Newnight report on brothels

[itshardthinkingofanickname]

Worth £16 billion in Germany. Legal to "make it safer".

Interview with 22 yr old Hannah. 6 men per night, earns 100 to 1000 euros per night,

Talking about should it be illegal in the UK and the fact that brothels are safer than the streets. They have super brothels in Germany.

I'm sorry, migsy - but it's like the last thread didn't even happen. I know 'what's said on a thread stays on the thread' and all that - but you're simply putting forward the same robotic responses as you did on the Amnesty threads.

From what you said on previous threads, it is obvious why you have no emotional attachment to sex - and it is nothing to do with having the right personality type to enter prostitution. It is to do with having a horrible, traumatically abusive childhood/adolescence.

Never mind damaging women as a whole - it is blatantly obvious that prostitution is damaging you, and in a way that decriminalisation will not resolve.

Yes I remember what was said on the other thread. And I'm not and never will say that I'm 100% ok with what goes on, but I think that has a lot to do with the stigma of reporting crimes that happen to people in the sex trade.

I don't know what the answer is, this type of work has been around for centuries. I just want the people working in it to be safe and I believe this can only come from decriminalisation.

Migsy, this is an interesting post that explains why many feminists feel they cannot support prostitution even though some women say they want to engage in it.

sarahditum.com/2014/02/24/who-do-you-listen-to/

And it isn't because they refuse to 'listen to sex workers'. It's rather that they refuse to prioritise the voices of the privileged minority of women (e.g. Brooke Magnanti) who have the resources and wherewithal to (mostly) control the circumstances in which they are purchased for sex and are able to leave at any time. (I note that despite praising prostitution as an exciting way to make lots of money, Magnanti left the industry as soon as she was able, after only 14 months.)

Indeed, it is the pro-SW lobby that consistently refuses to give any weight or concern to women who say they have been harmed by prostitution and that it wasn't a choice for them.

I understand that you feel it is the best option for you at the moment and therefore you are pissed off at women who are working to end the industry. But even if I was basing my judgment of prostitution solely on your account, I couldn't in good conscience recommend the continuation and normalisation of the situation you describe, for yourself or for any woman. I want a society where women and girls who have been sexually abused and marginalised by poverty have real options other than having to put themselves in physical and emotional danger by having dissociated sex with sometimes abusive men.

yes Donkey
also, B Magnanti was emotionally abused by her father encouraging her to relate to prostituted women he was using
major violation of boundaries
the fact she doesn't acknowledge that was abuse doesn't detoxify it

So victims of abuse aren't capable of making their own choices and giving consent?

I'm not sure you did make your own choice, migsy, not in any real sense. You said you wanted to be a nurse, but then got into drugs, debt, and a "friend" suggested prostitution. This friend appears to be a pimp - providing you with a place to live with your child, and doing your advertising for you - and presumably charging you for this.

It is your punters that are the danger to you - not the legality/illegality of prostitution. Punters are dangerous because they treat you as sub-human, as someone who they can abuse because they're paying for it. Legalised brothels do not negate the danger to prostitutes that is inherent - but they do have the unwelcome effect of normalising use of prostitutes, and increasing demand.

To protect more women from being trafficked to meet an increase in demand for paid-for sex, you have to change people's/men's attitudes that it is fine to pay people for sex. It is not fine - it commoditises women and girls. The Swedish laws tackle this.

So if women had equality and opportunities etc then none of them would be reduced to prostitution. I can see the logic there, but I'm not sure how that particular objective would be achieved?

How would these opportunities be provided, and what would current SW do in the meantime?

It takes time - possibly a generation, possibly longer. I don't think you'll eradicate it, any more than you'll completely eradicate other inequalities/criminal activity in life. But I think that laws should be introduced to reduce inequality where it exists, not perpetuate it. Laws should be there to reduce the demand, and so protect the most vulnerable in any given sector - in this case those who are trafficked.

The Swedish model has it's critics certainly - but mainly from people with a vested interest in the sex industry. 80% of the Swedish population support it, and it has reduced demand. It provides full social service support/training programmes for prostitutes who want to exit the industry - and also population-wide education as to why the sex industry is incompatible with equality for women. In the meantime - prostitutes are not prosecuted - and I would argue are actually safer because the men that use them know they are the ones breaching the law.

It's an interesting point about the Swedish model improving safety for prostitutes, Sabrina. I have no idea whether it reduces the likelihood of assault/robbery/etc being perpetrated by a customer. But there would be an enormous difference in police response - and, probably, public response as well. Instead of "He beat up a prostitute ... Well, she knew the risks of her barely-legal trade." you move straight to "He beat up a prostitute ... He was already breaking the law!" The criminal is the one who commits the crimes, not the victim.

