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?

I'm not going to call them "prostituted women" Nyac, as prostituted men, children and TGs get even worse treatment.

Please try not to police my words. Hooker is ungendered slang.

Would it be possible for everybody to avoid it? It's dehumanising.

Hooker is not ungendered, it's a term that refers to women.

I'm not policing your words, I'm pointing out misogyny in this section. It's incredible how much this part of Mumsnet attracts.

For me the term "hooker" makes me think of US shows where prostitutes are usually working in clean and reasonable conditions, and often earning lots of cash.

It is not a great word, it is another normalising word, I think.

I don't think men or children get called hookers.

I think they are called male prostitutes or child prostitutes. Prostitute normally means a female. I think nyac has a point.

You're absolutely right SQ. Legalisation normalises the indefensible.

Just like 30 years ago, men who visited strip and 'clip' joints were regarded as both seedy and foolish - and the latter venues were targeted by the police because they were illegal - the explosion of sexual entertainment venues in the nineties led to the normalisation of men ogling women for entertainment. It made it an acceptable activity and became the staple of men-only nights out and worse still, corporate entertainment that excluded women who had the temerity to object. Only the foolhardy and naive would claim that this has improved the position and rights of women in society, or that this in any way 'empowered' women-as-a-group.

As Iceland has discovered - and their Nordic neighbours, it is possible to reverse the tide. Just as the 2009 UK legislation is allowing us to reverse the tide in the UK, by reducing licences re-issued to sex clubs.

These are radical feminist resources on prostitution for anybody who is interested:

www.prostitutionresearch.com/

www.catwinternational.org/

www.captivedaughters.org/index.html

The evidence of normalisation is here on MN. Threads with women saying they have found out, or know, that their partner has paid for sex in the past. And that as it was in the past, it's OK.

thread about how men on stags will pay for sex and this is normal and to be expected.

In real life - I know men who have paid for sex and I know women who have gone out with men who they know had paid for sex. Invariably it was stags in eastern europe. WTF? 20 years ago these same stags would have been perfectly happy having a local curry and 15 pints and waking up with their eyebrows shaved off. The men I know who have paid for sex are very normal and if it wasn't available or "normal" or expected even they wouldn't have sought it out. Supply is definitely fuelling demand, as well as vice versa. The sale of sex in all its forms is becoming standard, and that is a BAD THING. IMO.

If you want a non-gendered, non-insulting term, 'sex worker' is fine.
That the 'legalisation' seems to involve more exploitative, coercive, degrading mistreatment of workers actually says more about capitalism than it does about sex work as a way of earning your living. If the state runs the industry and controls the working conditions, then that isn't necessarily for the benefit of the workers. If the industry is recognized as a legitimate one, then workers in that industry are free to choose their employer or work for themselves, which is how it should be.

SGB - You can't have it both ways by saying that capitalism is inherently exploitative, but if we just have sex work/prostitution as a better regulated form of capitalism then it will be a ok. There's also the issue of many of the so-called sex worker unions being run by pimps/madams.

Also you mention choice, considering the numbers of women in the UK who enter prostitution due to drug addiction/ poverty I think it's pointless to set up legislation just to cater to the small minority who actually choose it as a career.

Note as well that thanks to the support provided by the Iceni projecvt in Ipswich, street prostitution has virtually been eliminated there. So I guess they weren't choosing to be there after all.

Prostitution is a multi million pound industry (for the pimps) hence all the effort to normalise it and broaden its appeal. Legislation is just another part of that, dressed up as concern for the workers.

Patriarchy is the driving force though SGB, not capitalism. Prostitution has always existed in socialist and communist societies after all. Life is always worse for women when capitalism exists alongside patriarchy, but the real villain of the piece is a society where men have the power. Prostitution flourishes in patriarchies, regardless of politics.

Nyac you asked why you are going over old ground, it is probably for people like me who are new to feminism and new to these discussion.

My exposure to prostitution and my knowledge is from a 1 hour documentary on the discovery channel so rather limited apart from local papers and the big stories. My gut reaction is it has to be stopped but so long as people are desperate for money for drug habits there are always going to be women who will sell themselves. Just did a search for escorts in Sweden and on the first site found 52 adverts. So not sure how well policed this things are in reality compared to the claims.

If it against the law here but apparently that doesn't deter the pimp and madams running the show and their endless supply of victims mainly I guess with drug problems.

Sorry rambling as I try and get my head round this.

Exchanging sex for money isn't illegal in this country, Sausage. Soliciting is though.

Also, like rape, prostitution is de facto legal. Nobody wants to get in the way of men's self-awarded right to sexually harm women.

SGB, the term that women who have survived prostitution prefer is prostituted woman. Sex worker implies that prostitution is work like any other, which is a political position that many people including most people in prostitution disagree with.

I was talking about why this was being repeated because I'm seeing some of the same old faces saying the same old things. The discussion never seems to move on.

rape is de facto legal? Que?

Most rapes aren't even reported, of those that are only 6 in 100 actually result in a conviction.

This is what I mean by same old ground.

i think the word 'sex worker' is bullshit. hooker might well be dehumanising - but prostitution is dehumanising - your job is to be dehumanised. i can go with prostituted woman because it correctly positions the power dynamic - sex worker is an attempt at sanitising and normalising that i don't want to partake in.

prostitution is absolutely a result of and an enforcement of patriarchy and men's power over women.

there is no way to have prostitution (a man's right to buy a woman) and equality imo.

Nice to see a new poster on here. Hello sausage

There is so much to get your head round in these discussions and what works for one country is so different to others. With Australia everyone seems to talk about the licensed brothels but they are catering to the top end of the market. I don't understand why Australia seems to ignore the street trade. Where as from what I saw on TV I have no idea how any prostitutes in India survive into their 30s.

If I get lost or ramble it is simply because I don't know about the subject. And SEB is being used because DH knows my other name that lives in chat. Don't want discussions with him about feminism until I can back up discussions with facts although he is not as bad for creating confusion when talking issues as XH. Just want time to get my head around issues as I have a good education but ended up as a SAHM. Still it is never to late to learn as they say.

There is a book club on here and char threads and all sorts. Let me see if I can find some things for you

here is the book club topic!

Thank you SQ. I feel like I am at school starting a class a year behind everyone else. Struggling with Martha Nussbaum and Rae Langton 10 points on Objectification. Especially without another cup of coffee (sorry think I derailed the topic)

Sausage, here is a to a long but very very good public lecture given by Catherine Mackinnon (an American Professor of Law) on the question of prostitution from a global perspective.

It also tackles issues such as consent and the fallacy that indoor prostitution is somehow ok. Someone recommended it on a thread a while ago and it was a real eye-opener / thought collector.

One thing she said that stuck with me was: if prostitution was a profession that was of benefit to women, then men would do it themselves.

Also, this sounds a bit random but if you read the book "Call the Midwife" it actually has a few chapters on her experiences with a prostitute which show the reality of prostitution as an institution that preys on impoverished and vulnerable women rather than one that seeks to help women in any way whatsoever.