Corbyn - "I'm in favour of decriminalising the sex industry"

Noted. Brazen Although I really don't need this to be explained.

It does not change my position. I am not in favour of decriminalisation or legalising of prostitution.

In case there is any doubt, I do not support legalising brothels. I do not have any problem with brothel keepers being prosecuted. Nor do I care whether this is the owner of a German super-brothel or two or more women working together in premises. To be clear I am not interested in anything which gives a shred of legitimacy to prostitution.

Lass - To answer the question you last posted for 0phelia, I'm going to post a quote from one of the links I posted earlier (which everyone still appears to conveniently be ignoring )

"Decriminalisation means the abolition of all the laws on prostitution. Although exchanging sex for money isn’t illegal, in practice it is virtually impossible to work without breaking the law. Women working on the street are charged with loitering and soliciting (and increasingly ASBOs and compulsory rehabilitation orders). Two women or more working in premises can be charged with brothel keeping. Anyone who associates with a sex worker (lover, friend, partner) can be done for controlling. Raids and prosecutions are increasing and hundreds of women who are working to survive and support their families are having their lives wrecked by a criminal conviction – as a result they will find it almost impossible to get any other kind of employment. And most importantly, women’s safety is seriously undermined as sex workers are deterred from coming forward to report rape and other violence for fear of arrest (and for immigrant women, fear of deportation) – violent men know that and are quick to take advantage."

prostitutescollective.net/2010/09/28/decriminalisation-of-prostitution-v-legalisation-2/

Flora No I get that- it's just part of the absurdity of say treating brothels as any other nightclub. If it's a legitimate, legal business....

Untill this is overthrown, women need to not be criminalised

What are you "criminalised" for?

Soliciting and running brothels are criminal. These activities do actually affect other people,women,men and children, who have no interest or involvement with prostitution.

Selling or hiring your body in private will not criminalise you.

Lass I don't want there to be any prostitution so nothing to tax, not to make a case that a legal distinction should be made. When people say prostitution should be legalised and taxes, they should think about what that means.

"Untill this is overthrown, women need to not be criminalised, stigmatized, or slurred by other women because of their life path."

The Nordic model criminalises punters, not prostitutes.

Is it feminists who stigmatise and slur prostitutes who have few or no other options to earn money? I really don't think it is.

Lass there really is a difference. Decriminalization does not make it "any old job" and still lists it as an offense. Legalisation is completely different.
Goodness just RTFT please. Repetition galore here

Actually Ophelia being or using a prostitute is not an offense, certainly not in the UK so I don't know what you are on about it "still being listed as an offence " It isn't an offence now.

To be clear I really, really don't care what terminology you use. I do not want a society where brothels,pimps etc are legal.

Yes Barefoot, in being a prostitute I am probably as patriarch compliant as one could possibly get.

But I didn't have options. I needed money. I was experienced in sex, not much else. It was an obvious choice.

I am fully aware how patriarchy has defined my life.

Untill this is overthrown, women need to not be criminalised, stigmatized, or slurred by other women because of their life path.

I hope the Nordic model will become more popular across the world in how it puts men on the spot.

Unfortunately in the UK, seeing as this concept is not terribly popular amongst men, it is not a vote winner for Corbyn. In speaking for decriminalization it proves how Corbyn has safety of prostitutes in mind, while he is not opting for the radical, anti-man NM in order to call in these protections.

"Blaming prostitutes for men using prostitutes doesn't get anyone very far"

I don't blame prostitutes, I blame punters and want punters criminalised.

"Prostitution does not damage women. Prostitutes do not damage other women. Patriarchy damages women. Can't feminists stick together on that?"

Men considering they have the right to buy consent, to rent women's orifices as wanksocks and to complain afterwards if said woman didn't seem enthusiastic enough about it, seems the very definition of a set of patriarchal actions.

Ok sillage so men damage women. Blaming prostitutes for men using prostitutes doesn't get anyone very far. Don't vulnerable women (including prostitutes) need protecting?

Lass there really is a difference. Decriminalization does not make it "any old job" and still lists it as an offense. Legalisation is completely different.
Goodness just RTFT please. Repetition galore here.

Prostitution does not damage women. Prostitutes do not damage other women. Patriarchy damages women. Can't feminists stick together on that?

No - for reasons set out by sillage. And I do not agree that prostitutes do not damage other women.

Lass decriminalisation isn't the same as legalisation. It'll never become a free-for-all

Opheliafor the avoidance of any doubt I don't really care which term you use. I do not want pimps, brothels , madams and minders to be legal nor for prostitution to be seen as just a job.

I don't want women in prostitution to pay tax. The idea that one in three times (or so) a woman in prostitution is used for sex is for the benefit of the tax man is just grim. It makes the state into a pimp

Flora Yes indeed but that would be inevitable if any form of decriminalisation/legalisation happened.

