Number 10 petition to criminalise men who buy sex

[policywonk]

Sign here if, you know, you want to

Regarding my friends clientele I think she would have seen both those ready to escape prostitution and those who were not, as she was in an outreach role. I suspect they were all poor and had miserable lives however. The happy hooker myth tends to be associated with more of the escort/upper end of the market.

I should clarify though that my dislike of prostitution is with the men who want to buy sex, not the women who are (ab)used.

There are already strict laws in place governing prostitution - would be far better to make sure they are enforced than try to introduce new ones.

It's not the 'oldest profession' for no reason. A ban will simply drive it underground.

And not ALL men that use prostitutes are scumbag rapists.

nooka said 'I am pro legalizing drugs but I really would not wish to live in a society that said women (or men for that matter) were buyable objects.' - I think this hits the nail on the head for me. I understand the arguments for legalisation - and I do think that the positions are quite finely balanced, and that the evidence doesn't run strongly in either direction - but this is one of those instances in which the law can make a statement about women's status. It is frightening how many men believe that women's bodies are commodities (not just WRT prostitution), and that the personality/autonomy of the person attached to that body is of no importance. Changing the law in this regard would be a big statement that the government is prepared to start tackling these attitudes.

OLKK - leaving aside your belief (?) that the majority of prostitutes have made a free choice (presumably you include those suffering from drug addiction, poverty and the legacy of child sexual abuse in the 'free choice' category?), the proposal outlined in the OP would not affect the ability of 'happy hookers' to do whatever they like. Quite the contrary. They would be free to sell their wares; it would be their clients whose freedom would be curtailed.

Dittany that article in the Guardian you linked to was truly chilling. Each man's statement got worse and worse - expecting the woman to be disgusted, if they didn't use prostitutes they'd rape, prostitutes aren't real women....

What a fantastic idea. Can I buy him?

Policywonk, no, I don't "include those suffering from drug addiction, poverty and the legacy of child sexual abuse in the 'free choice' category". These are women whose choices have been constrained by circumstances to the point where they really have no choices, and, like you and dittany, I don't believe they can freely consent to paid sex; perhaps they can't truly consent to anything, though. I don't deny that these women exist, and I don't deny that their lives are awful.

However, I do argue that just because these miserable women exist, it doesn't mean that happy hookers don't. One of the things that Pye Jacobbsen, the Swedish sex worker whose video I linked to earlier, said was that radical feminists (whose viewpoint/dogma has been accepted by the Swedish Parliament) assert that all paid sex is rape and that therefore, all prostitutes are rape victims. This is regardless of prostitutes themselves saying, "No, we're not."

The response from the radfems is that, "You're not aware of your own oppression". (Well, maybe that's because it's difficult to feel oppressed when you're earning as much in an hour or two as it might otherwise take a week to put by...)

If a prostitute still proclaims her consent, despite having been offered enlightenment vis a vis her condition, she is told she has a "false consciousness" - "You're in denial of your own abuse." That one comes with the subtext that "You'll wake up one day and realise the horror of it all." There are often prurient references to "prostitutes get PTSD" around about that point in the discussion; a sort of, "You'll get what's coming to you" that has unpleasantly misogynistic undertones.

Finally, if you can show - as Belle has done, as Pye does in the video - that you are an intelligent, educated, thoughtful woman, who has freely chosen to work as a prostitute, the radfems dismiss you as "not representative" - the "That's only one person" approach that dittany immediately took. The words of Pye Jacobbsen, despite 21 years as a sex worker, 15 of them as a prostitute activist, don't count, because she's only one woman.

Every prostitute is only one woman. Does that mean we discount the women who say, "We are not abused", because they don't fit in or agree with the radfem dogma?

Nooka, for fact-based research which goes beyond the usual street prostitution and looks at more of the indoor aspects, have a look at the works of Dr Teela Sanders.

OLKK - fair points. I do believe that some women are happy to sell their bodies - Dr Magnanti offers some corroboration here (although her childhood history - father who used prostitutes openly IIRC - has some bearing, surely?)

I guess where we disagree is in our estimates - which is all this can ever be - of the proportion of happy prostitutes to miserable ones. If the latter are in the substantial majority - as I believe they are - then it seems reasonable to me to infringe the freedom of action of the former. (Although, as I said before, this proposal doesn't infringe their freedoms, which is why it's a bit genius IMO.)

Please, ladies, it's OLKN, not OLKK!

I've seen the argument that Belle's father exposing her to street prostitutes may have affected her attitude towards prostitution. I've also seen comments along the lines of, "Well, what a terrible father, imagine allowing his impressionable teenage daughter to get the idea that prostitutes are human beings! and frankly I go with the latter. Conceiving of all prostitutes as rape victims is demeaning and dehumanising.

Have a look at The Guild of Harlots for some women who have made their own free choices. Try telling them they're all rape victims.

Gotta go now, back tomorrow sometime.

PS, I'd just like to add that I've seen many, many more reports of DWs and D(female)Ps being beaten, abused and raped by their DH/DPs just on NM, than are reported on the accumulated "Dodgy Punter" warning board on the SAAFE forums.

Perhaps monogamy is "highly dangerous" too?

On MN, FFS!

Really going now...

Aaargh, one last thing... policywonk, if we make the purchase of sex illegal, as they did in Sweden, then the results - greater danger for streetworkers; women being thrown out of their own homes because "concerned neighbours" (having swallowed the "all paid sex is rape" myth) have reported them to the police as "vulnerable" prostitutes, and the landlord would be accused of pimping her if he let her stay; women having to work alone, because two women sharing costs and accommodation would be accused of pimping each other - will be the same. None of this has been good for Swedish sex workers, and none of it will be good for British sex workers either.

We need properly regulated brothels.

Hmm, the problem is not that BdJ's father thought that prostitutes are human beings. I firmly believe that they are human beings myself. The issue is: is it the action of a loving father to make his daughter so explicitly aware of his sexual activity? And how can the knowledge that your father was both fucking and attempting to 'save' prostitutes leave a young girl with anything other than a deeply screwed idea of what sort of love and protection her father was capable of offering?

Sorry for the abbreviation error!

so is it true that if a punter gets arrested with a prostitute and she is under age he does not go on the sex offenders register?

also is it true that the woman prostitute is arrested and charged but not the man who purchases her services?

am not clear on these points

TIA

sfx - do you mean the law as it stands? This BBC link has an outline. Soliciting for clients on the street is always illegal and the women can be prosecuted if they are caught. Kerb-crawling is only prosecuted if the police can show that they are causing a nuisance (usually interpreted as attempting to solicit 'respectable' women, I think)

According to this link it is illegal to pay for 'otherwise lawful' sex with someone who is 16 or 17. Don't know about the SOR though.

PWs 09.38 post sums it up v. well for me.

"...but this is one of those instances in which the law can make a statement about women's status."

thanks policywonk will check links later

those were just questions based on a half heard radio report

Well there we differ really OLKN, I think what we need if for men and women to treat each other with respect. That means not buying sex and not beating each other up. Idealistic I know, but I don't really see why we should just accept that men will always want to buy women. I think we should seek to understand and change that. At least this slight change in the law ensures that the illegality sits with the perpetrator, not the victim (or the happy successful business person if you prefer to see it that way).

By far the biggest issue associated with prostitution is human trafficking, and he countries which have legalised prostitution don't seem to have less of a problem - in fact I've seen some suggestions that things have got worse. That's the research I'd like to see - an international comparison of the impact of the different regimes (including the effect, if any on ordinary people's opinions, I find the effect of strip joints and lap/pole dancing clubs insidious enough, just imagine a brothel on your high street).