"Sex Work Is Work" is a shit slogan.

[ScreamingMeMe]

I know the intent behind it is that sex work is nothing to be ashamed of, and it absolutely isn't. But there isn't a great deal of nuance to it, is there?

For every self-proclaimed "happy hooker" or Only Fans worker, there will be 1000s of women who have been abused and/or trafficed whose "choice" to do sex work wasn't really a choice at all, whose lives are grim and shit.

"Sex work is work" makes no such distinctions. So can we really expect the men who use sex workers to?

I'm trying to think of a better slogan, but can't come up with anything quite as catchy. But maybe simple, catchy slogans aren't possible for complex issues.

"Don't Shame Sex Workers"?

I dunno...

However I can fully understand why governments don’t want to legitimise sex work as a career choice.

Well, me too - it's because then they'd have to figure out how to apply health and safety legislation to it - which is just impossible. So they just suggest 'decriminalisation' which boils down to "women, keep taking all the risks of this dangerous occupation, we'll let you, but we're not prepared to do anything to make it safer (because we know we can't)"

@Kotatsu

However I can fully understand why governments don’t want to legitimise sex work as a career choice.

Well, me too - it's because then they'd have to figure out how to apply health and safety legislation to it - which is just impossible. So they just suggest 'decriminalisation' which boils down to "women, keep taking all the risks of this dangerous occupation, we'll let you, but we're not prepared to do anything to make it safer (because we know we can't)"

That’s unfair. There’s been a lot of discussion about it, talking to all sorts of people on the front line of these issues. Decriminalisation of women who sell sex is to avoid sending often very vulnerable women to prison and also allowing such women to report rapes or other ill treatment by punters to the police without fear of reprisal. What would you like governments to do?

@Xoxoxoxoxoxox

ideally there should be clearer legislation around it all. While I would never encourage sex work as I think it’s dangerous and demeaning, those who do it ideally would register and pay tax so that it’s clear who is benefiting financially from it.

This wouldn't stop a coercive 'boyfriends' from exploiting a woman or the UK ending up with German style Megabrothels if sex work was taxed and legalised.
The only one's benifiting would be the Government with a new tax revenue income stream.

Well, exactly. Hence why the government doesn’t want to legitimise it despite the potential for revenue. They are putting the women’s interests first.

Sex Work is My Choice would be better.

It acknowledges it is not everyone's choice and hints at the fact that many in it don't have the choice.

Or maybe I'm rubbish at slogans!!

Sex Work is My Choice would be better.

Sex work is rarely my choice would be even better.

There was a fantastic article shared on a previous thread on this issue about the situation in Germany and how it really isn't the utopia for women like some people seem to think it would be. Does anyone know what is was please?

Agree that 'sex work is work' is a slogan that is largely pushed by people seeking to normalise the objectification and commodification of women's bodies. As a PP said, working in a sweatshop for 16 hours a day is 'work', so what is the point of the slogan?

It's a load of aul bollocks.

@AfternoonToffee

Sex Work is My Choice would be better.

Sex work is rarely my choice would be even better.

There was a fantastic article shared on a previous thread on this issue about the situation in Germany and how it really isn't the utopia for women like some people seem to think it would be. Does anyone know what is was please?

Agreed.

Decriminalisation of women who sell sex is to avoid sending often very vulnerable women to prison and also allowing such women to report rapes or other ill treatment by punters to the police without fear of reprisal.

Does it though? Does it actually change the attitude of the police? Or does it make the government complicit in the abuse by condoning it?

What would you like governments to do?

Prosecute the men who pay for sex, prosecute pimps and people running the escort websites, and give the women help to escape life and the poverty that is so massively over-represented in women who prostitute themselves or are prostituted by others.

Telling some of the most vulnerable women that they'll turn a blind eye to what they're doing, but not help them either to do it safely, or to get out of it is the last thing I support the government doing.

Well, me too - it's because then they'd have to figure out how to apply health and safety legislation to it - which is just impossible.

A few months ago on Twitter I saw a video from Germany of people installing 'Covid secure' equipment in a brothel. It was a woman lying down with a perspex screen across her body, so that she was basically reduced to a vagina and pair of legs which the man could then 'safely' enjoy......

Decriminalising is only for the women themselves. It’s still a crime to be a punter or to own a brothel.

Helping women to sell sex safely would involve legitimising it as a career which most people would not support.

Lots of women who sell sex are not vulnerable and do it to make lots of money tax-free and on their own terms. These are true sex workers and ideally yes should pay tax and abide by regulations. But that would involve legitimising it as a career which most people would not support.

