My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Guest posts

Guest post: "The sex trade can never be made 'safe'"

144 replies

MumsnetGuestPosts · 07/07/2016 15:44

Recent decades have witnessed an unprecedented expansion of the sex trade. During the 1990s the number of UK men who pay for sex almost doubled, between 1997 and 2011 the number of lap dancing clubs increased tenfold, and a recent BBC survey revealed almost a quarter of young people have watched pornography by the time they reach their teens. So what should we do?

Nothing - is the answer implied by common descriptions of the sex trade. If prostitution is "the world's oldest profession" and "will always exist", as the Economist assures us, why bother trying to curb it? If porn is "fantasy", and not "real sex", like the online advice guide for young people The Site bills it, where's the need? And if groups such as Open Society Foundations (OSF) are right and selling sex is simply work - "sex work" - then aren't men who pay for sex just regular consumers, their growth in number no cause for concern?

These relaxed takes on the burgeoning business of prostitution do allow room for a bit of tinkering around the edges, mind you. For instance, governments ought to "[promote] safe working conditions" for women in prostitution, according to OSF. Their policy prescription? So-called 'full decriminalisation'. That involves making brothel-keeping and pimping legal, and removing any specific laws restricting the sex trade's operations. One of their exemplar states - New Zealand - has produced a health and safety guide for brothels.

But responses like these rely on a fatalistic acceptance of continuing demand for the sex trade. They presuppose it can be made safe. And they require us to buy in to the belief that a society that sanctions the sex trade can also be a society committed to securing equality between women and men.

It can't. The sex trade can never be made 'safe'.

At the core of this enterprise is a very simple product concept: a person (usually a man) can pay to sexually access the body of someone (usually a woman) who does not freely want to have sex with him; otherwise he wouldn't have to pay her to be there. This is not a regular consumer transaction, this is sexual abuse. The buyer's disregard for mutuality, and ability to treat another person as a sexual object, are fundamental to the act. It is, as activist and prostitution survivor Diane Martin CBE calls it, "violence against women". Responses to the sex trade which have attempted to skirt over this inherent harm, to sanction it as legitimate business in a bid to quash attendant harms, haven't just failed - they've made it worse.

Germany, which took the decision to legalise prostitution in 2001, is now home to a chain of 'mega-brothels' and a sex trade worth 16 billion euros annually. The result has led Helmut Sporer, Detective Chief Superintendent of the Crimes Squad in Augsburg, to dub his country "the El Dorado for pimps". The Netherlands legalised prostitution in 2000 in a bid to "purge it of criminal peripheral phenomena". Yet in 2008 the national police force reported that between 50%-90% of women in the trade "work involuntarily". Researchers at VU University Amsterdam concluded, "the regulation has hidden the legalised sector from the view of the criminal justice system, while human trafficking still thrives behind the legal façade of a legalised prostitution sector. Brothels can even function as legalised outlets for victims of sex trafficking". Indeed, research shows that countries in which prostitution is completely legal experience significantly higher rates of trafficking.

Demand for the sex trade is not inevitable. The sexist attitudes of entitlement that underpin it can be tackled. But that won't be achieved by state sanctioning this exploitative practice in a hopeless bid to contain the dangers associated with it. Sexual consent is not a commodity; sexual abuse can never be made 'safe'.

If we are serious about wanting equality between women and men, then we have to work to end commercial sexual exploitation. As Diane Martin CBE says, "We should be creating the most hostile environment on both a social and legal level for those who sell, control, exploit, pay for and benefit financially from the sale of the bodies of women". That means adopting 'end demand' measures like the Sex Buyer Law - which criminalises paying for sex but decriminalises selling sex, providing support services for people exploited through prostitution.

Crucially, it also means dispelling myths that provide cover for the industry - and justification for its users. Myths like 'demand is inevitable', 'selling sex is regular work', and 'fully decriminalising the industry makes women safe'. Because without these myths to hide behind, the sexist core of this trade becomes clear - and so does our ability to bring about change.

