An idea regarding prostitution

[GCRich]

Go gentle, I've not thought a lot or researched this idea, it just popped into my head last night...

Make paying for sex a criminal matter with unlimited fines for johns... UNLESS they are on the "Johns Register". If you want to use a prostitute without being at risk of prosecution you need to be listed on a public register of Johns. Name, town, age, photo and evidence of the results of an STI test conducted in the last 3 months.

One can debate the ethics of using prostitutes, but men who believe it is morally acceptable to do so should at least have the courage of their convictions and be open about it. They can't have it both ways and say it's fine but I have a problem with people knowing.

Maybe the police could keep the list. Just give men the option of being honest about their willingness to pay for sex, or risk a very large fine for being outed for not being on the list.

I don't think I said anything about criminalizing them. It is giving johns a choice between honesty and risking a large fine for not being honest. It is about trying to pressure men into not using prostitutes, assuming some men only do it because they think they can keep it secret from women in their lives.

No. A big fat No from me. I can't actually be bothered going into more detail but short version- prostitution should never be normalised.

Very good point. I'm not sure it does normalise it. I think the list could become a veritable database of men to avoid who are not seen as entirely normal. But the state could be seen to be condoning it by maintaining the list.

Point taken. I'm not claiming to be offering a hands on solution to real world issues - thank god there's people doing work I couldn't do. It is perhaps a policy entirely separate from the real world issues, and more about forcing men to confront what I believe to be true - very few men would like all the women in their life to know they use prostitutes, and in my opinion you should own what you do.

If you can't justify yourself don't do it.

And sorry - I did say prosecution and criminal matter in OP.

Perhaps it could more of a licencing matter than a criminal one. The fine is for not having the regulatory permission because you;re not on the list, as opposed to because buying sex is criminalized.

"very few men would like all the women in their life to know they use prostitutes"

honestly, I doubt they'd care.

something about your idea makes me very uncomfortable. i might try to articulate that tomorrow.

Re recreational drugs I know this is a different topic it's worth looking at Portugal who decriminalised possession of small amounts of drugs (this includes hard drugs such as heroin) for personal use over 20 years ago. Portugal also uses safe drug consumption rooms.

Look at the drug deaths per x people in Portugal vs the UK who has the "war on drugs" criminalisation approach. Portugal is at the very bottom and the UK (who continue to refuse the use of safe drug consumption rooms) is one of the highest. The UK has a growing problem with drug abuse and drug related deaths.

fullfact.org/health/are-drug-related-deaths-uk-highest-eu/

My point is it might seem like "make x illegal" is the right thing to do but in practice it may worsen the situation. It creates violence, black markets and stigma.

Sweden is also one of the highest in Europe for drug related deaths per x people, although I don't know if there has been any research on whether this topic has any overlap with what law model the country uses for sexwork.

Unenforceable.

That is kind of the point though. Criminalizing the selling of sex or recreational drugs is always unenforceable as the demand and supply is always there no matter what government does. There is nothing to enforce, there's just a lovely fine waiting for any john unlucky enough to be found using prostitutes whose not voluntarily had themselves added to the list.

I am playing devil's advocate here - I'm not suggesting I have made some sort of key breakthrough in the field of keeping women safe.

This is true.
op I like your idea. People have to be on a register to drive a car, or own a gun.
And no active policing would be required. In fact prostitutes could benefit as if a man was violent or non payer, they could report and if the man weren't on the register they could be fined.

The fact that this can't be discussed as "unworkable, drives it underground yadda yadda" tells you everything you need to know about sex work as a career.

Basically the only acceptable answer on threads like this is men should be allowed to buy consent, no questions asked and no protection for the prostitutes. Otherwise it just turns into "happy hooker, choosy choice" type posts.

fine waiting for any john unlucky enough to be found using prostitutes

Being "found using prostitutes" isn't enough to get a conviction, the sexworker (or "prostitute" if you insist on calling them that) needs to testify against her clients to get a conviction. I posted a link above showing in Sweden at least this is extremely rare with sexworkers refusing to do so.

I appreciate the impracticalities. Perhaps the rule could be that anyone who has attempted to use prostitutes, and who was not registered, who get the fine? So - for example - if a man were arrested for drun and disorderly, and it turns out he has dialled numbers on his phone that match up numbers on prostitutes ads then that is enough for the fine to kick in.

