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

Yes, that's what I think too, Palmer. I don't want to tell brazen she's wrong, because she's entitled to voice her experience. I just don't think it's representative, from what I've seen in real life, and what I've read on the subject.

And I don't think it's a choice freely made. It's not brazen's choice that I have the problem with, it's the culture of male sexual entitlement in which it's made.

From the women I know, Rosalie's experience is far more common, but far less heard because it tends not to be women like her that get the opportunity to stand up and shout out.

Holy shit, I got chills reading this. Very graphic, and it will probably upset you, so go carefully if you're at all sensitive around sexual violence.

rosaliehaynes.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/cunting-corbyn/

I'm not saying that it can't be the way the brazen outlines above, and as she rightly says, I'm one of the ones coming at this from an academic rather than a lived perspective, but I wonder which experience is more common?

www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg139/chapter/1-guidance

Heres's some guidance for a carer - ie. another job that involves personal contact. Excerpts:

Gloves must[6] be worn for invasive procedures, contact with sterile sites and non-intact skin or mucous membranes, and all activities that have been assessed as carrying a risk of exposure to blood, body fluids, secretions or excretions, or to sharp or contaminated instruments. [2003]

wear a disposable plastic apron if there is a risk that clothing may be exposed to blood, body fluids, secretions or excretions or

wear a long-sleeved fluid-repellent gown if there is a risk of extensive splashing of blood, body fluids, secretions or excretions onto skin or clothing. [2012]

Face masks and eye protection must[6] be worn where there is a risk of blood, body fluids, secretions or excretions splashing into the face and eyes. [2003]

I really don't care if feminists think if it's "just another job" or not. The answer to that question isn't top priority. What will be safest for sexworkers is top priority IMO

By using the phrase "sexworkers" you are treating this as a job. It is not. It is abuse.

I am not interested in making this abuse slightly less dangerous and at the same time conferring validity that slightly less dangerous abuse is in certain circumstances socially sanctioned.

Oh and by the way your refrain of "I don't care what feminists think " does not magically add validity to your opinion. I support the Nordic solution because prostitution is self-evidently wrong. I don't need to consider myself a feminist to see that and it was certainly not feminist theory which brought me to that conclusion.

"which model of law is safer for sexworkers"

The one where there is a massive reduction in punters and prostitutes are supported into jobs.

feminival - perhaps you can answer my question in my last post then.

If prostitution becomes 'just another job' how is that helping the people doing it because they are poor, addicted, or lacking qualifications and see this as their only choice? Doesn't it persecute and drive them underground if they can't afford the medical tests, the insurance, the licensing that would presumably go along with properly decriminalising prostitution? Exactly who does it help?

And if insurance, medicals etc. aren't required, then still, who does it help? How is it another job if H&S inspections of the women's working conditions aren't carried out, to ensure that they're using gloves and masks while dealing with body fluids?

It seems to me, the only people it ever helps are men who want to have sex and don't want to think about the health and wellbeing of the person they are having sex with.

Since most of the prostituted are women, it should be no surprise that the #1 thing society can do to reduce violence against both prostituted women and all other kinds of women is to reduce men's very strong, very wrong sense of entitlement to sex.

The Nordic model has been the most successful legal avenue to reducing men's sense of entitlement to sex the world has seen so far.

I really don't care if feminists think if it's "just another job" or not. The answer to that question isn't top priority. What will be safest for sexworkers is top priority IMO.

It's those who think "it's just another job " who punt that argument.

Those who think prostitution is fundamentally wrong and incompatible with human dignity (some of whom might be feminists, it's not compulsory) are then obliged to explain why it is not.

Shouldn't "which model of law is safer for sexworkers" be far more important than the obsession feminists have about whether it is "just another job or not"?

GTJ - good points about the absurdity of it being just another job.

