Liberal feminists/sex work is work proponents....

I do know that but was beginning to wonder whether others were.

Re forcing people to take jobs there is a big difference between not taking a job in an abbatoir and being too grand to work in Tesco.

And if your comment There is a discussion to be had about what legal framework is best to protect women, but to say that prostitution is just a job and should be encouraged like any other economic activity is horrid is aimed at me I have said nothing about it being just like any other job. I favour criminalising
punters.

There is no possibility of someone being asked to be a prostitute.

I don't think that anyone really imagines that is the immediate consequence of 'sex work is work'. I don't agree that the current rules prevent women being pushed into it in theory because my understanding from former colleagues is that claimants are pushed to take any job much more aggressively these day and few exemptions are accepted. Still I'd expect there would be an explicit exemption made if brothel running was fully normalised. Either way a theoretical discussion misses the point.

The point is about why we would not women pressured to take these 'jobs'. Prostitution is not the same as being squeamish about an abattoir or a Muslim working in a pub. The government shouldn't be profiting from prostitution, or encouraging people to participate, because it's harmful.

There is a discussion to be had about what legal framework is best to protect women, but to say that prostitution is just a job and should be encouraged like any other economic activity is horrid.

I do. I've done that job. The sanctions apply when somebody repeatedly refuses to apply for jobs for which they meet the minimum specification

Why should someone repeatedly refuse jobs? As far as I can see the rules allow refusal for practical and ethical reasons.

There is no possibility of someone being asked to be a prostitute. Aside from the ethics and morality there is no framework which could legally support that.

In any case, it's a personal sexual practice which happens to turn a profit. It's very unregulated nature (in this country) makes it inappropriate to be defined as a job.

You can't force someone to be a gymnast or an actor, despite those being legitimate jobs, as some people lack the physical ability and mental discipline to perform effectively in those roles.

If sex work is "just another job", then what next? Drug dealer, assassin, torturer...?

If "sex work" were to be treated by the government as "just another job", I think it would turn the DWP into a type of pimp.

Governments should be imprisoning pimps instead of joining their ranks by acting as their outsourced recruitment consultants.

I think any unemployed person who refuses to do "sex work" should not be punished by the state, especially if we are really talking about prostitution.

Even unemployed people who refuse to do "non-invasive sex work" such as chauffeur of a pimp should not be punished by the state.

Many employers have "dignity at work" policies; these are becoming more widespread - perhaps they will eventually become the norm. Sex work is extremely unlikely to be meet such standards. (It's ironic that the DWP has a "dignity at work" policy that protects its civil servants from degrading treatment in their jobs).

Could Article 3 of the UK Human Rights Act (Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) be helpful to any unemployed people who may be confronted with the prospect of being expected to accept sex work?

Sex work is work...

Taking that to it's logical conclusion, any woman (or man, presumably) could be required to work in the sex industry. Regardless of their age, physical appearance, etc. Would disability or health concerns preclude a person from being required to work in this field, I wonder?

Taking it one step further, their potential clients could be accused of age related discrimination if they refused to "employ" someone who was, for example, too old for that client's particular preference.

If the sex worker repeatedly had clients cancel or become abusive, would they be able to claim for constructive dismissal? Against who?

The public liability premiums would surely be crippling too.

And it's not only the prostitute herself of course - if she pays a cleaner, they are also dealing with body fluids now as part of their job - and being such a specialist cleaner they'll presumably need to charge a premium for their protective gear and disposal.

On that subject, how does it work? Are women cleaning hotel rooms similarly thrown under the bus bodily fluids-wise? I've never heard of the kind of protective gear/disposal being used that would be required if they were (for example) dealing with waste from a GP's clinic, but I can't see that it's that different (sharps aside)

I have no personal experience of claiming benefits but from this the sanctions apply where a claimant is doing nothing or not adequately doing anything about looking for a suitable job or has left a job for no good reason. Not that they are allocated any old job.

I do. I've done that job. The sanctions apply when somebody repeatedly refuses to apply for jobs for which they meet the minimum specification. They are definitely expected to accept 'any old job'. When I did it there was a lot of wiggle room for advisers not to apply the sanctions- not the case now, I understand.

My mind boggles that anyone thinks sex work is 'just work'. I'm agog at the hoops people will go through to justify it. Under current law, if employing prostitutes were legal then claimants would have to apply like any other job.

Of course we should try to minimise the inherent harms for people who are currently prostitutes- on the way to eliminating this exploitative and demeaning practice.