Pimp State: Sex, Money and the Future of Equality by Kat Banyard is out now (Faber & Faber, £12.99).

Read Laura Lee's post here.

OP posts:
Report
TheRealPosieParker · 09/07/2016 17:58

No one catches an STI from flipping burgers. Stacking shelves doesn't get you pregnant.

Report
Xenophile · 10/07/2016 00:30

Yes Gaye, it's an anonymous forum. Did no one bother to tell you that either?

Having posted before on this subject under my real name and received death and rape threats from the men who need prostituted women to wank into, I'll pass on doing it again if it's all the same to you.

Report
GayeDalton · 10/07/2016 09:14

TheRealPosieParker

Not speaking to a single current sex worker is not "decent research" and linking abolitionist specific and media sources is not "evidence".

"Stacking shelves" and "Flipping burgers" often do not pay well enough to live on (depending on specific circumstances) AND leave you with no time or energy to pursue other work.

Xenophile

Don't make things up, you are just a histrionic coward and we both know it.

Report
DetestableHerytike · 10/07/2016 10:54

Gaye

That's a personal attack, which is against MN rules. And do you really doubt that women with strong opinions on this (and many other matters) receive rape and death threats, given the response to the far less controversial issue of putting a woman on bank notes?

Report
GayeDalton · 10/07/2016 12:00

DetestableHerytike

I am convinced that abolitionists routinely invent "rape and death threats" for attention and effect.

I have been on the internet many more years than most of you, often involved in controversy from various sides and I have NOT ONCE received a "rape or death threat" - determined internet abuse takes quite different forms (no I am not going to help anyone "fake it better" by explaining them).

But most of all, when people lie about you you have no doubts about their capacity for telling lies.

Report
TheRealPosieParker · 10/07/2016 12:04

GAYE "I am convinced that abolitionists routinely invent "rape and death threats" for attention and effect."

Fancy that, a promoter of punters rights to purchase women doesn't believe women when they've been threatened by men..... What a strange coincidence.

Report
DetestableHerytike · 10/07/2016 12:06

Two convictions for rape threats re the bank note campaign - I guess the court was convinced they really happen:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/24/two-jailed-twitter-abuse-feminist-campaigner

Sorley, 23, used Twitter to tell Criado-Perez to "f* off and die you worthless piece of crap" and "go kill yourself", and said: "Rape is the last of your worries."

Nimmo, 25, told Criado-Perez to "shut up bitch" and "Ya not that gd looking to rape u be fine", followed by: "I will find you [smiley face]" and then the message "rape her nice ass", Westminster magistrates court heard.

Report
LassWiTheDelicateAir · 10/07/2016 12:09

I have been on the internet many more years than most of you

You have no idea about whether that is true or not. You are accusing others of making things up yet have just done the same.

Report
DetestableHerytike · 10/07/2016 12:15

I believe you if you say that you have not once received a rape or death threat. Extend others the same courtesy by believing them when they say they have, hmmm?

Also, consider the logic of each side - would someone who is opposed to sexual consent being a purchasable commodity be likely to make a threat about perpetrating sex without consent on someone who disagreed with them?

Report
GayeDalton · 10/07/2016 12:30

LassWiTheDelicateAir

I have been on the internet many more years than most of you. You have no idea about whether that is true or not. You are accusing others of making things up yet have just done the same.

Not really...because I have been on the internet since 1996

DetestableHerytike
Extend others the same courtesy by believing them when they say they have, hmmm?

No can do...see I have higher standards than that, before I start believing someone they have to say believable things...and before THAT they have to have some kind of track record for respecting truth enough to check facts properly before telling them...they DEFINITELY have to have a track record of not lying about me or people like me.

Never met an abolitionist who met that criteria yet.

Also, did I not say "often involved in controversy from various sides"?

Banknote campaign?

"The fact that they were anonymous heightened the fear. The victims had no way of knowing how dangerous the people making the threats were, whether they had just come out of prison, or how to recognise and avoid them if they came across them in public."

