model. The Nordic model protects the vulnerable, the abused, the trafficked women. The Brook Magnantis of this world have a loud and powerful voice. The trafficked, abused women have none. The Nordic model speaks for them, protects them.

I'm a regular NC'er btw in case you don't recognise the name.

I'm not a criminal lawyer but I suppose I am thinking of something along the lines of fixed penalties with fairly low penalties which don't show up. I take your point but I'm not comfortable with 1 of the parties in this automatically having no culpability, ever.

So far as the happy hookers in their own flats I'm not in the least persuaded neighbours should have to put up with their block being partly turned into a brothel; nor that street prostitution should be tolerated in streets with a high residential element or indeed business element where non punters and non prostitutes are going about their everyday lives.

One of the many objections to Edinburgh council turning a blind eye to "saunas" and "massage parlours" is that the traditional construction of Victorian tenements in the working class areas was often commercial premises on the ground floor and flats on the floors above.

I agree it's very difficult ; possibly criminalisation needs to be phased in at the very end of other measures.

Still

you said I would prefer prostitution was criminalised, albeit with nominal punishment /admonishments for the women; although if a woman were repeatedly operating in a way which caused disturbance to neighbours that should be taken into account.

I think the main reason I'd disagree with you (apart from the obvious one about women in street prostitution only being there as a job of last resort) is that, by criminalising the women, you could well be destroying any chance they have of finding employment even should they be able to exit safely, due to their having a criminal record for soliciting.

I'm not sure I'd want to legislate in such a discriminatory way against women who almost certainly have had situations in their past or present which have lead them to this pass.

I've lived in places which were considered notorious red light districts both here and abroad, so I'm aware of the 'nuisance' issues. I'm just not sure that the best way to tackle those is to ensure the women involved have little choice but to continue in the field IYSWIM?

apologies if that doesn't make huge amounts of sense, my painkillers are being lovely right now, no doubt I'll blush in the morning!

" For as long as we allow one class of women to be commodified, and used we are all diminished."

Well put.

Without wishing to put too fine a point on it this "merseyside model" should really be what's going on as routine. It is in law illegal to rape, rob or abuse anyone prostitute or not. We as a society other sex workers and don't really care, and until this is rectified whatever laws we put into place won't make much of a difference.

I am reminded that Andrea Dworkin herself did sex work, which I think puts her particular brand of feminism into a stark context. It feels to me that this issue really is a front line for feminism. For as long as we allow one class of women to be commodified, and used we are all diminished.

As to this you can only let people belittle and abuse you if you consent to let them. It may be the only real power you have in life is the power you have over yourself, and everything else is an illusion, but then again our own personal illusions hold a great deal influence in what we choose, and those illusions we are very rarely aware of.

I'm not in favour of the Nordic model.
I would prefer prostitution was criminalised, albeit with nominal punishment /admonishments for the women; although if a woman were repeatedly operating in a way which caused disturbance to neighbours that should be taken into account.

Nothing would persuade me to vote for the Greens, or UKIP or SNP for that matter.

So in summary, the general consensus seems to be in favour of Merseyside and Nordic models and for further education to be cheaper / free / more accessible.

If the Green Party were to align their policies in this regard (too late to change 2015 manifesto but perhaps for 2020 elections) - would you vote for them?

DadWasHere wrote - "I would personally like them to be criminalised, as I find what they do odious, but the effect of that under the Nordic model is to make the lives of female sex workers more difficult and hazardous, by their own account."

Why the assumption that "their" accounts are representative? Some may say their lives will become more difficult and hazardous, but what if "they" are actually only a tiny minority of prostitutes?

Some prostitutes in the UK do indeed predict their lives will be worse under the Nordic model, but I think on all the MN FWR threads that I've read about prostitution, which have attracted many posts opposing the Nordic model, the opponents always cite the same two prostitutes actually working in Sweden under the Nordic model, who attribute their worse life situation to the Nordic model, as if their particular hardships (house removal or child removal) would be impossible in countries where punters are not criminalised.

Housing and children are removed from prostitutes in many countries and under various prostitution regimes. It is not unique to the Nordic model. More generally, these two misfortunes happen to women around the world, whether they are prostitutes or not.

influence people not to be oppressed or negatively impacted by negative people

Actually I agree with that statement in certain purely work situations (which by the way you never mentioned to begin with). I don't think there is anything to be gained by just going on about how hard it is for women and reinforcing negativity.

Where I utterly part company with you is the notion that this mantra is a panacea or that it has the slightest relevance to prostitution. I made the "sticks and stones" comment and I stand by it.

Your mantra only works where the oppressed person already has a degree of power and autonomy and needs encouragement to use it effectively.

Oh and short version of my views prostitution is not a viable career option. It degrades all involved. Every time the buyer hires the use of another's genitals is a loss of (what little) decency and humanity that person had.

___

^^ Line Drawn

So, back on topic after the massive thread derail....

What is the issue with the Merseyside, Nordic models and what are the issues with focus on investment in education; making it cheaper and more accessible, driving career options and focus on the support systems?

If that's your interpretation of it, then I am sure you're correct.

Well done on the derail, and failing to answer the questions posed.

I'm done with you.

Lol... can I call bullshit now?

LIFT yourself out of the confusion ladies, influence people not to be oppressed or negatively impacted by negative people. Thats it, no more no less.

Don't need to lift myself out of anything, thanks, I tend to use evidence based stuff, instead of platitudes.

Your last 2 posts do enlighten me a bit though.

How many women who have been in prostitution do you, and a SENIOR recruitment bod place each month? And how many do you pay to use as a masturbatory aid?

Oh, and also FWIW, none of us have needed to utilise a thesaurus in the making of these posts. It says a lot about your view of women that you would think that such erudition as ours would require the use of such a tome. Allow me to elucidate:

You believe that women who are manouvered into prostitution, by the men in their lives, are in some way allowing themselves to be inferior, and that inferiority comes not from the lives they've lived or the abuse they've suffered, but because they lack the presence of mind to just stop feeling inferior and becoming the chair of the CBI.

You see the prostitution of women as a discrete problem, completely unaffected by circumstance, and simply a financial choice.

You see women as uneducated and unable to construct a cogent rebuttal to your fatuous points without recourse to reference books.

Here's a link to a dictionary to help you with the long words that Buffy will use. I believe it also has access to an online thesaurus, which might aid you further.

If you post again please god, no you might try not to be such a currish boil-brained fustilarian to misquote the bard , ok?

HTH

Gosh, pand0ra, I thought the conversation was going pretty well until your last post.

"Lift yourself out of the confusion ladies"???

See ya around.

You're a lost rebel without a cause here.

We're all in agreement on the points bar the context in which that quote should be taken and the way in which I intended it to be. From the money driven career choice persepctive.

LIFT yourself out of the confusion ladies, influence people not to be oppressed or negatively impacted by negative people. Thats it, no more no less.

Go to go, i'm making positive choices and that keeps me busy. Have a good day.

Or, y'know, what Buffy said.