Is sex working ever 'acceptable'

[neverthebride]

Hi everyone, this is my first post on this board so please be gentle (!) but I'd really appreciate some views.

I have a friend who is a sex worker. Very 'exclusive' kind of thing, earns a lot of money etc. I've known her for a long time but it's only recently that she's confided in me that that's how she earns her living.

I've known several sex workers in the past (I work in MH) and those people have been at the 'street level' and were invariably drug addicts and/or very damaged individuals who were abused in so many ways in their personal lives and as sex workers and would not have been sex workers if they felt they had other options.

My friend has apparently been doing sex work for a long time. She is highly educated, has no history of abuse in her life and seems to have made an informed choice to go into sex work as a 'business'. Her clients are big-spenders and she works in an environment where all possible safety precautions are taken. She does not do anything that she doesn't want to do and has made an enormous amount of money (which she admits she is 'addicted to').

I'm really torn on this issue which I didn't think I would be!. On one hand,I think HER experience might be positive but it's perpetuating the idea that sex and bodies are for sale and I absolutely disagree with that and know that the overwhelming experience of sex workers is just horrific.

On the other hand, I think she's an adult woman who's educated and informed and who am I (or anyone else for that matter) to say that she can't make the decision about what she does with her own body?.

I won't not be her friend because of her choices but I feel so uncomfortable with either of my thought processes. Help!

The USA does not have the nordic model: illegal to buy/legal to sell. This was a specific change brought into Sweden that is, yes, shaping attitude change. Social tolerance of prostitution and sexism is lowering and Sweden is consequently very high in quality in the world.

Yes, it does lead to increased demand. Sex trafficking, the 'underground' is higher in countries with legalisation; more people want it, but they want it cheap and thy want it discreet.

Making buying sex illegal doesn't necessarily push it underground, it just means that the illegal stuff cannot be passed off as or conflated with the legal stuff (like in Germany) because there is no 'legal stuff'. Any and all purchase is illegal without needing to investigate the premises/prostitute.

Yes, there is much difficulty in finding and prosecuting with the Nordic model...it is obviously a work in progress, but would you say it is easier to find pink dots on a white background or pink dots on a fuchsia background.

But all this is moot, because you don't actually want the same goals I do...you want easy access to prostitutes without worrying about the law or guilt. I don't want you to have that. So of course we are going to disagree because I want women lifted out of having (or even wanting) to risk their health using their orifices to survive an you don't.

saehisaj - if you are so concerned about "keeping track of the industry" why do so many supposed sex worker advocate groups push for full decriminalisation of all those involved in prostitution, including pimps and punters? Surely having the industry operate completely behind closed doors would make it even harder to monitor?

*equality, not quality (though, that too )

Yes, Gosh they want it made 'work' but without any of the legislation and regulation other forms of employment bring. It's almost like they want the legal right to do something they know scrutiny will prove is wrong.

In USA it is illegal to buy and sell sex and the police arrest both clients and prostitutes. Yet still thriving.

"with the Nordic model...it is obviously a work in progress"

They've had 16 years to work on it. And yet a Google search for "stockholm escorts" brings up no shortage of results for escorts and their contact details.

@GoshAnneGorilla

Sex workers don't want their clients criminalized. For the reasons in my 23:41:20 post, plus the fact clients are their customers and therefore their source of income.

16 years is nothing. It's been illegal to murder for much longer but it still happens. The importance is the direction it is moving in. But of course, having the money to do much more would help and some significant tweaks.

The USA has a notoriously dismal approach to helping the poor in their society. Most sex workers are doing it out of necessity because they are poor, have addictions, have children or pimps to support. No wonder it is thriving, they are desperate and (very important point) the fact that it is illegal to sex means the prostitutes are less likely to report assaults and get help to exit for fear of prosecution and getting a record. The nordic model is a multi-pronged attack with one of the goals being to support the women out of prostitution, not punish them like USA does.

You cannot compare them...why are you even trying. What is your point? Yes, it's not perfect, no it has not worked seamlessly, yes there is much more to do.

But I say again, though you keep ignoring me, we won't agree. I want all prostitution gone...making it illegal to buy is the only way to do this. You do not want it gone...do you?

And how about engaging with the other points, especially the HSE aspect? I've worked in care and before you even touch someone, you have screening, training, protective equipment, hygiene protocols etc. and usually worked in pairs. I consider that the bare minimum when coming into close personal contact with strangers. Can the sex workers demand the same? How do you think the punters would feel about that?

Sexworkers are less likely to report assaults under the nordic model as well. If making a report to the police and bringing attention to the fact you sell sex meant losing your home, having your kids taken off you or deported I would say that's a pretty big deterrent.

"with one of the goals being to support the women out of prostitution,"

Sweden are digging a hole for themselves with this one. With money being siphoned into policing, there is even less money available for support services.

"making it illegal to buy is the only way to do this."

Wrong. As long as there are humans, prostitution will exist in one form or another. No matter what the law is.

"You do not want it gone"

The next best thing to having it gone (which isn't going to happen) is to make it safer.

The next best thing to having it gone (which isn't going to happen) is to make it safer

I don't want the 'next best thing', I want it gone. Things can and do change. Don't be so defeatist or sure of yourself. And, no, decrim/legalisation doesn't make it safer...how many times!?