I completely get that many of the practicalities could be difficult, but I can't get past the idea that it would be a relatively simple thing and even if it only catches 1 in 1000, and only 5% sign up, it is better than nothing.

Prostituion isn't criminalised in the UK, some related aspects are e.g. soliciting in a public place but it is perfectly legal to take money for sex.

I used to work for the vice squad in a big city, I saw women who made a good living and were happy, I saw women who were abused and exploited. Both are real.

I always thought allowing 2 or more women to work from the same premises would do more to protect prostitutes. I think the rules on brothels might have changed since I left my job.

"unworkable...naïve...unenforceable", and my favourite: "The police just don't have the resources", which is pretty rich considering the amount of UK police time that's been spent visiting people whose crime has been tactlessness on Twitter.

The scheme in question would shift some of the stigma of sex work to the clients, and that goes against the raison d'être of prostitution and its role in society. You confuse and upset people by the very suggestion of it.

I personally prefer prostitute to distinguish from other sex workers who might not have sex with clients. The issues surround women doing web cam work from home and never ever meeting or speaking to real life men would seem to me to be very different to those who have sex.

I don't like confusing language or clumsy language. Sex worker doesn't make it clear that I am talking about sex workers who have sex. "Sex worker who has sex with clients" is very clumsy compared to "prostitute".

I'm also very wary (post trans issues coming to the fore) of using wooly language (such as using "tran woman" when you mean "man" or "man who claims a trans identity".)

Open to your further thoughts on language though.

I’m not an expert on the matter, only learned a little bit, but this kinf of goes to gether with the radfem’s view that sex with a man is rape.

So many men just seems to use sex almost as an hate crime againts women.
I’m not only talking about prostitutes, seems this is hiw they view women.

Correct. Allowing women to work from the same premises provides some protection/security and also means sexworkers aren't subject to the police breaking in, arresting and charging the sexworkers. This happens in Britain as well as Nordic-Model countries such as Sweden where sexworkers are still criminalised for working together.

"I personally prefer prostitute to distinguish from other sex workers who might not have sex with clients.
Open to your further thoughts on language though."

I know sexworker can also refer to strippers/cam performers etc. In the context of specifically selling sexual services (such as this thread) "sexworker" generally refers to that unless specified otherwise.

If it's helps this is the definition used by STOPAIDs ("STOPAIDS is a network of UK agencies working together to secure an effective global response to HIV and AIDS"):

stopaids.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/STOPAIDS-factsheet-sex-work.pdf

Sex workers include “female, male and transgender adults and
young people (18 years of age and above) who receive money
or goods in exchange for sexual services, either regularly or
occasionally”

I recommend having a look at their sexwork factsheet I linked, it provides info from a health perspective on how the law (Nordic Model v decriminalisation) can impact on sexworkers.

I personally prefer prostitutesto distinguish from other sex worker who don't have sex with clients

True, sex worker also includes pimps, madams, "recruiters" and pornographers and they get too much protection as it is.

I appreciate the impracticalities. Perhaps the rule could be that anyone who has attempted to use prostitutes, and who was not registered, who get the fine? So - for example - if a man were arrested for drun and disorderly, and it turns out he has dialled numbers on his phone that match up numbers on prostitutes ads then that is enough for the fine to kick in.

There are lots of impracticalities. You want the police to spend every day looking at sexwork ads trying to keep an up-to-date database of their contact details (whether this would be allowed under GDPR is another issue, especially if sexworkers voice objections to this) and then look at the phone of every man they arrest to see if there are any matches?

Some sexworkers don't even make their number public. They only give it out to clients who have contacted them, been vetted and approved for a booking.

Some sexworkers use a work phone, others just use their personal phone. This could muddy the waters because in the cases of personal phones it can't be proven if the man phoned the number to specifically make a booking.

When numbers are changed, after a period of time phone companies recycle the old number and give it to a new customer. It's entirely possible for the contact number of one of your friends was once used by a sexworker from 15 years ago.

This is just off the top of my head, I'm sure there would be other complications too.

I think this would just create a market for “off-book” prostitution, that would attract the worst punters, make more money for the pimps, and put the women at even greater risk.

Instead I think decriminalising it but making crimes against prostitutes illegal and fully likely to go to trial.

That way there's an incentive to be respectful of the sex workers or they'll be blacklisted and prosecuted potentially.

Sex work is going nowhere it's been going on far too long and is a basic human commodity whether it's tasteful to us or not.

What crimes against prostitutes aren't illegal?