Green party policy prostitution and porn

[NiceGerbil]

Just looking at green party policies for another topic.

Came across this statement. It goes further than anything I've seen and bit taken aback. I know this topic always gets lively discussion and so was in two minds about posting but it really is extreme IMO.

'Prostitution and the Sex Industry
RR550 The Green Party believes that the law should not seek to regulate consensual sexual activities between adults where those do not affect others. Where there are such effects, a balance must be reached. Adults should be free to do as they wish with their own bodies, and to practice whatever form of sexual activity they wish by themselves or with each other by mutual consent. This includes the freedom not only to engage in such sexual acts, but also to be photographed or filmed doing so, to make such images available to other adults with their consent, and to be able to view such images. That someone might receive payment for any of these activities should not affect this freedom.'

"If they are running a brothel- yes I am."

"Running a brothel" or working together in the same flat or premises (even if it isn't at the same time) is the same thing according to the law.

So if one woman uses a flat to sell sex from on Monday and another woman uses the same flat on Thursday to sell sex, that flat is a brothel and they are both guilty of "running a brothel".

"Yeah let's hear it for the pimps and punters."

I'm not talking about "pimps and punters". I'm talking about the women and men who actually have experience selling sex and I think their view should carry more weight than someone who has watched a TV show or read a media article.

If you want to talk about tabloid articles in 2013 this came out of the daily record's back end:

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/annie-brown-edinburgh-painted-online-2811607

Quote: "Saunas are filthy, decrepid hovels where sheets aren’t changed for weeks and bodily fluids from blood to faeces are smeared on the walls. Punters are not the only vermin to visit. In some, there are rats, fleas and a variety of infestations."

Sounds bad, right? Then after the late-sexworker and sexworker rights campaigner Laura Lee saw the article she said she had actually been in all of the Edinburgh saunas and never witnessed anything that the Daily Record had claimed.

Tabloids and TV shows are not the most credible sources of information. The people who know best are those who actually have experience of selling sex.

"If they are running a brothel- yes I am."

"Running a brothel" or working together in the same flat or premises (even if it isn't at the same time) is the same thing according to the law

So if one woman uses a flat to sell sex from on Monday and another woman uses the same flat on Thursday to sell sex, that flat is a brothel and they are both guilty of "running a brothel".

Pro puntersplaing? I am aware of this. Why should anyone have to put with living next door to a brothel?

I aware of Laura Lee- I would take anything she had to say with as big a pinch of salt as I'm taking your points.

In general I think consent is not really a deep enough concept to deal with a lot of things all alone, including human sexuality. It's not enough and it's too much, all at once, but it's the former that's the problem for groups like the Greens.

At the same time, it's a real dilemma in terms of how people like many Green party members think about individual autonomy more generally. If you want to ground your defense of sexual freedoms generally on individual consent, for example the freedom to choose to have dangerous or self-destructive sex without any financial element, it becomes very difficult to draw a line, for individuals, by saying it can't be contractual. If I'm a woman free to consent to anonymous unprotected chemsex in a sex club, and I'm also considered adequately mature and free to sign a contract for a job, selling my labour, getting married, to by shares from a hedge fund, why can't I put these two elements together?

The worry becomes, if we say women (or anyone) isn't capable of making that decision, maybe people will argue they aren't up to making other kinds of decisions as well.

This doesn't take into account the public good element of course, but liberal socialists like the Greens seem to consider that to be social conservatism (and arguably it is, though I'm not sure why that should be a problem,) so they won't touch it.

"Pro puntersplaing"

I'm "pro punterspaining" because I'd rather women weren't criminalised for working together?

So two women one has one client Tues and the other one client Thurs.

Pretty unlikely to get reported then I'd say.

That's one scenario.

On the other hand. They both have more clients then that and the men aren't coy about bumping into each other. They operate late into the night.

Nothing residents can do.

The flat will not be legally allowed to operate as a business premises. But oh! Decrim rather than legalisation gets round that nicely. So they are fine, s woman wanting to see clients for her accountancy, architectural or beauty business would not be able to.

That's not fair, and not right. And then if the clients are coming after pub etc then the disturbance to other residents could be massive.

Throwing out one scenario and ignoring the others is.. well it's a bit random.

The fact is that there are brothels that operate openly, one on the high street in town next to mine been there for years.

So the actual impact of the decrim plan is possibly more negative than positive.

The people who know best are those who actually have experience of selling sex.

