Good piece on sex work by Laurie Penny

[SolidGoldFrankensteinandmurgh]

Here. She puts it a bit more elegantly than I usually do...

Show me how you get that figure for Nevada Sabrina and I might engage. Talking about people who want to leave is NOT talking about those who do not. Those individuals have human rights that need addressed, the research I have pointed to shows clearly that although small in scale, those "forced" in to the work were not the majority. This is only importamt in the sense that one person forced is one to many, but for the majority who are not their needs and wishes are being belittled and ignored.

GothAnne Interesting about the pimp thing, pity the link and the report were produced by a completely different organisation which you would have seen if you had bothered to look.

Frans - for the record, I'm also against trafficking for forced labour. Nevertheless, we are discussing prostitution here and, it's a bit of a red herring (and a very cheap debating tactic) to start saying 'there are far more people trafficked for manual labour'. But, this tactic has allowed you to ignore and deflect away from the risks of prostitution that I listed in my post last night. Because, you have to ignore them, don't you? In order to keep arguing your pro stance.

Leith - is it a 'human right' to sell or buy sex? I'm not sure it is.

Let's talk about prostitutes' supposed 'human right' to sell sex - so what you're asking for is that prostitutes have regulations enshrined in law to allow them to work in an industry where they have a daily risk of: Violence, Rape, STDs & HIV, humiliation, PTSD. But the problem here is legalisation of prostitution cannot protect them from those dangers - because they are inherent in the very nature of the job they are doing. Research has shown that legalisation has not protected the prostitutes in Netherlands or Nevada - if anything it has made things worse for them.

When you dig deep enough, you always find these pro-sex sites actually are people with a financial vested interest in the sex industry. They are not fighting for legalisation to protect workers rights and safety - that's just a smokescreen. What they want is the legal right to exploit and make a profit from people selling sex.

And, as Melissa Farley says, be careful who you listen to.

Interesting how these discussions always end up centreing on the prostitutes. What about the punters? Where are their responsibilities here?

What is known is that not all men, or even a majority of men use prostitutes. Accepted figures are generally 1 in 10 (although some studies have been as high as 1 in 7). Some of these men may have only used a prostitute once - not all of those are regular customers.

Why do these men (a minority of men) feel entitled to buy sex? To buy a woman, a real human being and use her as an empty wank sock for an hour? To even abuse her or rape her?

This research is awful to read: The men who buy sex.

The legalisation of prostitution will inevitably add to it's normalisation in society. Research has also shown punters already flock to places where it is legal - so punters are encouraged to use the services of prostitutes in areas where it is legalised.

What more could the pimps and traffickers want? More business, more profit from exploiting vulnerable women and no nasty laws getting in the way.

So on a purely idealogical stance you deny woman human rights, you would rather than since women are selling sex they should have no protection and no status, and no voice. Your solution of no one should sell sex may one day be the case, but till that time comes your position is to ignore, and belittle what women and men involved in selling sex say, becouse they to some extent have made a choice that you think is wrong.

Turning to what you say about the web site and it being a front for economic interests, ok prove it do your digging. Come back with proof. You will not find it because it is not there. It is a charity one that comply's in all respects with OSCAR, it has been established for many years and in the past has recieved government funding, and lastly has always been about human rights so indeed it is not me that talks about human rights in the respect of promoting that angle, it is the sex workers and their advocates themselves that say that, I support them in that call. And you are entirely right to quote Farley although her agenda is both obviouse and honest but she most definitely has one.

Indeed lets do talk about the buyers of sex which would include porn, lapdancing, internet, and telephone sex. Some of the buyers are female, although not in such high numbers but still enough to register.

In fact what we need is a discussion about sex and morality, as well as the place that sex, love, affection, monogamy, have in the discussion about why people pay for sexual services. So are you going to start it Sabrina?