Sexworkers are less likely to report assaults under the nordic model as well. If making a report to the police and bringing attention to the fact you sell sex meant losing your home, having your kids taken off you or deported I would say that's a pretty big deterrent

Well, it doesn't mean that at all. That some fuck-ups have been made (and are tragic) does not mean the model supports that, it means it has been carried out wrongly. No one is supposed to lose their home or kids, yes they lose income from prostitution but the support is supposed to be there to help them replace that.

Yes, of course this is incredibly expensive and they are struggling to fulfil the remit.

This does not mean the model is wrong, it means it has been budgeted and carried out imperfectly. Loads of room for improvement.

What is wrong with you? Could you not have worked that out for yourself?

And now you are pretending you care about the safety of prostitutes. Please! Do you know what's the safest thing for them? Keeping all punters well away from them. Why should they have to work in groups in attempt to minimise the risk of rape and assault...why don't you support not letting the assholes who hurt them (I include ALL punters in this btw) get at them in the first place. You would if you cared about them.

Prostitution is not a 'necessary evil that will always be around', it is a choice by a punter to use someone and probably inflict damage beit psychological or physical. What you have to do is stop punters making that choice...that takes the law, but more importantly it takes a shift in attitude. That shift will never happen with decrim/legalisation.

I am never going to agree with it. Only those who want to use/be a prostitute or don't care about oppression of women do. Which one are you?

Why are they being criminalized (even in Sweden) if they choose to work in groups of 2+?

"Yes, of course this is incredibly expensive and they are struggling to fulfil the remit."

They would save tonnes of money and resources if they stopped chasing after consenting adults and stopped all the client court cases which fall flat when the workers refuse to testify against them.

"but the support is supposed to be there to help them replace that."

So despite scarce funding, the model is going to help them enter a non-sexwork related job that pays upwards of £100 an hour? Or (after being branded an unfit mother and having kids taken) does it get them employment in some minimum wage job 40 hours a week cleaning public toilets? (if I were to put I would put my money on the latter)

*(if I were to bet I would put my money on the latter)

If an asshole hurts a worker then she should not be deterred from making a report to the police. The best model for that is decriminalization.

"Prostitution is not a 'necessary evil that will always be around', it is a choice by a punter to use someone and probably inflict damage beit psychological or physical. What you have to do is stop punters making that choice...that takes the law, but more importantly it takes a shift in attitude. That shift will never happen with decrim/legalisation."

"necessary evil" is your choice of wording not mine.

The choice goes both ways... one person provides a service for money, the other person pays to receive the service. That's how a lot of jobs work.

When you know that that absolutely won't happen. That would mean that punters had to start thinking of these collections of orifices that they pay to use as human beings, and let's face it, they don't. You will never get a punter to discuss his choices sensibly, even if you can get them to actually focus the discussion on that, there is always a 'yeah but..' clause. Even when punters have taken the time to describe their experiences, they tell us things like, 'she was crying and worried, but I let her pet my dog for a while before I fucked her' and expect us all to pat them on the head!!!! You won't get a feminist dialogue about it, here or anywhere else, there is too much money, too many vested interests and too much male privilege sloshing about to make that possible.

saehisaj wrote - "So despite scarce funding, the model is going to help them enter a non-sexwork related job that pays upwards of £100 an hour?"

When did it become a human right to receive a guaranteed pay rate of at least £100 per hour for life?

Almost everyone is paid less than £100 per hour. They even manage to survive.

Not offering a guaranteed income of £100 per hour for life is not the same as consigning an exited prostitute to abject poverty.

Perhaps the Nordic Model should be changed, to impose a new tax: a tax on punters to fund pensions for exited prostitutes?

So despite scarce funding, the model is going to help them enter a non-sexwork related job that pays upwards of £100 an hour?

Dealt with this before. The vast majority of prostituted women 'earn' far far less then £100 an hour. The only place that all of them earn good money, or indeed enough money to be able to buy food, clothes, go out with friends, escape, is in happy hooker stories. We know that, for most, those are not true.

Just because the punter on this thread pays over £100 an hour for the women he uses, doesn't mean that they actually pocket that money themselves.

There's none so blind as those who refuse point blank to see.

www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/menshour

A different experience to that of Rebecca Mott linked to earlier.

"Perhaps the Nordic Model should be changed, to impose a new tax: a tax on punters to fund pensions for exited prostitutes?"

You mean fines? But to impose a fine we would need to get a conviction first, which from what we've seen in Sweden is extremely difficult.

"The vast majority of prostituted women 'earn' far far less then £100 an hour. "

On the street, likely. Indoor escorting, not likely (and indoor escorts tend to independent which means they have no pimps/agents/etc so they keep all their wages). I think you'll find those who sell sex prefer the term sexworker. "Prostituted women" is a term used mainly by feminists.

And if you want sexworkers who earn £100 or £200 an hour to leave their job to change to a low-paid but nice clean non-sex-related job which doesn't offend your morals, don't be too surprised if they don't want to leave and resist your "rescue" attempts.

@WhentheRed, what are you talking about?

Care to engage in anything else written on the thread?

Have you actually read the fucking thread?

All the pro-punter shit you just spewed onto the thread has already been addressed. It's all self-serving bullshit...you don't care about the sex workers you just want bodies available if you fancy an alternative to a wank. The way you pick and choose what snippets to argue with just illuminates your bias and ignorance.

Booooooooooooooooooooring.

You don't care about sex workers either. You like others just assume they all need "rescued", then campaign for dangerous laws based on your assumptions.