The Decriminalisation and Regulation of Prostitution.

[SmellsLikeTeenStrop]

I've been doing a bit of reading on this, since the disabled deserve sex thread.

Would I be right in thinking that the decriminalisation and regulation of prostitution does more to protect men - the pimps and the johns, than it does to protect the women in prostitution?

I'm looking at Nevada as an example. Prostitution is legal, but only in licensed brothels. A woman can still be charged for working on the streets. A woman working in a state licensed brothel must register as a sex worker, is subjected to weekly STI testing but interestingly, the customer is not required to prove is freedom from STIs by producing a recent certificate of health.

For the privilege of working in a state licensed brothel, women must hand over a large percentage of their earnings to the brothel owner, she usually has to pay for any extras such as condoms, toiletries and even bed linen. She can be fined for falling asleep during her shift, or appearing late for a line-up. She's often required to live 'on site' for days or weeks at a time and is not permitted to leave the brothel grounds.

This is all apparently legal in Nevada.

How does this set up benefit the women who are prostitutes?

It doesn't.

Well, she has a roof over her head, regular health checks, drug-free environment, presumably she's fed regularly, and the bills paid, there will be security onsite. All much better than street walking, with the risk of violent assault or imprisonment.

I'm not saying that the way Nevada runs its brothels is necessarily good, btw, but may be better for some women, depending on their alternatives.

But in Germany for example, prostitution is decriminalised and they pay taxxes and are able to receive benefits etc. Brothels are legal but pimps are not. Women can sue a customer for not paying but money cannot be handed to a pimp, it has to go straight to the woman. Which (in theory) means women have greater rights and are protected more by the law.

That's interesting, AuntFini, how are brothels legal, but pimps not? In the UK it is legal to work in a brothel, and to use the services of women who work in brothels, but not to actually run one! Are German brothels run on a co-operative system, perhaps?

Having weekly tests for STIs is not the same as having regular health checks.

It sounds awful, what you have posted, smellsliketeenstrop.

What kind of world ate we living in where a woman feels she has to allow herself to be abused in order to pay the bills?!

We should be helping these woman escape, not making it easier for men to abuse them.

Well, in Nevada, a world without housing benefits, unemployment support, medical care free at the point of delivery etc.

Of course it's no good
Where do you keep your children if you have any
Not being allowed off the grounds
Having to hand over vast % of earnings

All for the privilege of being allowed to let non STD tested men fuck you for some cash.

Human beings should not have to be in those circumstances, especially not in one of the wealthiest countries in the world which considers itself to be so amazingly super.

Do they have brothels full of young men as well. If not why not.

Do we know what the large/vast % of earning actually is, and what it covers? (Tax, bills, food, laundry, condoms, lube...)

The Nevada model does nothing to protect the most vulnerable class of prostitutes - the ones on the street who have neither legal protection or safety from the sorts of predators who will deliberately target street prostitutes so that they can perform abusive sex acts for a fraction of the cost.

Yes decriminalisation and regulation is about creating a legitimate industry and turning pimps and johns into legal buyers and sellers of women's bodies. It's a very sick idea. Pretty much up there with legal slavery in terms of human rights abuses.

The best answer to prostitution that exists at the moment is the Nordic model, which treats prostitution as a form of violence against women, and decriminalises prostituted people whilst prosecuting punters and pimps.

Nevada brothels:

"It's like you sign a contract to be raped"

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender

If they're handing over a large % of their earnings to the brothel owner then I doubt any of that is for tax.

What I want to know is, where is the money for therapy? If this model works so well, they'll not need to provide for therapy for traumatized women. So, they could afford to stump up for it (in the, 'no doubt' rare cases where someone needs therapy).

