can someone explain the 'harm reduction' approach to prostitution

[MightyNice]

. . . in a way that makes sense, particularly from a human rights point of view, because it just looks so short-sighted and contradictory - as in, we know harm occurs so let's condone it because, I don't know, why?

prompted by this which I don't understand either

Kritiq, I'd beg to differ when you suggest most of the money earned by prositutes goes into the hands of pimps. I'm assuming you are conflating those who are genuinely trafficked along with those who have autonomy over how they work ?
Many accounts state they are prostitutes because they are paid way over and above the average earnings and because of this they work less hours and have more time to spend doing other things.
A recent documentary which covered the topic of Devadasi spoke to several women who stated how much they earned and what the comparison was.
Reports of students turning to prositution to pay their way through universoity doesn't suggest they are earnoing a pittance, or being pimped out.
Reading through The Wisdom of Whores, women who were forced from prostitution and trained as seamstesses to work in factories producing clothing for the west would have to sew something like 400+ Tshirts, or 200 pairs of jeans in order to make the same amount of money.
Accounts from Mexico, the women mention either work as a maid for a rich family on low pay spending hours away from their family a or choosing prostitution.
Women come from abroad to work in the UK in prostitution because of the high rates of pay, amount of money they can make before they return home.

To assume with the change in communication technology, a women would be totally incapable of working without the need of a man to pimp her out is highly insulting. If rentboys have managed to do it why would women not? Are they so lowly educated they can't manage a phone and navigate their way around a computer?

Well, if that's what you want to believe, I doubt any facts or figures I can supply will change your mind. I'll leave it there.

MsAnn, delighted to see mention of The Wisdom of Whores, it's a fantastic book (and very, very easy to read) and a real eye-opener compared to the usual "all 'prostituted women' are pimped/trafficked/working against their will" stuff. Recommend it to all with a genuine interest in the subject, rather than a blindfolded political stance.

The only prostitutes working in Bangkok without pimps are those infected with HIV who have been kicked out of the pimp system, and pre-op ladyboys, by and large. That's because no pimp wants them.

I have never seen a prostitute either on street or in a bar/club that doesn't have a pimp or Mamasan within sight, who collects the money from the punter in most cases. And many former prostitutes move on to become Mamasans themselves after their career in bed is over.

Every single one of the prostitutes (current and former) I have met through the project had a pimp. None worked alone.

Prostitution here is v v organised - a vast network of pimps, both Thai and farang (mainly from Africa or Eastern Europe), who collude with authorities to protect their turf and keep their girls. Drugs, pros and guns - same people generally involved with all three. There's too much money to be made from it for organised crime to let go of the leash by allowing prostitutes working without pimps to get a foothold. Those that try find themselves in hospital in the best scenario and in an early grave in the worst. And no-one even seems to care.

KRITIQ, I'm mystified. I've acknowledged that my mind isn't clear on the issue. I've made it clear that my mind isn't closed, but that I haven't got a good knowledge of the issue. Yet, instead of sharing your views in a way that would illuminate the issue, you respond in a critical and frankly snippy manner.

If you have knowledge, or even passionate opinion, why can't you share it constructively?

Please don't blame me for your choices, for the understanding you choose to have of the issue Lougie. It's not my job to take someone by the hand and gently try and change their mind. Your mind is all yours.

Could all those who seem convinced that having sex with strangers is a career that many women choose, please answer a few of queries for me?

1. Have you tried this career yourselves? If not, why not?
2. Do you agree with the German pimps that prostitution should be advertised in the job centre and women should have their benefits withdrawn should they refuse to accept to be prostituted?
3. Do you have any actual figures which contradict those I have already supplied in a document on this thread, which show pimping and trafficking to be an enormous business?
4. Do you have any figures which contradict Farley's investigations which suggest that around 90% of women wish to exist prostitution? You seem to think that the vast majority of prostitutes are happy hookers who work independently, do not have a pimp, earn very good money and are happy with their career - do you have any evidence for this?

Beachcomber: I have already stated that I do not think anyone should be forced to take a job which they would hate, or lose their benefits,whether that's sex work or (for example) a vegetarian being pressured to take a job which features the production of meat. I would find it hard to believe in a set of circumstances where the only jobs in the job centre were in the sex industry, and it;s my understanding that people only get threatened with loss of benefits if they repeatedly refuse to take or apply for a range of jobs.
I don't have a problem with jobs in the sex industry being advertised in the job centre, though.

I also suggest you read this another account of sex workers objecting to schemes to 'rescue' them and make them do low-paid domestic work instead.

Ahhhhh, so the women conditioned into accepting prostitution are choiceless, but a woman who has accepted that she's possibly been conditioned to take a viewpoint is exercising an active choice. Great enlightened view

apparently an evaluation of the Bengal 'teach prostitutes the Kama sutra' approach is overdue

link

OP I haven't read the whole thread yet so apologies if it's a repeat-link, but I just read this article and found it very enlightening.

"I doubt any man who buys sex wants the lives of prostituted women to get better. If their lives were better there would be no one left to give him blow jobs on his lunch break."

thanks, it's not a repeat (have changed name for a while)

SGB the thing I don't get with your position is that it looks to me like you wish to defend the right of a very small minority of women to happily earn a living through selling sex, at the expense of a vast majority, who would be better off if society decided that the buying of sexual access to one gender by another gender, was contrary to gender equality.

Fact is where you have prostitution you have trafficking, pimping, raping, grooming, exploitation and coercion.