Up until recently (around 5 years ago) I would have agreed. I was genuinely baffled when I first found out that a lot feminists opposed legalising prostitution. It seemed to me counter intuitive to me, it is a female dominated 'industry' that women are making a living a from. Of course it should be legalised and society should stop demonising these women. Then I read why those feminists were against it and of course they were right

depressing really and says a lot about my own internalised misogyny that I have automatically dismissed feminist views without bothering to find the reasoning behind them

For me prostitution always seemed so self-evidently wrong I find it difficult to understand how anyone, male or female, could see it any differently. I don't actually see it as a feminist issue - by any standard of basic human it's wrong.

OK, so we go for regulation.

So insurance, healthchecks etc. all required. I'm sure Brazen will have no problems here.

The women (and children) at the bottom of the heap, who are doing it because they can see no other choice, who can't afford, or get the ID etc. together for their liability insurance - what do we do about them?

Are they now criminals, operating without a license? Are they just ignored (you know as they are now) - in no better position, and quite probably in a worse one (because now the people abusing them have that to hold over them too)

I just can't see a way to make prostitution into a job that helps the people who need the help - and thats before you get to my objection to the idea of people being able to buy the sexual services of women (and children, and men)

oh, and Amnesty International, one of if not the biggest human rights organisations in the world.

"we have a man here to explain why he doesn't find the commercialisation of women's bodies troubling, "

A man who is backed up by The World Health Organisation, UN HIV and the Law, HIV Scotland, and the Nurses Union like someone said.

And so what if there a few radical-feminists who disagree with Corbyn, there are also plenty who would agree with him (who aren't getting media publicity since it's the ones who shout the loudest we always hear about like Harriet Harman).

Brazen - I appreciate that you are paying tax, can you tell me if you hold the relevant insurances for your job?

I'm a computer programmer, I write websites, yet I still have professional indemnity insurance, and extra house insurance to cover any third parties I have working with me on occasion.

I follow health and safety regulations regarding monitor use etc. - do you similarly follow the H&S regulation regarding personal services and body fluids?

Taxi drivers have to have health checks - do you similarly have regular checks and display a certificate proving that?

Do you think that it's common for women to have these things? Or do you think that even women working within the current law bypass these trappings of most jobs? What do you think would happen if prostitution was entirely decriminalized and you were required to have these memberships/insurances/certifications etc.

Absolutely agree with what you said there, MyCrispBag. I used to be pro-prostitution, pro-porn, pro-surrogacy and pro-trans. I didn't hesitate to call myself a feminist, either, which seems to bizarre to me now, but since researching the issues, I now recognise the extent of my internalised misogyny and how my views were influenced by patriarchy and the wider media. Radical feminism (which seems to be the only remaining brand of feminism which actually serves women, imo) is pretty much dismissed without thought as the ravings of a niche group of misandrists, but it's amazing how many women actually side with radfem views when honest debate is allowed (ie mumsnet) instead of censored. It's concerning how tightly both the liberal and right-wing media control and micro-manage the debates around women's issues. I wonder how many women out there blindly support prostitution, transwomen in women's spaces, commercial surrogacy etc, simply because they have never been exposed to any different opinions other than the libfem illusion of 'personal choice / empowerment'

It shows a lack of engagement in women's issues.

Up until recently (around 5 years ago) I would have agreed. I was genuinely baffled when I first found out that a lot feminists opposed legalising prostitution. It seemed to me counter intuitive to me, it is a female dominated 'industry' that women are making a living a from. Of course it should be legalised and society should stop demonising these women. Then I read why those feminists were against it and of course they were right. I have had similar experiences with the trans issue and surrogacy.

It's depressing really and says a lot about my own internalised misogyny that I have automatically dismissed feminist views without bothering to find the reasoning behind them.

My point is- If this was Joe Bloggs holding this view I would be disappointed but wouldn't be too hard on them. It isn't Joe Bloggs though, it's a politician I respected that should know better.

guess where I struggle is with the fact that there must be so many women in the positions you describe of your clients - but they either just get on with their lives or don't have the means to pay for intimacy or it is not a service worth providing.