But that's not happening is it? And why? Because many women need huge amounts of care and therapy after they face legalized rape. Gee, what a surprise!

ack i want to repeat a lot of arguments i made on the disability thread but cba to repeat myself. sorry.

for me it's the supply/demand issue that dooms it no matter how you try and pretend you can sanitise it and make it 'nice' or something.

there will never be as many willing, healthy, happy women who want to be fucked for money as are needed to meet the demands of the amount of men who want to fuck women for money. the number of so called happy, free volition hookers is miniscule. ergo you will always have to coerce and abuse a percentage of women into prostitution, ergo you can never have prostitution without abuse and violence against women (even if you pretend prostitution in itself isn't that which i believe it is).

i've summarised my view badly sorry.

there will never be as many willing, healthy, happy women who want to be fucked for money as are needed to meet the demands of the amount of men who want to fuck women for money. the number of so called happy, free volition hookers is miniscule. ergo you will always have to coerce and abuse a percentage of women into prostitution, ergo you can never have prostitution without abuse and violence against women

Actually that's the best summary I've seen so far.

i finally got my ideas clear and that's them in a nutshell.

Saf: Thing is, you can't know that, it's a supposition. I am starting to think that the insistence that men who pay for sex hate women is not unrelated to some rape myths, at least in the idea that all or most men are woman-hating scum who only want to fuck women who are not enjoying it. The thing is with rape, especially 'acquaintance' rape, is that it's never the woman's fault, it's not about how she is dressed, whether she's had a drink, or whether she was happy to kiss the man but didn't want to fuck. A woman can dress in revealing clothes, get pissed, kiss and cuddle or even start sex and change her mind and not be raped, because plenty of men are not rapists. And that percentage of men who are rapists plan to rape and intend to rape.
A lot of men who pay for sex want sex with a woman who has agreed to have sex, not one who is being forced to do it. Sex workers who are not forced into the work want the same rights as other properly-treated workers: the right to work agreed hours, be paid the agreed rate and to refuse to serve a customer who is abusive.

Surely the motivation of a man who wants to have sex with a woman who doesn't want to have sex with him is always questionable?

There are many men who would rather go without than pay someone. Lots and lots. Most, even.

The idea that men would pay rather than go without is the bit that feeds into rape myths surely? The idea that men have to have sex and if they can't pay for it then they'll go out and rape someone. The idea that their need for sex is so great that they will merrily exploit others in order to get it. These are not ideas that should be normal - but they are.

I agree with you from a purely theoretical POV that there is no prob with people buying and selling sex - but in a world and society that is very different from ours. As we are in the world that we are in, it is rife with problems.

In practice, legalisation always produces even worse conditions for the workers, who are de facto women. It's a triumph of spin to pretend that governments either at national or state level legalise in order to protect women. They do so to recoup taxation from a hitherto twilight economy and to protect men's rights to have sex with healthy women. Legalisation actually means that the women take home less money, with many opting to supplement their earnings from private punters. In Nevada, women opting to do this are criminalised as well as unsafe. This is why it's a myth that legalisation improves safety for women. It does not. All it does is improve the health and safety of the punter, while making money for the brothel owner and the government.

I think a regulated industry, which gives workers rights and protection is preferable to one where there is no regulation and it is all underground.

The idea that the sex industry will ever cease to exist is naive - so I'd rather have one where harm is minimised - where women and men working in this industry have rights and protection and aren't criminalised, but also where anyone wanting to leave that industry is given every help possible to do so.

In Germany, sex workers actually have formed unions or joined existing unions (such as ver.di - the union for the service industry), and fought for things such as health insurance etc.

I think a blanket ban hurts more women than helps them.

I do think that part of the problem with the Nevada situation comes from the general lack of workers' rights and unionization in the US. There's an established culture of mistreatment and percieved ownership of employees - 'legalisation' has to allow for the freelance as well as the corporate employee.

I am still in favour of full legalisation, licensing and regulation. In my ideal world, all people would fully respect all others and themselves, such that paid-for sex would only ever be a specialist need. We are so many light-years away from that, prostitution isn't going to vanish any time soon. History proves, ad nauseam, that making a market illegal only pushes it underground, which plays into the hands of gangsters. So, in this less than ideal world, I think decent legal regulation is the best hope for prostitutes' safety and wellbeing.

Agreed, SGB. I recall reading tons of stuff (and watching depressing films) about the Nevada set-up and it's not really a model. Too many grey areas, corners cut, and a crap ideology. (Profit at any cost, basically)