The children and other relatives of prostitutes, the families destroyed by it, the neighbourhoods turned into red light areas with high crime rates, the communities having to accommodate it on their doorsteps. What about them?

"And then if the clients are coming after pub etc"

What do you think a sex worker will do if a client turns up drunk? Say "oh no problem, come on in"?

Why do you assume drunk?

My point was it was late.

If women were allowed to work together without being criminalised, would you be happier if there were regulations saying brothels had to be away from residential areas and opening times so they weren't open too late?

@MargaritaPie

If women were allowed to work together without being criminalised, would you be happier if there were regulations saying brothels had to be away from residential areas and opening times so they weren't open too late?

No.

Everyone should have bodily autonomy and act freely with consent. As a statement is either breathtakingly naive or deeply cynical.
Not legislating against something because it's unenforceable is sensible on one level, but heavily implies a degree of approval whether meant or not.
We have multiple legal safeguards in place for people who have capacity but poor understanding or judgement. Do we do away with those too? Bearing in mind that without those limitations those individuals will suffer?
What about grooming gangs? Girls abused by these men often think they are consenting.
Will the age of consent envisaged by the Greens be enough to protect children from exploitation?
I think for anyone with a smidgeon of social responsibility you wouldn't touch the Greens with a bargepole.

The mega brothels in Germany are awful.

Away from residential areas sounds dangerous.

And by definition it would be residential as you're taking about the women living there as their homes aren't you?

Or are you thinking separate premises. I can't see that would be affordable unless operated by others. And then you're into nasty territory again.

You've not acknowledged the fact that if there is no noise disturbance etc then I can't imagine they're likely to get reported anyway. Your 2 clients a week example.

So your preference is for criminalisation so the women end up with criminal records?

Did I say that?

No.

You haven't addressed any of the points about decrim Vs legal.

I can't see why you think it's reasonable for some types of business to operate out of residential settings but not others (clients coming to the premises).

You essentially are not fussed at all about the potential impact on those living in eg same block of flats.

You just make up oh 2 women one client a week each. Randomly, as if that proves anything.

Mens feelings and wants of men come before the needs and safety/health of women.

Always.

"Did I say that?"

You made it clear you want women working together to be criminalised.

Lots of people work from home. A masseur can bring clients to her home. I'm talking about straight masseurs, there are also those who offer a sexual service - just using their hands.

Prostitution goes on all around us and people don't notice. The example I always give is an estate of expensive blocks of flats by the river in Chester where there is a mature lady but also a young foreign woman who sell sex. No connection between them.

There is one contributor to this thread who had no idea that Soho is a hotbed of prostitution. How she could have missed little clues like this I have no idea.

@NiceGerbil restorative justice is actually very effective in reducing reoffending and giving victims a voice . It is particularly effective where young men have committed a crime. It is also entirely optional for the victims/survivors and doesn't have to be face to face.

@NiceGerbil I agree with all your other points btw

I was in Soho the other week and yes the premises for paying for sex acts are hardly subtle! They have menus and prices in the window!

The brothel up the road is also totally obvious and has been there for years.

I don't buy that the police are interested really unless there's trouble or its I dunno next to a school or something.

In Edinburgh the police know about the saunas(ie brothels) but generally leave them to it as the police in Edinburgh are more tolerant than those in Glasgow.

The brothels were all raided a few years back when all Scottish police forces joined into one, sex workers were having money and phones confiscated. But other than that they are left alone.

If they're generally left alone then why does the law need changing?

It's effectively decriminalised but the police can still go in if they think something is not right.

Given obvious brothels can and do operate. I just don't see that your flat with two women one client a week each would mean risk of prosecution. I mean no one would even know would they.

Changing the law would mean that a flat with punters coming and going frequently and late into night etc would mean other residents couldn't do much. It would be a council thing and well. Unlikely to be addressed I'd say.

I was once letting a 1 bed flat and a man said he wanted to put his 'ex wife and her 2 sisters' in there. And offered me a big pile of cash.

I mean that was pretty obvious I'd say. He also got very confused about who it was for. Wife. Ex wife. Friends. Etc.

I mean that wouldn't have been great for the other residents in the block I'd think. And I wouldn't be keen living alone going in and out etc with punters in and out of the block.

And if you have clients to your home a lot. Theoretically you do need to get the council to ok it. As it's a business premises and for the exact reason that it can impact on other residents.