Police officers & lawyers, I need your wisdom please re brothels

[MrsMcEnroe]

Hello all,

Some background: I own a shop in a part of town that has been grotty and neglected for years but which is now, thanks to a lot of hard work from residents and traders plus a Lottery grant, now starting to regenerate.

Across the road from my shop is a brothel. It is acknowledged as such by the local police. Residents and traders are not happy that the brothel is allowed to continue operating. Most people are worried about the supposed "dodgy blokes" (to quote a recent email, not my words, on the subject) that it brings to the area; however, I have more serious concerns regarding the welfare of the ladies working there. I have seen some of them leaving and they don't look well at all.

I am attending a meeting of the local community forum tomorrow, at which the police, council members and planning officers will tell us what they are doing re the brothel (if anything). I know I've read that prostitutes are at much higher risk of violence, including sexual violence, than other women; does anyone have any facts and figures I could use please? Also, is it even legal to operate a brothel? When I was doing my law degree 20 years ago, I'm sure brothel-keeping came under the heading of living off immoral earnings but perhaps this has changed?? I just want to make the point that there are vulnerable women right there in our midst who, rather than being condemned, should be helped. (I never qualified as a lawyer, hence my lack of current knowledge).

Or am I being naive? Or simplistic?

This post comes cross in a very stilted manner - sorry, I'm typing with 2 fingers with a puppy asleep on my lap!

TIA.

OLKN. Some very rage inducing views here. So some women are not suited to this type of 'work' because they have too many boundaries, and the 'work' will damage them? Yes, of course it will, because it's not work - it's abuse.

The women who are suited to this 'work', then, are already damaged and broken. The damage continues, they can dissociate which is very fragmenting, and they are in mental hell. But you seem to prefer to think of them as some sort of special women who have sensible boundaries, ie, punters must be merely polite, respectful and clean. WHAT? You do know these polite, respectful and clean punters are just as likely to be dangerous. Perhaps these women are suited to being beaten up as well, as an acceptable occupational hazard.

All prostitution is abuse. ALL OF IT.

It takes around five years to process once you're out of it, the effects this abuse has. PTSD lasts decades/a life-time. Any justification of any prostitution is saying it's ok for women to be mentally and physically damaged for the sake of men's entitlement and entertainment.

A comparison between 'prostituted women' and women who choose to work as prostitutes has been made already in this thread.

SGM - I have referred to 'choice'. I have also worked for escort agencies and I have exchanged sex for money. So there's an exception to your rule.

I don't think anyone on this thread wants to live in a society where women are 'bought and sold like commodities'.

And I am neither 'damaged' nor 'broken'.

Of course they can refuse. In some senses they have more choices than housewievs who also provide sex for money but are tied to one man and there can be more scope for abuse and much more dependence on pleasing a man.

Of course prostitution is not always a choice, SGM. We established that a while back in this thread and have done so time and time again in many others. But sometimes it is a choice, and it is a choice freely made. It is that that I have tried to explain to you, SGM, because you seem to have enormous difficulty conceiving of the possibility that any woman could freely make that choice.

What I've tried to argue is that where women have made that choice - and more than a few women who are not, IMO, damaged, 'broken', etc. have made this choice - they should be able to work safely in the manner that they choose. At the moment, it's difficult to do this, and whilst other women keep insisting that no woman could freely make this choice, it can be quite difficult to have any sensible discussion about how to make working life safer for women (or men) who are able to sell sexual services and wish to do so.

And, SGM, more escorts than you like to imagine are in fact intelligent, enfranchised free agents.

We all know that poverty, addiction, etc. leave their victims with little 'choice', don't we?

As intelligent women with free choice and no economic vulnerability, I would condemn making money in this way. It is harmful to women as a group.

To get back on topic, though...
I'm so glad that you are addressing the issue of trafficking, MrsMcEnroe, and I really hope the issue doesn't get dismissed or swept under the carpet because it's difficult to identify, easy for traffickers to disguise, possible (if not probable) that victims of trafficking believe themselves to be criminally liable (as, sometimes, in the past - disgracefully - they have been treated as criminals), are often more fearful of reprisals by traffickers than of anything else, etc.
Would it be possible to let us know how the issue of trafficking was treated?

Why do you think that, Lost?

I've been tempted to go back because I am living on benefits but I don't think I could, mainly because of perpetuating the idea that women are for sale.

However, I would if I was desperate.

