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.

Vicar did not give any info on the new laws- section 14 of the policing and crime act, which I believe is relevent to the question.

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/corporate-publications-strategy/home-office-circulars/circulars-2010/006-2010/

s. 14. Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc: England and Wales

An offence under section 53A (and 64A) is committed if:

(a) A person (A) makes or promises payment for the sexual services of a prostitute (B),

(b) a third person (C) has engaged in exploitative conduct of a kind likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual services for which A has made or promised payment, and

(c) C engaged in that conduct for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or B).

16. Within this context 'A' is the buyer of sexual services, 'B' is the individual involved in prostitution and 'C' is the person who has engaged in exploitative conduct.

I believe is the information; I fail to see the relevance to the question LMIP, I, or sgb asked, [about those individuals who have decided to carry out this activity without third party C] but san fairy ann. I though this thread had died a death.

Also, I gave a link to help with this from OP: "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?"

"I believe is the information; I fail to see the relevance to the question"

The OP says: " 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."

Having to prostitute to pay for a drug addiction would come under section 14 as would their being trafficked, or bond-slaves, etc. So it is not just laws about brothel keeping that are relevant, but the new laws that directly relate to the welfare of prostitutes who are exploited (and it seems the OP suspects this may be the case?).

I fail to see the relevance to the question LMIP, I, or sgb asked

I was talking about vicar

LMIP "that does mean not charging in to 'challenge' other posters who have more relevant experience and therefore, perhaps, more relevant advice."

Simply being a 'lawyer' or a 'police officer', (although specifically addressed by OP) doesn't make your experience or advice more relevant. Lawyers specialise, police officers see one side of things. In fact it took radical feminism to stop the police dismissing appalling violence as 'just a domestic Sarge'. Once I was chatting with a police officer who works in the area that used to be 'vice' and I couldn't believe how naive she was - showing surprise that the women 'were clean' wtf? I was astonished there are still people who work in this area that think of women in prostitution as 'dirty'. There are loads of other professionals and individuals who have relevant experience/advice to offer than the OP addresses.

I think you just like what vicar has to say, and are so loyally defensive, simply because you agree with it.

fridakahlo ((hugs)) "Worked as an escort for just over six months at the age if seventeen. Never got beaten up or raped. But it was shit, it destroyed me mentally, would not be something that I would recommend to anyone. I was damaged when I started and even more damaged when I finished and that was in spite of the fact that I had some enjoyable experiences along the way. It's not a good industry and it does not promote rights or equality for women. How to make it better or stop it, no idea."

Sorry I was so caught up I didn't respond to this sooner. Thank you for sharing. I hope you are recovering. Have you joined survivors connect? It may be a source of comfort if you are still coming to terms with that part of your life. Best wishes x

It is something that I have moved on from but there are lots of people who don't or can't move on from prostitution. It seems to me that a lot if people on this thread would condemn women to be even more trapped than they already are.

As feminists, surely we need to ask who benefits from a regulated sex industry, though, and that is where the wider discussion came from.

Vicar said: For me, and this is a personal pov - not a police one - i would love to see the practice legalised, vetted, and the women who work in the sex industry be looked after, pay taxes....and not be subject to controlling pimps who take their earnings, i think the industry could become respectable...'

It is surely open to others to disagree with that statement without being accused of ?same old, same old?. The fallacy of a making the sex industry respectable is exposed if you start to think about other ?respectable? industries ? advertising positions in job centres (therefore if you don?t apply, no benefits), a place for young people to go on work experience, a career for your child...

It?s not that radical to suggest that legalising prostitution would legitimise men?s demand to access women?s bodies ? and that point affects us all as women. I find it depressing on a feminist board that those expressing counter-opinions are shouted down and accused of being unproductive. Yes, maybe the wider discussion should have moved to another thread, but it?s an open discussion board and the OP is surely capable of sifting the debate from the evidence. If those discussions cannot be had here, where can they be?

foodUnit - yes, it took radical feminism to stop police dismissing DV, and some amazing feminist lawyers were at the heart of that change (supporting and supported by non-lawyers, obviously).