At present prostitutes are liable to pay income tax the same as anyone else except enforcement and assessment is problematic. If a woman is a legal employee of a brothel (or an employer in a brothel) then they will be in the tax system. It might be distasteful to take tax off such an employee but, it would be illogical not to. And deeply unfair to many workers in low paid/ dangerous / unpleasant jobs. There is no sustainable fiscal case which can be made not to collect tax.

The only place where prostitution is currently decriminalised is New Zealand

If we are going to nit-pick, that is not strictly true. Selling/hiring your body in private is not illegal in the UK. Soliciting, pimping,brothel-keeping and living off immoral earnings are illegal.

"Patriarchy damages women. Can't feminists stick together on that?"

No.

Patriarchy does not have a penis to rape with. That's men.

Patriarchy does not have fists to punch with. That's men.

Patriarchy is an incorporeal idea. Men have bodies they frequently use to cause harm and destruction.

Men who use prostitutes are the leading cause of damage to prostituted women.

Thanks for your posts Brazen Wishing you well.

Prostitution does not damage women. Prostitutes do not damage other women. Patriarchy damages women. Can't feminists stick together on that?

Re educating, I've seen Amnesty International's and other's arguments, I'm not convinced. At all. If I get time I'll see what I can find about your group before I click on a direct link which prior, possibly incorrect, assumptions lead me to expect will have porn and other unsavoury material linked in.

I liked the way you claim to have the safety of all women in mind, after telling me that talking about the safety of all women rather than just sex workers was distracting from the point. Trouble is 'all women' is rather a large class, but non-sex-workers currently outnumber sex-workers. Long may that continue.

My clients have never been anything but respectful to me.

If that is the case you are harming women who suffer violence and abuse from pimps and punters by trying to normalise prostitution and by advocating for decriminalisation which will fuel demand and expose more women to more danger. You cannot claim to have anything meaningful to say on behalf of the women who are subjected to violence in prostitution.

Your adamant refusal to engage with how industry pimps and johns openly prefer to hate women in the sex industry, which includes ALL forms of prostitution, is why the Nordic model will continue to expand into more and countries.

Because you either won't or can't, feminists will continue to speak about the men most responsible for hurting, raping, and murdering prostituted women - the johns.

"I gave my opinion as a sex worker and that opinion was ignored.
My experiences were ridiculed. "

You were disagreed with,not ignored - ignoring would have been if no one engaged with you.

Your experiences weren't ridiculed, posters pointed our that many women in prostitution have had a much worse experience.

Bungo - Hahaha!

"I'm a bit choosy about what links I click on on the WWW, plus I'm not over-blessed with time. I'm reluctant to click on a prostitutes net link to be perfectly honest."

So you're just outright refusing to read evidence and educate yourself on the subject? The links I gave are to the English Collective of Prostitutes. They are a group campaigning for sex worker safety.

I think I'm done here.
I gave my opinion as a sex worker and that opinion was ignored.
My experiences were ridiculed.
The links to supporting evidence and facts are being ignored.

Many of you clearly have your minds made up on this and refuse to listen to sex workers, Amnesty International, sex worker charities and organisations, facts, figures or basic reason.
There is literally nothing more I can do here.

sillage - The porn industry is not the same thing as the escorting industry. And my opinions on porn are not relevant to this discussion, which is about the UK prostitution laws.
But nice derail there...

I find it interesting that you choose to 'other' women in the sex industry by referring to me as "women like you" whilst referring to yourself and others here as "feminist women".

Believe it or not, I identify as being a feminist woman too. Or am I excluded from the club for being a hooker?
The difference between us, as feminists, is that my concern is the safety of all women. Not just those I personally deem worthy based on my own moral compass.

p.s. My clients have never been anything but respectful to me. I know that's not what you want to hear, but they treat me with more respect as a human being than many 'feminists' on this thread have done.

Women in prostitution are uniquely exposed to rape, violence, sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy compared with women working in an actual workplace. Why would it be safer for them to remove all regulations relating to this commercial activity when every other commercial activity is regulated?

Women in prostitution cannot be made safe because the source of the danger is the punters.

I'm a bit choosy about what links I click on on the WWW, plus I'm not over-blessed with time. I'm reluctant to click on a prostitutes net link to be perfectly honest.

Yes language use is vital, it is the tool we use to describe the world. But shifting one activity from 'dehumanising' to 'empowering' women is quite a jump to make. It further reinforces my impression that there is something dubious about the activity itself.

I don't think decriminalisarion's main point is about the safety of sex workers. It is also about the safety of all women and their rights, because the way in which one subgroup behaves and is treated will affect us all within the same society, so I reject your attempt to re-frame the question that way.

I have to admit I am not clear on the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation. Except as another semantic, plus legal game. The pragmatic differences on effects within society seems to be nil and no one's ever told or shown me anything to convince me otherwise.