No Leith - you have so spectacularly missed the point there - how can prostitutes have there 'human rights' not to be raped, abused, assaulted, risk STDs etc etc- enshrined in law when these things are an inherent risk of prostitution? Legalising prostitution cannot (and has not) protected women from these risks.

Minitheminx put it way better than I did - but you're asking for legalised, state sanctioned sexual abuse. And for no reason - other than to make money. There is no reason to buy and sell sex as a commodity. How many times have I heard in these arguments that men have a 'right to have sex'. No they don't - and they certainly don't if there is a risk of another human being being abused in the process.

You could just as well argue that people have a 'human right' to sell their own kidney - well, that too is prohibited by law in the UK, and for good reason. It is because it would result in the ultra-poor and desperate selling their own kidney to feed their family. No wealthy person is going to say 'I fancy an extra holiday in the Seychelles next year - I think I'll sell a kidney to fund it" are they? Just as you don't generally get wealthy, advantaged people selling sex on the street, or being targeted by pimps for exploitation.

Also, Leith. You do realise that your main line of argument was one used against the abolition of slavery, don't you?

I am asking for nothing of the kind get a grip, if you think I have missed the point then I suggest you be the one to explain to those raped and abused women and men that what they have been telling us for years remains of no interest because you would rather they were not prostitutes in the first place, but I guess any one who can demean another human being by referring to them as a wank sock as you and others have done several times is indication that you would rather that the rape and abuse continues as it allows you to make moral arguments for making something illegal. You and others are fine examples of why politics have failed in this country, you would rather be right at all costs.

You still have not come back with evidence to show that the web site you were happy to disparage as a front for economic interest is as you say? Nor are you willing to follow your own line of logic and start the discussion about why people buy sex?

You want to change society by what method blind faith and ignorance? Thats the practice of a dictator, those who want to change society have to engage with it.

Again show me Sabrina where slave owners and those interested in making money from slavery were in the least bit interested in what the slaves had to say about the issue?

That is a pretty sick twisting of logic sabrina you are so determined to be right that you have lost sight of the basic principle, slavery was all about illegal and forced imprisonment, transportation, and forced labour, till death. You have been given ample evidence to show that a large number of those who work selling sex are not coerced, abused, and worked to death. You just choose to not believe it and deny that those people, those humans have any right to a voice or to have their views heard because it suits your politicle ideology to.

That's the point I'm making Leith. Legalisation of prostitution will not protect prostitutes from rape and abuse.

I've been assuming that you're calling for legalisation? It's what the sites you and Franzthebanned keep linking to want. In which case research has shown that in countries where it is already legalised, life has not got any better or safer for the prostitutes. What I'm arguing is that legalisation cannot protect prostitutes - because it is not the fact that it is illegal that is the problem. It is the sheer nature of the work that is the risk.

Legalisation does not protect prostitutes from exploitation and abuse - what regulation could you put in place to stop pimps abusing and exploiting vulnerable women? Legalisation just mean the pimps don't have to worry so much about arrest.

That's why I support the Swedish model - decriminalisation of prostitutes, and support for them to exit the sex industry, and criminalisation of punters. Tackle the demand.

And, just so you know - it's not me calling prostitutes a wank sock that is the problem here (and fyi it was an ex prostitute who coined the phrase originally) - it's punters treating real women as wank socks that is the real problem.

Leith : Again show me Sabrina where slave owners and those interested in making money from slavery were in the least bit interested in what the slaves had to say about the issue?

Oh. My. God.

Where to start??

Thank you Leith I watched the video.

Franz you accept that we already have laws to protect all people (all workers) from rape, battery and assault. These laws apply to ALL people in all sectors. People are less likely to suffer from rape and assault working in legalised professions and we know for a fact from Sabrina's links that women who work in prostitution are stigmatised, an example being the police reports marked NHI (no human involved). So it would seems entirely rational to conclude that by altering the language and the laws around prostitution it would A) lead to less stigmatism B) ensure that workers who report crimes covered by existing laws are not marginalised and are protected.