Also dealing with bodily fluids and risking communicable diseases would require the wearing of PPE by law plus I would assume robust risk assessment and third party insurance, if "sex work is work".

I have no personal experience of claiming benefits but from this the sanctions apply where a claimant is doing nothing or not adequately doing anything about looking for a suitable job or has left a job for no good reason. Not that they are allocated any old job.

Jobseeker’s Allowance sanctions: how to keep your benefit payment - GOV.UK
www.gov.uk/government/publications/jobseekers-allowance-sanctions-leaflet/jobseekers-allowance-sanctions-how-to-keep-your-benefit-payment#what-must-i-do-to-keep-my-benefit-payment.

I don't see anything in this which says a claimant would be sanctioned for not taking a job in an abattoir. The sanctions are for failing to apply/attend interviews.

So far as the case referred to in The Telegraph I'm as anti-prostitution as anyone but I think that case has been discredited as not being true.

It'll take you ages to roast a puppy with a votive candle.

What other hidden implications do you see in the really rather short OP?

Eating puppies and sending children up chimneys i reckon

She didn't actually say that she wouldnt eat a puppy or send a child up a chimney sooooooo...

Her post implies that it’s ok for the DWP to sanction people for refusing to take some jobs.

No, it doesn't. The OP references the current situation re benefits and jobseeking. The fact it exists doesn't imply any support from the OP. Neither do the other questions: we have laws for consumer rights - my asking if these apply to punters doesn't imply my support for punters.

Unless, of course, you are the one arguing that multiple legislation should be undone to accommodate full legality of prostitution. Are you?

Saying sex work is work and workers deserve the same rights and protections as other workers, is not saying sex work is like any other job.
Thing is, rights aren't worth a bean if they're not protected and enforced. You would need a sex workers' union and an actual employer. Enforcement of a contract between two people is much harder to do, ask any tradesman who's had to sue for his fee, or a householder who's been ripped off by a cowboy. It has to go to court.
How would a woman enforce condom usage, except if she worked for/with people willing to use force against her client? And if those people are protecting her isn't there a good chance they could also coerce her? Whose responsibility is it to ensure she isn't trafficked, or drugged, or raped, or beaten, or impregnated, or killed?
Genuine questions - how does this work for other self employed women who might go into strangers' homes, like cleaners, mobile hairdressers, masseurs, childminders? And is what is in place legally for those roles sufficient to meet the needs of someone who gets naked and vulnerable with a client?
Bearing in mind the spate of girlfriends/lovers beaten to death because they "liked rough sex" how could a sex worker's safety ever be even improved, never mind guaranteed?
How would she get life insurance or car insurance with such a high risk job? Would she pay an increased rate, like a steeplejack would, or would insurers refuse to cover her?
Would it affect her standing in a custody battle?
How much tax would she pay, and would she be under financial pressure to do jobs off the books?
Could she get a mortgage with her earnings?
Could she insure her looks? How could she predict cash flow long term if her punters suddenly went off her?
Could she claim discrimination if advertisers refused to carry her adverts?

And in answer to the OP, similar has already happened www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1482371/If-you-dont-take-a-job-as-a-prostitute-we-can-stop-your-benefits.html

No. Nordic model is the best. Support sex workers and have proper social support structures.

What other hidden implications do you see in the really rather short OP?

If people are in a position where they are being coerced to do work they don't want to do, that isn't very nice, for sure. But if they are in a position where they are being coerced to have sex they don't want to have, they are being raped. Not liking your job does not make you a crime victim. Being raped does.

If sex work is work, why aren't men doing it in droves?

Well, that was quite a leap. I wonder what other things that OP is to be assumed to be in support of.

Her post implies that it’s ok for the DWP to sanction people for refusing to take some jobs. If she doesn’t think that, why single out sex work?

No, I don't.

Saying sex work is work and workers deserve the same rights and protections as other workers, is not saying sex work is like any other job.

I believe a woman who chooses to be a sex worker (and there are a lot of us) should not be stigmatized socially or put in a dangerous situation by the law, but that does not mean that I think all women should consider sex work as a job for themselves. It is most certainly real work, but the personal nature of it obviously means it should never be forced on anyone.

I don't have time today to get into this, but if you are looking for genuine answers to this question I would ask on a forum that is frequented by 'liberal feminists/sex work is work proponents' rather than this board, which is a bit of an echo chamber at times.

Patchy people have said for years that the unemployed should take any job to tide over

When I used to go to the job centre we were told abc.. any job, a bettter job, career

You can be sanctioned for not applying and attending interviews etc

The base line is, no, sex work is obviously not valid work and shouldn't be treated as such