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.

If they are already crimes they are already illegal.

Crimes against prostitutes are already illegal and rarely get to trial because as you say these people are commodities and as such are disposable. That may sound distasteful but look at the victims of Steven Davies and Peter Sutcliffe as just 2 examples.

Sorry, prodded send too soon.

My point is PS and SD were only able to escalate and commit their crimes for so long because many of their victims were prostitutes who society still sees as fair game.

Decriminalising their ability to access such women will not stop them commiting crimes and it won't make police take their victims more seriously.

We need to stop treating men's feelings of entitlement to women's bodies as inevitable and acceptable, and we need to start treating trafficking and grooming of girls and women with the gravity that it deserves.

No, my idea is nothing to do with on or off book (I think I know what you mean)... it simply means that if any man is caught using prostitutes then he is either already on the public lists of johns, or he gets a large fine.

I am not asking an prostitute to police this (though I would be happy if some felt able to, which is unlikely for safety reasons). They have no obligation to check.

Your post makes sense to me.

Men should not use prostitutes if they are ashamed of doing so, and if they're not ashamed then surely they'll be happy to explain to their mum, sister and new girlfriend why they are happy to pay for sex.

Meanwhile I am of the view that people who use prostitutes and admit it deserve a similar level of respect to someone who admits to fiddling the hours on their timesheet for the charity they're working for, or well-off people who shoplift from a local family-owned corner shop, or a mechanic who isn't sure he tightened the wheelnuts on his customers car properly and can't be bothered to double check. ie none.

I have one ex-friend who I have grown apart from over the last few years... but a few months back I unfriended and blocked him on facebook because he has in the past admitted to using prostitutes. I wasn't comfortable hearing about it in the first place, but as years have gone by I've decided that he can fuck right off.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/14/new-zealand-sex-worker-wins-six-figure-sexual-harassment-payout

In 2020 a sexworker in decriminalisation NZ won a six figure sexual harassment payout.

This suggests in decrim jurisdictions sexworkers are treated more as human compared to Nordic Model countries and more likely to be taken seriously when a victim of a crime.

In Sweden a sexworker Petite Jasmine was murdered by her abusive ex. The police and Social Services did nothing to help and instead took her children off of her- in Sweden selling sex is seen as a form of self-harm.

Much of the work that goes on now is escorting, where clients pay women for their time and not for sex. See how quickly a Johns register becomes utterly useless.

Clients do not routinely women for their company. Get real. That's a front for prostitution.

I still think a register is a good idea. Then if a man assaults or rapes a prostitute, and he's not on the register he gets a harsher punishment (maybe an additional fine) and blocked from going on there.

If he is on the register he gets struck off.

Prostitutes could access the register when taking bookings and hopefully would prefer men who were registered as they are safer.

"Clients do not routinely women for their company. Get real. That's a front for prostitution"

There are many clients who pay escorts to accompany them on dinner dates etc.

Aside from the sex offender register you might be interested in "Ugly Mugs". It's a service setup by sexworkers for sexworkers where they share details of clients to avoid (this ranges from timewasters to clients who engage in criminal behaviour).

As part of the vetting process, sexworkers can check the details of a client to see if he's listed on UglyMugs before deciding whether to accept or decline a booking.

So this sort of thing already exists, except it organised by sexworkers themselves.

nationaluglymugs.org/

There are many clients who pay escorts to accompany them on dinner dates etc.
Yes. As a prelude to sex.
There aren't many clients who pay women to go out for a non-sexual social occasion. That's a myth.

Sex workers shouldn't have to organise their own protection. If its "just a job" then protection should be provides by the state.

See also: gun licenses, driving licences, licenses for entertainment venues etc

I'm sure there are a number of non-sex-work jobs where companies have to refuse service to troublesome customers.

"Sex workers shouldn't have to organise their own protection. If its "just a job" then protection should be provides by the state"

Ugly Mugs have a contact email on their website (linked in post above). If you have any ideas how they could improve I'm sure they'd be happy to listen.

Men should not use prostitutes if they are ashamed of doing so, and if they're not ashamed then surely they'll be happy to explain to their mum, sister and new girlfriend why they are happy to pay for sex.

This is not how human nature works. People who commit crime with no fucks given still have no incentive to admit to it, especially if it impacts them or their reputation negatively.

Street prostitutes are incredibly vulnerable and it would be no use to them.

When I worked for a large police force I was involved in investigations into assaults and murders of prostitutes. All successful. I'm not sure how proactive protection could work, police officers hanging around pick up areas put the punters off and the women don't like that.

Where I worked we actually had very good relationships with the local prostitutes, they were often a good source of information. They were remarkably relaxed about arrests, they sort of looked at their fines as a tax, I always thought the fines were crazy as it just meant that they had to go out and make more money.

I met women who were in very sad circumstances, women who were being abused and women who regarded it as a well paid job. Situations vary alot. One of the things I will never forget was a teenage girl, nine months pregnant, clearly starting labour who was caught with a punter. I had to do a rush job on her paperwork so we could get her to hospital. I cannot understand the mentality of the man but apparently some men choose pregnant prostitutes.

I don't think anyone will ever stop prostitution.

I'm not sure how proactive protection could work, police officers hanging around pick up areas put the punters off and the women don't like that.

