scottish feminists -

[weeonion]

Dear Sister

As you may know Rhoda Grant MSP is taking forward work to reduce and prevent sexual exploitation, through introducing legislation to criminalise buying sex in prostitution.

Trish Godman MSP held a consultation on this issue in 2010 which resulted in around two thirds of the respondents supporting the proposed legislation. Rhoda is submitting her proposal to the Justice Committee tomorrow (Tuesday 19th June)and is asking that the previous consultation be regarded as sufficient. This would mean that she could then submit her Bill without further consultation. There is also a danger that the expense of a further consultation might deter the Committee from taking forward the proposed legislation at all. This suggestion is being strongly opposed by pro-sex work campaigners as they want a lengthy consultative process that they can prolong in the hope of derailing any new legislation..

I am therefore asking you to send an email to the Justice Committee, today or tomorrow morning, stating that you support proposals to criminalise buying sex, and that in your view the previous consultation was competent and sufficient. The latter is the key at this stage.

This is really urgent. Please email now if can and ask others to do so also.

You email to [email protected]

The clerk is Peter McGrath or you can address it to Christine Graham who is Convenor. If you have time you could also email individual members. All details can be found on the committee page www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/29845.aspx

Many thanks,

Almost as refreshing as half a stout.

What, you prefer uninformed contributions? How odd.

It was a joke, sorry. Trying to lighten this up a little.

Actually, I quite like a good stout. :)

Btw, how did your searches re my gender pan out?

Not sure I feel like engaging too much with pro sex industry arguments, so forgive me for copying a couple of posts I made on another thread.

Where you have 'harm reduction' AKA as legalized prostitution, you have trafficking.

It is as simple as that. We see it in Amsterdam, Germany, Nevada, and the areas of Australia where prostitution is condoned.
To support legalized prostitution is to prop up trafficking, child prostitution, gender inequality and violence against women. They are part and parcel of the same thing.

The people who exploit prostituted women, be they buyers or sellers, do not turn into nice guys overnight just because you make the institution of prostitution legal.

It is just like gambling.

If you create areas where gambling/casinos are encouraged, what happens is you get a proliferation of gamblers and casinos. Alongside this, due to there being a proliferation of gamblers, you will also get people holding private poker evenings and other non-declared gambling activities. And you will also get people who might not have considered gambling to be an acceptable activity deciding to join in because they are being sent the message that gambling is an OK thing to do.

And of course the casino owners are delighted because they get state protection for their activities of bleeding people dry of their money.

The dynamics of prostitution are very similar. Except of course a million times worse because the product is human beings. People seem to forgot that the institution of prostitution is about money. Men pimp out women and girls because they can make a lot of money from doing so. They can make a lot of money because there is a big market for sexually abusing human females.

Legalizing the activities of these predators won't protect women - it will just make it easier for the predators to operate and make money.

Notice how much of the Donna Hughes paper I linked to is about money, markets, she even talks about prostitution in terms of a country's GDP - that is how big a business it is. What is happening in Germany is terrifying - local councils are becoming dependent on tax revenue from brothels and pimps and the pimps are putting pressure on the government to advertise prostitution 'jobs' in job centres and to withdraw a woman's unemployment benefit if she refuses the 'job'. The government has said that they will not do this but there is nothing to stop them from doing so legally.

Beachcomber: I am asking for clarification, are you thinking that myself and others are arguing for harm reduction as opposed to the ending of prostitution?

In Australia where 'legalised', the State supplies anaesthetic syringes to prostituted women with the caveat that it can disguise injuries to the vulva.

In what way is it progressive to have the government sanction the 'right' of men to cause that level of sexual violence? Do you think they will have a different attitude to the other women in their lives?

Some people seem to be arguing for harm reduction, some for other things.

I have read back your comments and I'm not too sure what approach you advocate.

I will try and be clear. As an end result stopping prostitution entirely would be my aim. As with all trafficking of men, women, children, animals, for any and all reasons.

What might be contraversial is that I do not believe that making a law even a international law policed and enforced as stringently as possible will cease the trade. Ground up the women and those involved in facilitating prostitution, security, drivers, maids etc. Have to have easily identified routes to education, or employment and massivly enlarged support services for addiction and housing etc. That takes away the argument that says they are "better off" earning money that way.

Make it economicaly advantages to those in the middle of the chain to give up those at the very top. Send those at the very top to jail for life, and do the damdest to recover as much of their assets and any assets of their family and friends that can be linked to trafficking,

Engage in a wide debate about sex, therapy, personal intimancy, monogomy.

Sorry for the typos btw.

I agree that the women in prostitution need support and alternatives. And I agree that we need to come down hard on traffickers/pimps.

But that isn't enough IMO.

There will always be less well off and vulnerable members of society. There will always be ruthless predators who will exploit these people for financial gain.

We need to go after the johns. Society needs to send a clear zero tolerance message that men do not have the right to pay for sexual access to women. We need a cultural shift, an attitudinal shift. If society, through, laws, education and socialization sends a strong clear message that it is unacceptable for one sex to sexually exploit the other, then that exploitation will decrease (humans are by nature quite easy to socialize). If society is ambivalent at best and condoning at worst, current levels of exploitation will continue.

Beachcomber: Your last paragraph is exactly what I meant by my last sentence, my difference is that we need to do this attitude change by opening up debate and offering acceptance of different needs and lifestyles.

