Number 10 petition to criminalise men who buy sex

[policywonk]

Sign here if, you know, you want to

"But the overwhelming majority in the business feels huge progress was made when the industry emerged from the shadow.

Anna Reed says she loved working as a prostitute - "I had sex, money and men!" - and resents enduring cliches about a job no-one in her right mind could willingly embrace.

"We get so pissed off when politicians portray us as victims," she says.

"It's important to blow down the stereotypes about sex workers - particularly that of the poor girl who is coerced into doing it." "

you mean this end paragraph, tsh? but the journalist hasn't actually demonstrated any such thing, surely? by his own telling, some people think it's improved and some don't.

plus, the people asked have never experienced the criminalisation of purchaser approach, so cannot possibly say whether in fact they would have been better off altogether with that.

and the collective of prostitutes (anne read) in any country should really be called the collective of happy hookers, because they are a completely self-selecting group who surely cannot claim to speak for the entire 'industry'. do you know how many members they have? i'd be interested to know what percentage of prostitutes sign up. i do know that in germany, there was an offer to unionise and 0.025 (or was it 0.0025, now that i come to think of it?) signed up, despite the holiday entitlement and free health cover that came with the deal. don't you think that's interesting, that so few prostitutes wished to identify as such, if they're all so happy and fulfilled in their job?

and what did you think of the alternative NZ piece that dittany put up, with the figures from Streetreach, tsh? and the piece about australia? seems to me you're not prepared to engage at all here with what anyone else is saying. at least we're offering a critique of the pieces on which you base you're argument, while you're just ignoring everything that doesn't suit your purpose and insulting dittany for bluster.

*should read 0.0025%, my % button had what appeared to be a bit of jamaica ginger cake behind it. and [yum]

no it doesn't. sorry, i'm a journalist, he has to demonstrate that in the piece before he can sum up, and he hasn't. his own research indicates that for some it's got better, for some nothing's changed. his editor really shouldn't have let him get away with that (i say editor, the bbc online doesn't really work like that).

that's the thing, i'm quite capable of separating what julie bindel is saying from what the women themselves are saying. if she's quoting them directly, albeit under an assumed name, she will have tapes to back that up. i personally think that the women she interviewed speak for themselves.

sign up to unionisation. here, i couldn't access the link last night either (it's on endprostitutionnow, it's part of the glaswegian campaign FAQ about prostitution), but have cut and pasted it for you. "In Germany the service union ver.di offered union membership to Germany?s estimated 400,000 sex workers. They would be entitled to health care, legal aid, thirty paid holiday days a year, a five day work week, and Christmas and holiday bonuses. Out of 400,000 sex workers, only 100 joined the union. That?s .00025% of German sex workers. Women don?t want to be prostitutes." oh, in fact it was 0.00025, even smaller than i thought. it goes against the 'normalisation as a job' argument imo. do you have any numbers for the collectives of prostitutes as well? i think that would be an interesting comparison, given that it's an advocacy for the job.

also on that site, it seems like what you mentioned earlier about exit funding in sweden was untrue.

"MYTH: The Swedish law approach of criminalising demand has not provided support services for those involved in prostitution or for those exiting:

FACT: This is simply untrue. 70 million kroner (£6million) was invested in support services when the Swedish legislation criminalising the purchase of sex was introduced in 1999. Estimated numbers of people in prostitution consequently fell from around 25,000 to a current estimate of 2500. In July 2008, the Swedish government announced new funding of 210 million kroner (£20 million) for prostitute services, including the expansion of direct support and public sector training."

if you can't access pieces on your iphone, that's one thing, but you can't say that you've been engaging, tsh, if you're not even reading articles that directly and wholly dispute the ones that you're managing to google for yourself.

actually, and i'm sorry to bang on about this, but i'm more and more surprised that the bbc ed allowed this 'everything's groovy in NZ' piece to go off stone.

look at who henri astier (who he?) spoke to.

the only prostitute that he perhaps spoke to on her own, albeit while at work, is Sophie, who says that she only did it because she was about to lose her house and had no choice but to sell herself. wrt the future of her 'career', she says 'i'll stick it out a bit longer'.

other than that, his sample is 'Lucy, 23', interviewed in the presence of her boss, Sarah.
Sarah herself.
Myra, a prostitute, again in the company of her manager Sarah.
Catherine healy and anna reed, who are both professional prostitution advocates.
Brothel keeper Jennifer
brothel keeper Monique

i mean, really, what a load of crap. i could interview a bunch of pimps in the UK and get the same 'what larks!' story from them, i'm sure. you must admit, tsh, your broad consensus doesn't stand up, it's an entirely tainted sample.

i realise you're spent a long time cutting and pasting there, tsh, but i would like you to do me the courtesy of responding to my posts.

some swedish myth-busting.