The result of this type of policing would be for prostitution be pushed off the main streets and into the quieter back streets, this happens with the Nordic Model. If the deal has to happen in the middle of nowhere to avoid the cops then that's what will happen. This of course increases danger for the sex workers.

People who commit crime with no fucks given still have no incentive to admit to it

The Nordic Model has many faults but this is one of the worst ones IMO. The Nordic Model isn't going to deter murderers/rapists/thieves/the absolute worst of clients from paying for sex. If a client isn't deterred by laws against murder/rape/assault do you think he is going to be deterred by a law against paying for sex (very difficult to get a conviction for and generally carries a small fine)? This means the pool of clients sex workers may have a much greater concentration of violent men in them.

Sorry margarita I must have misunderstood- are you saying we should support men to use prostitutes so that it's safer for the women as its not just the dangerous violent law breakers they have to service?

That can't be right, that's bonkers

I don't think anyone will ever stop prostitution.

I think the same could be said of most things the police deal with. With most types of issue though, we don't just shrug our shoulders and walk away.

Can you imagine this kind of chat about child abuse? "Making it illegal drives it underground, it would be much safer for children if it were fully decriminalised as then the chances of them being abused by a violent adult would be reduced"

Or burglary: "Making it illegal drives it underground, it would be much safer for everyones if it were fully decriminalised as then the chances of the householder suffering violence during the burglary would be reduced"

What absolute arse

Actually the more I think about it, the more arse it is

1. loads of things are illegal and not heavily policed (speeding, drug use, pirated films, lock ins etc). The law is there to indicate societies disapproval in a lot of cases, not in order to be enforced
2. Most human beings don't want to pay for sex with someone. I hope most people are revolted by the idea of having sex with someone who isn't attracted to them. So this idea of a "pool" that will be reduced is bullshit, because the decent men don't want to use prostitutes
3. you don't reduce vulnerability of victims by making it easier for perpetrators to victimise them. That's just basic criminology.

Many of the prostitutes I met did not consider themselves victims. While I worked there a local uni was doing some sort of project on prostitution. A load of lecturers and students came to talk to the local prostitutes about how they were going to change the law fight for this that and the other. They nearly got lynched.

You might not understand it, I might not understand it but those women objected to what they saw as "lefty do gooders" telling them how to live their lives. There were local families where it was the family business, mum and gran had been prostitutes, dad and brothers were pimps. That was their way of life and they would not welcome you calling them victims.

Of course there were others, young girls who got conned into it, groomed we'd say now. Women who did it out of desperation. Prostitutes aren't one homogeneous group.

As to the men, well I was often shocked, nice dads whose kids went to school with mine, well off celebrities who liked to kerb crawl.

Prostitution isn't always visible publicly, a transaction between two people in private - how do you stop that? How do you prove it?

I am nor interested in talking about the women, as that's always how these threads go.
I'm interested in talking about the men. How do you minimise the amount of men who think you can buy consent?

We have had various types of campaigns to make things we don't agree with or think are damaging as a society socially unacceptable.

Smoking
Drink driving
Using a phone while driving
Antisocial behaviour
Dogs pooing wherever they like
Etc etc

How do we make it so men think using prostitutes is not socially acceptable?

I think OP had a good idea to discuss, but obviously it's "too hard" to think of ways to wean men off their sexual entitlement.

I'm not going to respond to any more posts about women's role in this as its not productive but let's see if we can talk about men

Oh yes so much concern about victims but let's not recognise them as functional human beings with rights.

Using prostitutes isn't socially acceptable now, I don't know anyone who goes round bragging about it, men are generally regarded as a bit sad if they have to pay for it. The OPs idea is based on the idea that it isn't socially acceptable so men won't want to use a register that is going to publicly name and shame.

Whatever anyone believes we are left with how do you police a transaction between two consenting adults?

Sorry margarita I must have misunderstood- are you saying we should support men to use prostitutes

No. I'm saying we should support the sexworkers. Listen to what they have to say and make sure they are fully involved in any discussions to change any laws on sexwork. Support the law model which is safest for them, gives them most control and criminalises them the least (this includes "de facto criminalisation" such as being evicted and losing custody of their children for selling sex which happens under Nordic Model)- this model is decriminalisation.

decrimnow.org.uk/open-letter-on-the-nordic-model/

NZ, parts of Australia and Belgium have decriminalisation. Belgium because the first country in Europe to pass decrim this year.

www.brusselstimes.com/211351/historic-reform-belgium-first-in-europe-to-officially-decriminalise-sex-work

Whatever anyone believes we are left with how do you police a transaction between two consenting adults?

No. How do you reduce the amount of men who buy sex?

If you genuinely worked in the police then the idea of reducing certain behaviours is surely not unusual to you?

In lots of cases that isn't as straightforward as you think. I'm teetotal, my father was an alcoholic, my ex husband was an alcoholic, I might think prohibition was a wonderful idea but you know what - it didn't work and it caused more problems that went on for years as doing something illegal was normalised and criminal gangs became rich.

Similar issues with drug use now, should we legalise it and reduce all the harms of the illegal drug trade or would that just be allowing more people to become addicts.

I might think ending gambling, drinking, drug taking, prostitution should all be stopped as they lead to lots of harms but not easy to do. With prostitution do we make it as safe as we can, do we have some state control, do we just stamp our feet and say it must stop? It is a very complicated area although lots of people think it is simple.