I would argue that we are completely overlooking class and because of this the legalisation and stigma/safety issues can not be resolved.. Women and indeed men who are either forced or coerced (in a class analysis we leave little room for choice) into selling sex (prostitution, porn, stripping) do so to earn money under the capitalist mode of production.

"trafficking is the exploitation men and women in forced labor. The paper identifies ?Causes of Human Trafficking?. They include: economic imbalance between countries of origin and destination, including societal inequality within countries of origin; demand in destination countries, low risks, and profits for traffickers" The reason we have trafficking is entirely a rational response to capitalism. The way in which we have to make profit. Those who work in the sex industry are always from economically disadvantaged groups.

Sex workers themselves overlook their own exploitation under capitalism. Take a tour, be it politics on MN or AIBU you find that "working people" are saying the government cuts do not go far enough because they feel the squeeze on their income is caused by welfare provision how often do you hear in the media the real reasons why bosses now earn up to 500x the average pay of their workers? you don't!

So how would a change in language benefit prostitutes, changing the language over time could lead to less abuse because it becomes less stigmatised. (ideologies change over years not minutes and there is little data on the psychological and physical harm in prostitution in Roman or Greek civilisations when it was legal and not stigmatised to the same extent or for the same reasons. what we do know is that the industry stems from the economic base of society not from the culture/ideology because prostitutes rarely escaped their trade and it ran in families) If you look at the situation in Germany where they sought to destigmatise the trade it didn't remove the abuse or the fact that ONLY disadvantaged poorer people opt to sell sex. Change the language, call it sex work?????? Watching the video rather proves the point that changing the language will not tackle the root cause of the exploitation. In fact I just felt more desperately sad not because these people are selling sex but because they are like turkeys voting for Christmas. Lacking education and social power they survive their low status and alienation and they survive to eat through selling sex. "The only reason I could come here to the festival is because of sex work" ie I am so poor I can only travel because I sell myself, if I sold bread I would be poorer still.

But how would making all forms of sex work legal prevent the class/economic exploitation under capitalism? it won't. You can change the language we use, you can legalise and you can regulate and use existing laws to better ensure safety but you can not remove the impetus to exploit through trafficking, and wage work and existing labour laws do not protect workers, unions do not adequately protect workers rights and their share of profits. Existing labour laws protect no one. Employment rights could be used to protect sex workers???? but could they because sex work is not like any other work, the risks involved would need to be factored in and the contracts would need to be rather more weighted in favour of workers before you could be assured that they are as safe from risk as other workers????

"In 2005 Mary Sullivan compiled a thorough and extensive study on prostitution in Victoria, Australia. The paper documents the circumstances under which women work and _indicates that most women who ?voluntarily? enter the trade do so due to economic hardship. _A Prostitutes? Collective of Victoria survey on the impact of legalization provided this statement from a woman regarding the influx of illegal prostitutes: ?far more competition, the clients are extremely demanding [and] the control over what the women will and won?t do is often taken out of their hands?. Another woman faced A$300 fine per booking if she refused a buyer she found ?abusive?, ?drunk? and ?threatened physical violence?"

So even where it is legal and women can work in the least exploitative way ie a collective, the dominant capitalist mode of production erodes some of the gains by giving incentive to others to traffic workers to undercut and offer "value added" ie the clients learn to expect extras such as abusive acts as part of the service. This then becomes the "norm" by which other competing sex workers/brothels/collectives must operate to maintain clients and therefore their income.

Changing the language and changing the laws will only liberalise in the sense that the lack of social stigma hides the basic exploitation that lies at the heart of it.

Are women commodities? Were slaves commodities? the answer is to be found in a historical materialist concept of history not in the ideologies we have built up the explain the phenomena.

13gm.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/germany%E2%80%99s-legalized-sex-industry-rests-within-commodities-market/ for the quotes!