It would cost every policing pound we have to try to run a set up where prostitution is legal, but every effort is made to ensure that only happy hookers work. I'm a utilitarian - I don't think that is a good or justified way to spend limited resources.

I'm not anti prostitution because I'm anti freedom or even because I'm against the concept of (willingly) welling sex. I'm anti prostitution because I believe this.

And so I support the Swedish model.

selling sex.

I also believe this is a very good analysis.

lazybookreviews.tumblr.com/post/21446918238/theres-a-big-thing-on-legalizing-sex-work

Beachcomber: I wish to defend the right of people to earn money however they choose to do so and the rights of people who engage in sex work to be treated with respect and not exploited.

And I find the abolitionist mindset not just stupid and judgemental but actively harmful towards sex workers. It's not that dissimilar to the well-meaning stupidity of the low-level anti-choicers: these women are vulnerable and wrong so they are going to be 'rescued' whether they like it or not, and if the rescue plans make it much more dangerous for them to do what they are doing, it's their own fault if they get hurt because we told them to stop.

It comes from the same deepdown place, the idea that to have a lot of sex with a lot of different men is inherently harmful to women and 'degrading' in that it reduces their property-value. So a lot of the legislation that gets suggested or put in place to stop sex work or 'reduce harm' makes sex workers' lives harder and tries to coerce them into swapping sex work for low paid service industry work that they are told is 'better' because it doesn't involve their vaginas.

SGB I respect you a lot, but when you start calling my views stupid, I kind of stop hearing you.

You seem determined that views like mine are all about stopping the laydeez from doing the dirty sex.

They're not.

Sorry, but I think pontificating about the rights of a tiny minority to profit from gender inequality, rather than being realistic about the misery of a vast majority at the hands of gender equality, is misogynistic.

It comes from the same deepdown place, the idea that to have a lot of sex with a lot of different men is inherently harmful to women and 'degrading' in that it reduces their property-value.

Not in my case it doesn't.

It comes from having eyes in my head and being able to see the suffering of these women.

(I volunteer in a drop in centre for prostitutes.)

about the misery of a vast majority at the hands of gender inequality

Yes, imho it comes across as disingenuous to suggest that feminists oppose sexual exploitation of prostitutes on grounds of immorality. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is possible to deplore the misogynist prescribing and policing of women's sexual 'reputations' at the same time as deploring the misogynist practice of prostituting women and girls.

In short, your argument is a red herring. Like Beachcomber, I'm struggling to understand your vociferous defense of the rights of the few women who make the genuine, free choice to sell sex and experience no physical or psychological harm. For them to have that 'right,' far more must be denied their basic right to self-determination, personal safety and well-being. And, why the assumption that feminists want women to exit prostitution and only take jobs on the lowest pay with the worst conditions? I want all women everywhere to be able to access the same economic opportunities as men, to be able to work in safe conditions.

In America, there are revisionist historians who try to argue that the enslavement of African Americans wasn't actually as bad as we're all led to believe. They insist that it meant the decendents of those kidnapped and transported from Africa has the prospect of a better life in America than they'd have ever had if they'd been born in Africa. They also point to testimonies from some slaves, citing how happy and content their lives were, that they had food, shelter and generous, kind masters. They remind us that after abolition, many slaves stayed on the plantations in conditions not dissimilar to those in slavery. They insist this shows that slavery wasn't so bad for some slaves (nothing to do with the paucity of other economic opportunities and continued racism in society.)

I'm just feeling reminded of those arguments when I try and get my head round your position on prostitution SGB.

And, I wanted to add that I don't mean to suggest your motives for defending the choice to sell sex are aligned with the motives of those historical revisionists in America, most of whom are closely linked with the leadership of far right, white supremacist organisations.

However, there were and still are many well-meaning people who want to believe that slavery wasn't as bad as conventional historical accounts tell us. They want to believe that at least some slaves were well treated, were allowed an education, had a happier life under slavery or later "indentured servitude" than those who ended up exploited as sharecroppers or factory workers in the North.

That they miss is that if African Americans had been afforded genuine equality with non white citizens, given compensation for their losses under slavery, if racist practices like segregation, refusal to hire or rent to people because of skin colour, lynching even were severely punished, that former slaves wouldn't have necessarily remained exploited and in poverty.

What I don't get is why it is so fucking difficult for some people to understand that you don't improve the lives of the enslaved and exploited by trashing the lives and livelihoods of those working in the same industry by choice.
Think of the clothing industry. A lot of fashion clothing is made by slave labour, including child labour and including trafficked people. This is of course a Bad Thing and efforts are being made to help those who suffer this exploitation. But no one holds the independent tailor responsible for the plight of the people in sweatshops. No one says that the whole clothing industry should be abolished because of the cruelty and exploitation that goes in within it, the calls are for fair wages, worker protection and all the rest of it.

Yet sex work is always seen as waa, waaa, such a horrible special case, as though sexual activity is totally unlike any other human activity. It may be the most special (or the most horrifying, YMMV) activity in the worl to you (generic, hypothetical 'you') but not everyone feels the same way about it. To some people it's an ordinary bodily function like going to the loo, to others it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time, or it could be an addictive delight, or something that other people make too much fuss about, or the meaning of the universe, or a way to earn some money. All of these people have the right to their different feelings about sex, none of them are wrong.

Because patriarchy.

Because sex work, as you term it, is about one gender having entitlement to sexual access to another gender. And the gender that is entitled to the access, is the gender that dominates society and oppresses the other gender primarily through sexualized violence. And because that gender co-opts the sexuality of the oppressed gender.

If we didn't live in a male supremacy I would be much more open to your view. But we do.