NOt sure what's the relevance of your 'clean' anecdote - but it sounds to me more as if the PO was referring to drugs use...? Which would actually coincide quite neatly with what you've been saying about prostitutes supporting addictions, etc.

Yes, I do like what Vicar has had to say, generally, and it seems to me that she uses her experience very intelligently and sensitively.

And of course I realise that there are policeman and lawyers who are arseholes.

I don't know what your understanding of the law or legal system is, but I'm glad that you've finally tried to address the OP's question. As you've (sort of) pointed out, legal advice is generally more reliable when it comes from lawyers who specialise in that area. I'm guessing that you're not in fact a lawyer - but perhaps you'll surprise me.

Can we give it a break with defensiveness and wilful misrepresentation/misunderstading of other posters' posts, please? It's dreary as fuck.

LMIP - I find it really controlling that you keep telling everyone what the thread should be about - (ie- stick to what the OP says, don't split hairs, don't talk semantics, etc, while you've been maintained the derailment into the 'respectable self-run brothels choice, choice, choice' argument started by vicar).... only to throw in a provocative chestnut like: "I'm glad that you've finally tried to address the OP's question" in the same post

Practice what you preach!

that should say "you've maintained" - baby on my lap

summerflower Mon 27-Aug-12 11:13:35
As feminists, surely we need to ask who benefits from a regulated sex industry, though, and that is where the wider discussion came from.

That's right, and a couple of posters suggested that a regulated "industry" would benefit those whose chose to undertake this activity. Which is, of course, legal.

There followed some discussion if anybody in this sphere of activity could be said to have agency of choice. Some people shared their direct experience (I think LMIP?), and I recounted my one direct experience with a GF who used to be a prostitute.

I like your point It?s not that radical to suggest that legalising prostitution would legitimise men?s demand to access women?s bodies but it's perhaps worth pointing out there are a large number of male prostitutes, vastly for other gay/bi/curious men so perhaps it is men's demands to access the bodies of the less economically powerful?

I understand that nowadays some women also visit female prostitutes, but that was uncommon - or at least not discussed - by my friend and her mates.

I'd add that I don't think anyone is suggesting that no people [men or women] enter prostitution because they see no other path, or have been abused. It looks like some people are saying that some people do it through their own - and as they see it - rational choice.

OMC, I understood the discussion, thank you.

What lost me was the shouting down of those who dissented from the views you have summarised. As others have pointed out, the circumscribed nature of choice/agency needs clarifying; 'choice' also seems like a term to justify something which cannot be defended as a good in itself.

I take your point about male prostitutes, and indeed, women buying sex (though the numbers of the latter must surely be negligible in comparison), because that underpins the point about economic power feeding demand - however, at a societal level, women are the more likely to suffer poverty and the paucity of 'choices' that brings than men.

summerflower Mon 27-Aug-12 13:00:14

Thank you for a nice reply.

^As others have pointed out, the circumscribed nature of choice/agency needs clarifying; 'choice' also seems like a term to justify something which cannot be defended as a good in itself.&

In itself, that appears to be ascribing a value, surely? "something which cannot be defended as a good in itself".

How would describe the path by which someone enters prostitution? I can see, "forced into it by a pimp"; I can see "trafficked here for sex"[although I suspect there's far more trafficking in other fields]; I can see "to support a drug habit".

[Suspicion of any of those would make anyone report a brothel, wouldn't they? Eeew]

If there are - as is apparent - other reasons, can one of them ever be "of my own free will, having made a rational decision"?

I take your point about male prostitutes, and indeed, women buying sex (though the numbers of the latter must surely be negligible in comparison), because that underpins the point about economic power feeding demand - however, at a societal level, women are the more likely to suffer poverty and the paucity of 'choices' that brings than men.

That brings us round to how we address the poverty and choices available to people, with which again there is more than one lens to use. From a feminist perspective how do we improve the choices and inequality of income?

There's ample research to suggest that societally young men in inner cities are being disadvantaged in the education system - that's certainly not the way to improve the lot of women, as it looks to encourage asocial, risk-taking, irresponsible behaviour.