...not that you would try to use that to the hilt or anything...

BTW, those threats were public tweets

Report
TheRealPosieParker · 10/07/2016 12:35

Gaye.


I happily seeing you reveal your misogyny, it fantastically goes along with everything I think about people who try and make it easier for men to buy sex.

Report
FloraFox · 10/07/2016 12:43

Gaye since the death and rape threats come from men against women who speak up for women, it's no wonder that you who panders to make needs has not received them.

Report
GayeDalton · 10/07/2016 12:47

FloraFox

Did I not say "often involved in controversy from various sides"?

Report
FloraFox · 10/07/2016 12:54

Gaye you have given no indication of any feminist leanings so it seems unlikely you would provoke male ire.

Report
GayeDalton · 10/07/2016 12:57

FloraFox

it seems unlikely you would provoke male ire.

Does it now? Go tell THAT to the Christian Right/Trump lobby.

Here is what I think of what passes for feminism these days:
mymythbuster.wordpress.com/i-renounce-feminism/

Report
LassWiTheDelicateAir · 10/07/2016 13:04

Not really...because I have been on the internet since 1996

(1) so what? You still have no idea about any one else.

(2) however as it's seemingly so important to you, ok you were there before anyone else again, so what. Does the length of time you have been spouting nonsense such as it's harder for a man, he usually isn't lucky enough to have hetrosexual sex work as a last honest resort render it any less nonsensical?

Report
LassWiTheDelicateAir · 10/07/2016 13:13

"My myth buster" - It seems a rather garbled site which appears to object to using the word "prostitute" to refer to women engaged in prostitution preferring the weaselly "sex workers".

Which of course suits your agenda of prostitution being just like any other job (except of course when it's not when it's "the last honest resort")

Report
GayeDalton · 10/07/2016 13:35

LassWiTheDelicateAir

I said "I have been on the internet many more years than most of you".

You just want to play silly semantic games that may sometimes corner people into saying things they do not mean (Lawd knows what that is supposed to count for??) and frankly, at this point you are just trying to find ways to insult me like a silly child.

How would you feel if I started referring to you as c*ntface?

That is how sex workers feel when you call them prostitute, or any derivative thereof. Why should I support you insulting them?

Report
TheRealPosieParker · 10/07/2016 14:01

Silly semantic games....

I had one of the first home internet computers. It had a lovely online encyclopaedia. Before 1996. Smile

Report
LassWiTheDelicateAir · 10/07/2016 14:15

How would you feel if I started referring to you as cntface?*

Coming from you - I could not care less.

I'm not aware of "cuntface" being a noun to describe a person engaged in an activity in the expectation of financial remuneration from another so it's a rather silly example isn't it?

The "silly semantics" arguement gets trotted our a lot by the pro pimp/ pro punter lobbyists.

"Strippers" are "dancers" ; "prostitutes" are "sex workers"; both intended to sugar coat and disguise what we are talking about.

Do tell us what your euphemisms for punter, pimp and brothel are?

Report
GayeDalton · 10/07/2016 14:17

TheRealPosieParker

Probably a 486 with 250mb, even 300mb Hard Drive...the "online Encyclopaedia" was Microsoft and went in the CD drive...

What does your dictionary say the word "most" means?

Report
venusinscorpio · 10/07/2016 14:20

I was on the internet in 1996. Many people were. For all you know, everyone on this thread was. But who gives a fuck?

Report
GayeDalton · 10/07/2016 14:20

TheRealPosieParker

See when it moved online?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encarta

Report
GayeDalton · 10/07/2016 14:23

venusinscorpio

Apparently all of ye...I mentioned it in passing and got nitpicked from here to eternity for it, to distract from the fact you haven't a leg to stand on (metaphorically) between you on the real issues.

Par for the course...

Report
venusinscorpio · 10/07/2016 14:26

I meant who gives a fuck whether someone was on the internet in 1996 or not? What authority do you think it gives you? It's a bizarre thing to boast about.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.