People who sell sex under pressure are not sex workers. They are victims of abduction, rape, theft, slavery. Which is different entirely.

"those who do it ideally would register and pay tax so that it’s clear who is benefiting financially from it. "

In Britain I don't think sex workers(adults who sell sex) need to "register" as such, someone can correct me if I'm wrong. But sex workers do need to declare earnings and pay tax just like other jobs.

"Decriminalising is only for the women themselves. It’s still a crime to be a punter or to own a brothel."

Then that isn't decriminalising. Under decriminalisation women are allowed to work together and both buying and selling sexual services are permitted between consenting adults. They can also rent property without fear of being evicted which could lead to homelessness(which can happen under the Nordic Model).

Also saw on Twitter someone say in Sweden it is harder for young single women(incl. those who aren't sex workers) to rent property because landlords are afraid they might use the property to sell sex which would mean the landlord would be committing a crime.

Decriminalisation is the model supported by a large number of human rights, health and STD orgs and sex worker unions eg (see list of signatures on this letter) decrimnow.org.uk/open-letter-on-the-nordic-model/

Lots of women who sell sex are not vulnerable and do it to make lots of money tax-free and on their own terms. These are true sex workers and ideally yes should pay tax and abide by regulations. But that would involve legitimising it as a career which most people would not support.

Well, I don't support earning money and not paying tax on it, in a way that is un-insured and doesn't meet any health and safety requirements when someone is apparently willing either - it's just bad for other reasons. And the existence (allegedly) of these individuals is repeatedly used to justify the continued abuse of vulnerable women, which I obviously don't support.

‘Paying a woman to use their body as a wank rag makes you the lowest form of human we have on this planet, it’s exploitative and you’re contributing to a culture of rape and harassment’

It’s quite a long slogan, admittedly.

I don’t see why the existence of consenting sex workers should be used to justify rape and slavery?

I don’t agree with sex work but it is some people’s choice. Some people would rather do that than clean floors or work long hours in a supermarket, trying to find childcare.
Abuse of unwilling women is not sex work. It’s rape.

@Coronawireless

I don’t agree with sex work but it is some people’s choice. Some people would rather do that than clean floors or work long hours in a supermarket, trying to find childcare. Abuse of unwilling women is not sex work. It’s rape.

Very, very few people choose it. Very, very few people have control over what’s done to them. If being a sex worker was a safe, lucrative career option men would be doing it in spades.

Sex work is exploitation.

Agreed. Any legal changes should be aimed at absolutely minimising the number of people suffering this exploitation.

@ArabellaScott

I liked this point.

Me too. It's well put.

What if it’s the woman’s free choice and she’s working for herself?

I just honestly can't believe that there are many, if any, women out there who if they had all the options in the world available to them (ie free choice) then they'd choose to have sex with strangers. Even if someone chooses it, that doesn't mean it's a free choice or that they're not being exploited. You even said yourself that women might choose it because it's easier for childcare - that's not a free choice then is it? And even if those women do exist, to focus on them and ignore the vast majority who are being exploited is hugely damaging.

I’m not trying to be goady and I understand that you don’t want to see women selling their bodies. I don’t either.

But emotional statements like saying that ALL such women are exploited simply isn’t true and saying it doesn’t help the case. Needing childcare doesn’t make a woman a victim or mean that all her free choices are removed. Lots of women get on with organising childcare without needing to switch to sex work. But some choose to sell sex and say you can’t ban people from doing what they want with their own bodies. And if we all had unlimited options - well, of course no one would sell their bodies. Or do lots of kinds of work. Cleaning toilets. Stacking shelves. Working night shifts. So that’s not really an argument either.

What might be an argument is that sex work should be banned because it’s unsafe. But so is being a frontline police officer or a construction worker and we don’t ban those. Steps are constantly being taken to improve the safety of police and construction work. In which case should steps also be taken to improve the safety of prostitution? How might that happen? Sexual health clinics and education? Already in place. Security guards? Who would pay for those? Taxes? But then you’re going back to legitimising sex work.

Imo it can’t be emphasised enough, if women who have sex with clients are doing it unwillingly, that’s not “sex work”, it’s rape. Ideally in those cases prosecution shouldn’t happen because you’re a brothel owner or a punter, it should be because you’re a rapist, pure and simple. (But if the man denies rape and the woman is too frightened to provide evidence it can at least be easier for a court to prove he’s a brothel owner or a punter so at least he’ll get done for something).

I don’t know what the answers are but many are trying to find out. Unfair to say they’re not or that no one cares.