It is really sad the way many people who deal with women in prostitution in their line of work (often in partnership) eg, drugs rehab, probation, police, housing, etc - often have quite a jaded view, or even kind of smutty humour about 'working girls'. Referring to them as 'the usual suspects' and rolling their eyes at the inevitability of it all. Mostly they refer to these women as 'girls' and at best 'ladies' - but for some reason, the dignity of 'women' is a rarity. Amongst this lot, its easy to see how people borrowing the notion of 'harm minimisation' from drug rehabilitation think they are being progressive when they apply it to prostitution- they think they are the ones that actually care. And by harm minimisation they only think about the needle exchanges, free condoms, std checks, and a roof & four walls but not actual harm done by the prostitution itself. (btw- my previous anecdote about the police officer was that police can be 'clueless' rather than arseholes - although some are that too- the officer was speaking about hygiene and the presence of expensive colognes, etc)

Its this mindset when expressed, like fridakahlo says about some on this thread "would condemn women to be even more trapped than they already are."

And that is why is is so important when someone from that world expresses this narrow, despairing view to widen it to the bigger questions, as summerflower says, "as feminists, surely we need to ask who benefits from a regulated sex industry"

OMC, to your first point, what's wrong with ascribing a value?

If there are - as is apparent - other reasons, can one of them ever be "of my own free will, having made a rational decision"?

Thanks summerflower

Happy to agree your terms about middle-class well-educated women, not being the majority. Not entirely sure about her choice feeding "the demand for prostitution which has implications for women who are not making such a free choice" particularly as prostitution is also widely practiced by men?

I'm happier with your argument about economic power.

The "young men" issue was an allusion to the falling standards of attainment and opportunity for certain groups of young men, which by its very nature is shifting the preponderance of achievement and opportunity to young women.

That suggests it isn't sufficient in itself to raise the opportunities for women, without addressing the inequity of distribution of both responsibility and opportunity across wider society.

I'll have a further think about what you said.

"I would argue that while this may be more of a free choice, it is not a good one (yes, I'm ascribing a value again). I don't mean just for her, because her choice feeds the demand for prostitution which has implications for women who are not making such a free choice."

I just want to expand on this.

Her free choice doesn't just have implications for the 'prostituted' but also an enabling implication for those who would and do create that demand, which has further implications that are even wider still and hugely gendered:

The men, the Johns. Johns are overwhelmingly male. The number of male prostitutes probably proportionately reflects the homosexuality of male Johns. So yes, male prostitutes are also affected by 'free choice?' arguments, but this is not gendered for them.

The prostitution of women comes within a wider context of low female social status. Women are still seen at best as'other' but often as 'things' because of their historical subordination.

The entitlement to treat others as things that has historically been a male birthright is reinforced by prostitution as part of a spectrum.

So it is not just those in prostitution, but all those that a 'male John enabling' culture allows to be viewed and treated as things, are affected too. Overwhelmingly girls and women.

The entitlement to treat others as things that has historically been a male birthright

Interesting. In a historical perspective, would say male or class? My understanding was in Late Saxon early Norman times woman could indeed receive homage which argues against that, and were entitled to hold land and use feudal men to work it?

'male class'

Ok, so that suggests that historically women couldn't manage feudal estates, even having paid heriot to their liege?

I'm just interested in the historical period we place this in (I know a bit more about English feudalism, than about Japan, or the Middle East.)

As it happens, however, I do know that 40+% of the compensation paid to slave owners in the US was paid on claims filed by women - which in itself suggests an interesting slant on the gendered ability to treat others as things - wouldn't you say?

Males historically have privilege/entitlement over females of comparible strata. A male serf over his wife, a male feudal lord over
his, etc.

Social class is a different disparity that intersects with sex class status.

Ah, so the Blackstone tripe which thankfully started dropping away in the 1840s, because it still formed part of US law, meant that married women slave owners were subservient/chattels of their menfolk?

Quite a few of them were single or widowed though, and there's evidence of them boasting of the fecundity of their female slaves which increased their holdings. This still reflects on something of a female propensity for treating others as things, at a historical point; though I suppose you could argue that in this case 55% of the offenders were male.

I suppose it depends where in history - and geography - you look for examples, and the vast majority of cases would tend to confirm your thesis, that the powerful seek to retain power. Most of them being male.