Wow - no trolls yet? Amazing.

One point of view a friend i talked with said was: assuming the brothel a guy went to was legal and the woman was there of her own consent or that he hired a call girl such as Brooke Magnanti who was also there of her own consent. whats the difference between that and a guy meeting a woman in a bar or restaurant taking her out for drinks or a meal and then seeing if she wants to have sex?

The difference is the woman in the bar would only have sex with him if she wanted to; he can't know the woman in the brothel would if she didn't need the money. And a date would probably be cheaper.

Why would a man want to pay a woman so he can sexually use her body, instead of having a date and then maybe having sex?

Legalisation of pimps and punters in every country has led to an increase in trafficking, violence, murder and children involved. It only makes it safer for pimps and punters and the tiny number of women whose experience is more like Belle Du Jour's.

And be aware, there are a lot of pimp sponsored organisations like the International Sex Workers Union who pretend to speak for women being prostituted. They do not. They speak for pimps.

as a police officer i completely agree with migsy.

and its very easy to sit in judgement of feminist ideals on the sex trade when you are not in the thick of it or doing it for a living.

women should be protected if they chose to work in the this industry but because its criminalised they very often dont report crime - who would take them seriously? i would - but i can see why they would think most wouldnt.

legalisation would provide safety, legislation, rules, and a regulated trade where women were safe and their welfare looked after and proper health care given.

anything that is traded "underground" is subject to abuse. bring the trade out into the open, and a lot of the seedier side would evaporate.

prohibition didnt work. people go to amsterdam to smoke pot. instead of buying from a grubby bloke on a corner they go into a licensed cafe - the sex trade is always going to exist, so why not legitimise and legalise it for the safety of the women working within it?

i get the arguments against but the reality is that women are not safe and will continue to sell sex no matter if its legal or not.

so legalise it. i have spoken to a german sex worker who saw it as nothing more than working in a shop - she was safe, she was well paid, and she was master of her own destiny.

Vicar, its a shame you don't know what you are talking about. The women who are being prostituted should never be criminalised. Then they can report crime. In spite of what you were told, and maybe it was true for that one German women, violence against prostituted women has risen in Germany since legalisation. Basically the criminal gangs are able to operate there without any interference. Even the police complain they have no idea of trafficking as they can't enter brothels unless they have information of a crime being committed.

And many many feminists speak out against the sex trade precisely because they have been in the thick of it as you put it. I know so many feminists who have been in brothels, massage parlours, escorts and on the streets who know precisely what it is like, and as a direct result speak out against it and against legalisation.

There is absolutely no reason prostitution has to exist. You can say that about anything you give up trying to tackle e.g. child rape will always exist so why don't we just legalise it. That is not a valid argument when we are talking about real people.

If you are not prepared to spend a few years in a brothel being prostituted, don't tell other women that is what they should put up with.,

i would not dream of telling anyone to put up with anything.

but i would take the opinion of a woman working in the sex trade over someone who is idealistically saying they shouldnt do it because x y z.

if you have worked in the trade then i will listen, but i do not know what the answer is if its not to legalise because criminalising the trade is not working.

legalise or criminalise. those are the choices. we subscribe to one and its not working.
what is the answer?

im listening to migsy and others who work in the trade.

What works is the Nordic Model, which the European Parliament just voted by a large majority, to endorse today. You decriminalise the women who are being prostituted, you criminalise the punters and pimps, and you give support to the women who want to get out, to help them get out. Surveys of women in prostitution generally show about 90% of women want out. But it is rarely easy to get out without practical help.

This has been adopted by a number of countries and reduces violence, trafficking, children involved and the amount of prostitution happening.

So while in Sweden that operates in this way, 1 woman who is in prostitution was murdered in the last few years, 217 women were in the Netherlands where there is some legalisation of prostitution.

Also be aware when people call themselves sex workers, this can mean anything. Photographers, women who work as a cashier in a sex shop, working reception in a brothel, pimps, are all counted by some as sex workers. That is very very different from being prostituted to many men every day.

The large majority of women speaking out about this issue are women who have been in prostitution. It is a tiny minority of women in prostitution who push the its only a job viewpoint. It is up to you who you listen to. But whoever you listen to, the evidence of murders and trafficking speak for themselves. That is why the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to adopt the Nordic Model.

but the nordic model decriminalises - in actual fact in the UK prostitution is not illegal.

im struggling to see the difference in legislation.

so what is making the difference? genuinely interested btw - not being obtuse.

soliciting in a public place is illegal - but not prostitution per se. so if i decide to work from home and advertise my services - im not committing an offence.

its still not safe though.

im all for making it safer for the women who chose to do this - thats not the same as forced into doing this - but surely decriminalising the work means less opportunity to exploit the women?