They’re not the same thing and ideally there should be clearer legislation around it all. While I would never encourage sex work as I think it’s dangerous and demeaning, those who do it ideally would register and pay tax so that it’s clear who is benefiting financially from it. However I can fully understand why governments don’t want to legitimise sex work as a career choice.

It's not that they don't want to, it's that they can't.

If sex work was indeed work like any other, the industry would have to be regulated. According to this excellent rebuttal to this claim, the following three areas are of interest:

-worker safety
-sexual harassment
-civil rights

The first would require your average prostitute to basically wear a hazmat suit (think about the extremely high prevalence of STDs present in the eyes of porn performers and prostitutes). Because what justification can there be for deciding that prostitutes do not deserve to be protected from blood borne pathogens and other potentially hazardous and infectious materials? As wingsofsteel already pointed out, applying ordinary health and safety regulations would be impossible.

Secondly, all workers have the right to be protected from all forms of sexual harassment. Applying the law to prostitution as just another job, would mean applying the rules governing a workers right to be protected from all forms of sexual harassment. This includes protection from the worker's managers (ie pimps and traffickers), colleagues and clients. The latter of course poses difficulties, because if sex is the commercial commodity, how do you separate unwanted sexual conduct from that which is wanted. And if it is - As expected - simply impossible to protect prostitutes from sexual harassment at work, are we once again, as with the health and safety regulations going to make an exception for prostitutes? One that excludes them from the legal protection all other workers enjoy? With what justification? That they agree to it? That they exempt themselves? Then what other employers are going to pressure their staff to sign wavers, declaring they are foregoing the right to expect protection from sexual harassment? Bar managers? Gym trainers? Police officers?

And lastly, the human rights aspect is always looking at the prostitutes but what about the clients? Refusing service to someone in a protected category is unlawful discrimination. So the independent prostitute who has her own rules and preferences, who for instance does not want to have a 67-year-old or a woman or a Catholic priest as a client is illegally discriminating against these people.

And what about contract law? She enters into a contract with a client but changes her mind (for whatever reason). Can the client sue her for breach of contract? What if she just suddenly could not face having one more client that day because the previous punter had hurt or disgusted or upset her too much. Can the law force her to provide a service to this client?

And what other jobs might then include a job responsibility of providing sex to clients from their employees? Or can receiving benefits mean that your job centre worker can sanction you for not accepting prostitution?

They really haven't thought this through at all. Sex work is work is nothing more than a rallying cry for those who condone, support and promote the exploitation of women and girls for the benefit of men.

Here is the link to the article

logosjournal.com/2014/watson/

It's written from a US perspective, but the same principles apply in the UK.

@Coronawireless

I’m not trying to be goady and I understand that you don’t want to see women selling their bodies. I don’t either.

But emotional statements like saying that ALL such women are exploited simply isn’t true and saying it doesn’t help the case. Needing childcare doesn’t make a woman a victim or mean that all her free choices are removed. Lots of women get on with organising childcare without needing to switch to sex work. But some choose to sell sex and say you can’t ban people from doing what they want with their own bodies. And if we all had unlimited options - well, of course no one would sell their bodies. Or do lots of kinds of work. Cleaning toilets. Stacking shelves. Working night shifts. So that’s not really an argument either.

What might be an argument is that sex work should be banned because it’s unsafe. But so is being a frontline police officer or a construction worker and we don’t ban those. Steps are constantly being taken to improve the safety of police and construction work. In which case should steps also be taken to improve the safety of prostitution? How might that happen? Sexual health clinics and education? Already in place. Security guards? Who would pay for those? Taxes? But then you’re going back to legitimising sex work.

Imo it can’t be emphasised enough, if women who have sex with clients are doing it unwillingly, that’s not “sex work”, it’s rape. Ideally in those cases prosecution shouldn’t happen because you’re a brothel owner or a punter, it should be because you’re a rapist, pure and simple. (But if the man denies rape and the woman is too frightened to provide evidence it can at least be easier for a court to prove he’s a brothel owner or a punter so at least he’ll get done for something).

I don’t know what the answers are but many are trying to find out. Unfair to say they’re not or that no one cares.

They are all being exploited though. There is no situation where paying for access to someone’s body isn’t exploitation, regardless of a tiny percentage of sex workers being ok with it.

Do you have any evidence that the majority are forced into sex work?

Playing Devil’s advocate, who gets to decide what is exploitation? Who decides that paying for access to someone’s body is exploitation but paying someone to clean up shit or go without sleep or expose themselves to disease is not?

@CharlieParley
Tis a minefield indeed