"sick" "dictator" "emotive".

So many insults.

One question Leith.

Why is it so bad to think that men should have the right to buy women's bodies?

Slaves? what came first racism or slavery?

*Should NOT

Okay Sabrina again no evidence but just assumptions, what I might be calling for and what you want are very likely poles apart but it does not follow I am making the argument that YOU THINK I am.

Lets start with the slaves, human rights were exactly what slaves wanted to determine their own lives for good or bad. If they had all wanted to head back to what ever their mother country was then thy could have chosen to do that, the majority choose to stay and enjoy their freedom in what ever country they were in, as people with the ability to do as they please.

Wank sock might have been used to describe punters by an ex prostitute but on here in several instances it has been used in such a way that it reflects on the woman and not the man, I guess context and legitimacy all crucial. I would be pretty annoyed at a non disabled person calling me a crip, but I choose to use that term of myself as it is for me to reclaim it. In the same way ex sex workers can call themselves a wank sock if they wish thats their choice, if I were a sex worker I think being refered to as a wank sock would do more damage to my self esteem than being called a prossie, or hooker.

Would you or mini be supportive of decriminalising the prostitutes and they remain prostitutes? As Franze has pointed out just by decriminalising does not seem to indicate that all forms of prostitution has ended in Sweden?

Mini I am a leftie like you, but I think my difference is that as I am consistently excluded by parties of the left, as well as being persistently dissapointed in the left and their desire to promote themselves and their cause rather than work with the the masses who they fondly imagine they are speaking for. Only yesterday I had to pull up the organisers of a large public meeting to unite the resitance in to be held in Glasgow for not making sure the venue was accessible. So what I am saying is that I broadly agree with your analysis, the video though showed not (in my view) that the workers had no ambition or desire to work in diffrent fields, indeed I am sure they would all choose to be international bankers with massive bonuses if that was open to them. What they were saying though is that this is their life NOW, and as such they wanted respect and to be listened to. Meta arguments about marx's and politics are a means to an end, but that means can only be engaged in at their level and in a way that they choose. Steaming in feeling sorry for them as they do not recognise their own oppression is gonna get you turfed out on your ear, in the same way that I am just not interested in anyone saying they will fight side by side with disabled people to oppose benefit cuts and closure of services, if they cannot be bothered to find out how they have to be accessible.

GothAnne I await your apology for your slur on the web links I posted. You might Also Goth you like to start the discussion that Sabrina has failed to as it could help uncover why men feel it is ok to buy womens bodies, what I think is not important, I am not capable of either supporting or bringing down the globalised sex industry all on my own. I am however capable of asking people to engage with the issues and with each other not following idealogical dogma that means you see things on black and white and those that argue against you see the same things in white and black.

I agree with some of what you are saying, good on you taking them up on access in Glasgow.....go leith!

Watching the film you linked was quite shocking because it showed the degree of cognitive dissonance ( for ease of understanding) these people have. A massive amount of money is invested in liberating "sex work" so that it can be opened up to the capitalist mode of production. It's interesting because the same sums of money are made available to all sorts of activism including some on the left because politics now is about identity politics. The neo-liberal economic agenda spawns a neo-liberal politics of individuality over collectivity. As a an example we have feminism divided into , Radfems, SocialistFems, MarxFems, Libfems, MaterialistFems, Lesbian separatists and the list continues.......sex positives and funfems.

It takes the ruling elite a huge amount of money and collective interests to tell us we are all individuals with the right to be exploited any which way we like.......as long as it is by them. They have collective interests we have our personal hobby horses specially designed in various colours so we can all tell each other apart. It is a very effective way of making each individual focus not on the exploitation and oppression but on whether their nearest neighbour has more rights than them. Which is why repackaging prostitution as sex work might appeal to the coal face workers but it only really benefits the capitalist (In this case pimps)

Mini - I was nodding along with your post. Turkeys voting for CHristmas sums it up well.