Women who are not damaged, and not desperate? Presumably they do it because they enjoy it then. Is that a good enough reason to uphold men's sexual entitlement?

It's certainly not feminist.

I think the issue of bonded labour is actually a bigger issue than those trafficked against their will. But I have no evidence.

Why should services rendered subject to contract 'uphold' 'entitlement'?
I get my car serviced on a regular basis, I get my hair cut, I have a massage. I am 'entitled' to none of these things unless I enter into a contract with people who provide them in return for money and whatever other terms are mutually agreed.

Because it's such a gendered contract.

If women also felt entitled to use other people's bodies in this way, there would be equal numbers of female and male punters.

Justify it if you like, but it's antifeminist to do so.

Bonded labour is certainly an enormous problem. Interestingly, though (AFAIK), noone one has suggested that fruit-picking, house-cleaning or vegetable packing are inherently harmful activities that should be criminalised.

All labour is potentially alienating, I agree. Our bodies are used. But in prostitution our bodies are used AS the service. We're the product.

And nearly all of us are female; the vast majority of punters male.

I don't think it's going to help the feminist cause to endorse it.

I'm glad you found your experiences in prostitution to be comparable (harmwise) to fruit-picking etc.

That doesn't change the fact that prostitution is predominantly men buying women. Browsing through escort sites is browsing through the type of product they're looking for.

Women are human.

Yes, men pay for sex far more than women do. I don't know what is the ratio of men who pay for sex with women in relation to men who pay for sex with men.
Growing numbers of women from rich countries do pay for sex with men (and FAIK, women) in poor countries (which IMO sounds fairly vile, because of the obvious power imbalance).

If women felt entitled to use other people's bodies in this way, there would be equal numbers of male and female punters.

Historically, there hasn't been a tradition of women exchanging money for sex for very obvious reasons: they haven't, as a group owned enough money/property to be able to do this, they haven't had the travelling and social opportunities that men have had, their lives have tended to revolve around staying in the home (whether they like it or not).

I would say that thee factors may explain why it has been - and still is - much rarer for women to pay for sex than it is for men to do so.

I don't think that that means that selling sex - to men or women - is in and of itself 'antifeminist'. I think that you are being a little narrow minded in assuming that any justification for women who choose to sell sex having the right to do so is 'anti-feminist'.

Selling sex originated from a power imbalance; as you say, women as a group haven't had any power or resources and so had their bodies sold, and then, sometimes, sold their own.

Prostitution started with men selling women to other men. Prostitution is a product of patriarchy. Patriarchy is the root cause of prostitution.

Women will never be liberated whilst it still exists.

Lost I found some experiences selling sex very, very frightening - and this is from very, very, limited experience and without having actually being subjected to physical violence. And being in a situation where I was not desperate, I did not have to work on the street, I was not working for a pimp, so I was far, far from what (most? certainly very, very many) prostitutes experience - and I was still very intimidated - my experience being that it was not possible to work in a safe environment, because the law prevents this.

Prostitution started with men selling women to other men.

Where? When? Your source?

The trouble is that the laws surrounding prostitution are those against people (men usually) who submit the other party (men and women) to force.

Well we can argue the toss about whether or not people are subjected to force, and doubtless there are not enough prosecutions in this area.

But the main issue of prostitution is not about physical force, is it? It's about economic force. About people who, through poverty, do something that most of us would find distasteful or vile, in order to earn money. And that's not a crime. If it were, all toilet cleaners and morticians would be victims.

The law is not the thing preventing women working safely.
They cannot work safely. Violent attitudes must exist for people to buy sex. Even in legal brothels, women are in danger from men, and the very violent men go to the illegal ones.
Legalisation doesn't help an inherently violent exchange. Men feel annoyed that they have to pay women to do what they all should be doing anyway. That's why they are violent. They do not see women as human, whether the brothel is regulated or not.

Prostitution started with men selling women to other men.

Where? When? Your source?

Just think about it. Men had all the resources, as you've also said, which is why it was men who were buying/paying women. If women were keeping all the money from this, it would be women who would gain economic power over men. Since this didn't happen, I surmise that men were selling women.

If you really think women started selling themselves and kept all the money, can you explain why they never became economically independant?

LastMango, I'm sorry for your experiences. The intimidation came from the very real fear of the men you were selling sex to. I truly believe the law cannot change the attitudes of these men buy giving them the all-clear to pay for sex.