Myth: Criminalising the purchase of sex drives prostitution underground

Fact: The nature of the sex industry is that it is underground and it is very difficult to scope or quantify. However, prostitution can never truly exist ?underground? ? if punters can those selling sex, so can the Police and those offering services to help exit prostitution. Criminalising the purchase of sex and offering support services to people in prostitution is the only viable way to work towards an end to this exploitative industry. In Sweden, where they have criminalised the buying of sexual acts, there has been a significant reduction in trafficking and prostitution with a halt in recruitment of new women (Baklinski, 2007). Sweden is no longer an attractive market for traffickers and pimps ? the law clearly works as a deterrent.

MYTH: Most of the public are in favour of legalisation of the sex industry

FACT: Whilst a minority of prominent voices are calling for legalisation, there is no evidence to support the claim that they speak either on behalf of society as a whole, or for the majority of the UK population. A survey (ICM 2008) commissioned by BBC1?s The Politics Show in January 2008 found that over half of the general public (52%) and three quarters of young people (73%) actually support the criminalisation of the purchase of sexual services. Before sanctions were introduced in Sweden, public support for the bill stood at only 49%, rocketing to 82% following enactment.

and obviously there's the lie about the money as well, as i posted earlier.

i find this a really interesting point.

"Myth: Legalisation is better for those involved in prostitution

Fact: Prostitution is harmful in and of itself: legalisation doesn?t remove that harm ? it simply makes the harm legal. Legalisation or decriminalisation of the industry does not deal with the long term psychological and physical effects of having unwanted and often violent and abusive sex numerous times a day and having to act like you enjoy it. To cope with this those involved in prostitution report having to dissociate and ?split off? in their heads ? hence why drug and alcohol abuse is so prevalent. Legalisation does not make individuals safer and it expands an industry in which violence against the women and sometimes men involved is at its most extreme."

TSH, you refer to women "consenting to sex for cash", refer to "sex workers", 'females' who use prostitution to pay for their or their children's college fees. You give examples of the "diverse" ways men explain their belief that its ok for them to buy women sexually. Clearly you believe its ok to buy and sell people. - Maybe you genuinely can't see this about your position, or maybe you just don't want to admit that that is where you are coming from.

You keep referring back to the fact that you are concerned for the welfare of women who are prostituted. (Although of course you think its a free choice, don't you? There being no power differential in the transaction and all.) You say your concern is that criminalisation of buyers will drive prostitution underground. But its already underground where its legal, because more money can be made that way. Legalisation makes it easier for buyers and sellers of women, not the women themselves. It causes a growth in the 'industry' increasing massively the attached problems, including trafficking.

This has all been amply demonstrated by dittany and Aitch repeatedly in this thread. Yet still your circular reasoning brings you back to the same old argument that you're looking out for prostituted women.

Yes, exactly, few people enjoy being assaulted, that is my point. If you pay someone for their 'permission' to assault them it is still illegal. Even if they report that they don't mind, it is still illegal. Few people enjoy being prostituted (if any?), yet you see legalisation as the way to go.

My position is as I made clear early on in the thread. (Perhaps you should take the time to read the thread .) The way to reduce trafficking and the other problems of prostitution is by reducing demand by criminalising those who buy prostituted women, men or children. I'm against criminalising people who are prostituted, but absolutely not those who buy and sell them.

I have also previously mentioned my suspicion that as there is a vast industry around prostitution and therefore there are vested financial interests that any data which purports to show legalisation as improving things for women needs to be scrutinised very carefully.

LOL again at "no irrefutable, unequivocal evidence". Nothing is "irrefutable", even scientific 'facts' which we accept on the basis of evidence.

The weight of evidence in the current debate is very clear. Good grief, what level of proof do you need to decide that promoting the buying and selling of people might just be harmful enough to justify not legalising it? Perhaps you also feel that there is insufficient evidence for say, evolution, or the earth being round? (Its rhetorical, btw. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily your view.)

Thanks for that Aitch, well said!