Very VERY good point...^

And what Windy said. There's nothing wrong with being middle class, but I'm not, and neither are most of my friends who are the most anti prostitution. In fact, working class women are more likely to live near areas where women are prostituted, and see the sleaze on their own doorstep.
I think if you go up three and read some posters experiences it will be clear that not everybody is speaking from an academic point of view.
There's always a Happy Hooker in these debates. When they discuss it on The Big Questions or whatever, there's always a woman in the audience who says she is happy, she loves sex, she provides a service, everything's dandy.
And when she says it, all the men in the audience nod vigorously, with relief, because they want prostitution to be like that. They would like the option, thanks er much, and the don't want to feel like bad men.
The FACT that statistically the vast proportion of prostitutes are victims of childhood abuse, well, let's brush that under the table, because brazen is fine.
Soz, but I can't see how the government sanctioning something that is inherently immoral can ever be ok. So, your nice client, your lonely lads, won't be able to see you because it will be illegal. Feh. There are lots of things I would like to do, but can't, because they are illegal. My heart does not bleed.

Ah yes, it's always 'middle class' women who feel like this, because evidently working class women are too thick to hold an opinion that differs to yours

Thank you for the post brazen.

Whilst I value your opinions as a current sex worker, I would respectfully suggest that you are in an enviable position within the industry. The prostitutes that I worked with (I'm not in the industry myself, but I work as a home carer - two of my service users are prostituted) were both disabled, severely addicted to heroin, and one was in a physically abusive relationship with her drug dealer/pimp. Both of these women were trapped in the most desperate circumstances that I could imagine happening in this country, and both of them expressed their hated about the nature of their 'work' and the men that they had to service. I saw the damage that having unwanted (but still 'consenting') sex with these men did to their mental health. I simply cannot agree that what those johns did to them was anything other than abuse.

I wish that there were a way of leaving the 'happy hookers' (I don't mean that as an insult, but you know what a mean...the belle de jours of the industry) free to persue sex work whilst finding a way to stop the exploitation of the more vulnerable women, but it simply does not seem possible. And while the full decriminalisation of john might help the businesses of the more secure prostitutes, it leaves the more vulnerable ones open to increased abuse. Decrimilisation only helps the top tier of sex workers imo.

Interesting post brazen. You are right that I speak from a point of no experience and my views are academic.

I guess where I struggle is with the fact that there must be so many women in the positions you describe of your clients - but they either just get on with their lives or don't have the means to pay for intimacy or it is not a service worth providing.

I mean, taking sex out of it, if your body is not the issue, you seem to be talking about people with emotional needs not being met. So why are clients mostly men and those providing the service mostly women?

I am not suggesting evening the playing field by more male sex workers or whatever; but if you are selling a service which is not about access to your body, but about meeting emotional needs for intimacy then what does this tell us about the layers of people who are being failed by other social attitudes and provision (where is the respite care for your male carer to have a social life?; where are the inclusive social attitudes to allow your disabled client to have a girlfriend - etc). It is almost like you are saying 'I see these people because there is no other way for them to be close to another person'. So - as a campaigner for social justice - the issue is why is the answer here an individual and gendered one; why is it not about social responsibility and care more generally?

That is taking sex out of the equation - but sex is not out of the equation. It is central to it. There is something deeply unsettling to me with a culture that suggests that access to women's bodies is a commodity. It is not. I believe that men in your private life may be more entitled. But it is a continuum - they are entitled because socially, in media, in advertising, women's bodies are seen as accessible, they are used as a means of sale.

I am not writing in a secure financial middle class bubble. I provide what I can myself. I guess I just think social justice is about more than what it is being portrayed as here.

Brazenhussy0 I have read your post. Nothing in it makes me change my mind that prostitution is wrong and that society should not be facilitating it.