So again all the points about zero tolerance, and cultural and state ambivolence to sexual exploitation, rape, misogyny could be tackled in part by having a society that is much more open about sexuality, what humans want to get up to, not what some moral police think they should get up to.

Bit to early in the morning not sure I am getting my point across, I think it is easier though to define zero tolerance, power relations etc, if they can be shown to be clearly definable. The trouble in part with our society is that from state sponsored to private actions, we give out mixed and muddy messages. Making clear what is defiantly and unnegotiably beyond exceptance means to some extent engaging with what we do accept.

Are you saying that we need to challenge rape culture?

If so, yes I think we do, for all women.

Men need to be clearly told by society that penetrating girls and women is not a right.

However, I think society needs to very clearly spell out that the institution of prostitution is a human rights travesty and that johns and pimps are deviants and predators. A very simple way to do this would be to make paying for sex an act that would put you on the sex offenders register.

Dittany

"Just as a matter of interest, how are you so knowledgeable about how Trish Godman went about gaining support MAT?"

"sounds a lot better informed (although clearly putting the blackest spin on it) than your average poster about the sex industry on Mumnset."

Of course I'm informed. I'm seldom in the habit of speaking a load of tosh on a subject I have no idea about and haven't researched. Under the Freedom of Information Act it's quite astounding what may be gleaned. Gather information, join up the proverbial dots, evaluate. Seemples.

Apologies for my description of nice white middle class ladies, though having a simple look at the Soroptomists websites for Scotland it would be easy for some to understand why I thought that an apt description.

Julia, I'd be very interested to have a source link to your claim women are given anaesthetic syringes in Australia.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/21/prostitution-jacquismith

Julia, your link doesn't say that the government supplies anaesthetic syringes, just that it gives advice about their use.

Yes, it is horrific to think that women might want such analgesia.

I will ferret around if you really need me to, but I suspect it would be more gratifying to be able to say there is no real valid evidence. If there was, I think a new reason to ignore it would be found.

Ferret all you like, but I doubt you'll find evidence that the Australian Government was complicit in the abuse of women by handing out anaesthic syringes, when your own link shows they were actually handing out info saying that the use of such medication isn't such a good idea.

What was that about it being useful when people know what they're talking about?

OldladyThey didn't say it wasn't a good idea, they just advised women to 'be careful'. That is accepting it, therefore complicit.

I'm presuming you think prostitution will always exist, so we should try to make it safer? People said similar about slavery. Fortunately, it wasn't true.

Julie people who are trafficked ARE in slavery, some are sold to pay of family debts as a form of bonded slavery. I think your last sentance is meant to imply that some people will find any reason to argue for prostitution. SOME people might but every one who takes part in a debate and offers statements of fact should be able o provide evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

Beachcomber. Coercion and stigmatisation of the johns will not produce the change in attitude you spoke of in your earlier post. Whilst we agree on what the end goal is, I think you want to punish for a human rights vilation instead of making sure that the violation stops.

We already have laws against rape and trafficking, so why do we need a law criminalizing adults who make choices? What happened to "my body my choice"? Should women choose what to do with their own body or should the government tell them what they can and can't do?

Do you really think making something illegal wipes it out?

Cannabis is illegal in the UK so that must mean noone smokes it right?

It's illegal to download copyrighted material, so that must mean noone downloads music from the internet right?

There is ALWAYS a way around bans. Business will just go underground out of sight where things could become dangerous.

If feminists really cared about the welfare of prostitutes, they should be opposing criminalization attempts. Pushing the industry underground will not do prostitutes any favours.

@Julia "I'm presuming you think prostitution will always exist"

I for one think prostitution will always exist. It's existed for thousands of years in every single country up to now so I don't see why it will cease any time soon.

Prostitution is illegal in most US states yet call girls is still a multi-billion dollar industry. And the US has a problem with streetwalkers in a lot of places.

Some hail the "swedish model" as the magic solution. 10 years on and now they are admitting prostitution has simply moved from the streets onto the internet. The link below calls the law a "success" because it has reduced the number of streetwalkers- so it seems all sweden cares about is pushing it out of sight.

www.thelocal.se/27580/20100703/
www.petraostergren.com/pages.aspx?r_id=40716

NarkedRaspberry Tue 19-Jun-12 23:53:08
The idea that paid sex is 'consenting' is laughable
I would be happy with every penny spent exposing the kind of creature who thinks they can buy a human being, even on an hourly basis.

I've heard this a lot but if a customer visits a prostitute how exactly is he "buying her body"?? He is not buying (or even renting) her body he is simply paying for the service she is providing for her wages. It's her job, you might not like it but that's what she does for her wages.

A question- if my computer breaks and I call a repair man to come and fix it does that mean I am buying the repair man? Do you realize how silly that sounds?

The idea that paid sex is 'consenting' is laughable
Payment of money does not automatically equal consent. A sex worker or an escort upon receiving payment still has the right to say no to anything she doesn't want to do.

How on earth could you defend the claim 'prostitution ... [has] existed for thousands of years in every single country up to now'?

That sounds a bit of a rash claim to me, a bit like a myth put about by the same types who come up with unverifiable idiocies like 'all men watch porn'.

Not, of course, that past history is ever the best reason to assume the future should be the same ...