Leith - you have just been throwing insults around and now you're demanding apologies?

Leith: Wank sock might have been used to describe punters by an ex prostitute but on here in several instances it has been used in such a way that it reflects on the woman and not the man, I guess context and legitimacy all crucial

No. Upthread I quoted an ex-prostitute who said she was used as an 'empty wank sock' by punters. It has not been used as once on this thread in a derogatory way against a prostitute - it it describing how punters use prostitutes.

You'll get no apology from me Leith. Your persistent insistence on trying to dominate the conversation and then insulting us and our viewpoints - caring about women is either "emotive" or "dogma" according to you.

You cannot argue that prostitution is wrong, that is harms women and society as a whole, so you keep insulting us, trying to derail and throwing in privileged mouthpieces to agree with you, then insult us some more when we refuse to by it.

As for the nonsense you're spouting about slaves being to "choose" to go back home, but they "chose" to stay in the US, that is one of the most foolish things I've ever read.

Do you honestly think freed slaves had the financial ability and support to decide to relocate? Do you think after generations of slavery and forcibly having their culture removed from them they knew where their home was?

Okkaaayyy Sabrina whatever you say, just do not let the facts hit you on the bum as you leave for the night. Again show me where I have thrown insults? Your track record of backing up your own claims is poor, no evidence shown to suggest I linked to a pro sex site, no discussion of why men and women buy sexual services, no evidence to support your claim that human rights talk was used against ending slavery? Your evidence of my throwing insults will be a first and entertaining.

Mini Thank you for your "go leith", we have a failure in politics and the way politics is done to people, we do not have a failure of politics as politics is essential. But like Lazlo said about education, you need to be feed, housed, healthy, and in a fair mental place to engage with education. The same is more true for politics and in particular when we already have a massive number of people who think politics is only their to do them some harm. The left need to get back in to the communities work along side community projects and people and make the politics fitr them not the people fit the politics. Prostition is in no danger of going away anytime soon therefore the only people who will be irrelevant to the debate are those who do not sit down with everyone and work out not just how we pass a law but how society is changed to either allow different social and sexual practices, or put the genie of self sexual expression and economic subjugation back in to the bottle. Passing a law will do neither.

Now if you will excuse me I must go and do other things, so I will not be responding for a while.

Goth - I've been called many things on these threads - but 'dictator' is a first. I mean it's very nearly Godwin's Law isn't it?

As for being told that "me and others like me are responsible for politics failing in this country" or whatever he said - well....

Goth that is so funny I am dominating the conversation, oh please get a grip. Privledged mouthpieces, yea that's right that's prostitutes for you. You are the one who directly quoted the IUSW as being started by a pimp except none not one little bit of any of the web resources even came from the Iusw, but did you bother to look it appears not, or else you choose to wilfully post a lie, which was it it Goth?

BTW this is page 14 of this thread and I only have about 12 posts, way less than Franze, and many, many less than Sabrina, then you have the gall to acusse me of derailing hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

But you do at least get my point, your right no one would seriously expect slaves to go bvack I said they could because they would have had the choice. Just like freeing women from the bondage of sex work will not lead to them automatic choosing a different life, but that is their choice and you will have to deal with that when the women have no other interest or economic choice other than to stay with the work that they know.

Leith - multiple links have been provided by myself and others on all the subject of men paying for sex and for the damage done by prostitution. You can and have chosen to ignore them, but it doesn't mean they're not there.

Here's Research on the men who buy sex again.

And here's Melissa Farley's website again.

I know you don't like Melissa Farley - she has an 'agenda' or something, did you say? But it would be hard to accuse her as having the same sort of agenda, or a similar financial vested interest as, say, Douglas Fox.

All the information is there, for anyone who chooses to read it, that shows that unionisation, regular health checks, legalisation are not going to stop the damage the sex industry does to vulnerable people.