5 questions for people who advocate legal prostitution

[AskBasil]

genderdetective.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/five-questions-for-people-who-advocate-legalizing-prostitution/

Made me fink

[DadWasHere]

This is what I think many posters won't believe about a legalised trade.

I dont understand, its how it works, what is there not to believe about it?

[GarlicAugustus]

Munich & Amsterdam, for starters.

The criminal elements are not so easily removed. Cheapskate punters will have cheap prostitution, legally or not.

I'm sure I posted this an hour ago!

[JapaneseMargaret]

I can envisage a future without prostitution! It's one in which everybody is financially self-sufficient, in which 100% contraception is freely available...

So not in our lifetime, then? This utopia hasn't existed for as long as humankind has been around, and there is no sign of us reaching a place where it will exist... If anything, thanks to Internet porn, lap dancing clubs and the like, we are regressing.

...and where buying access to other people's bodies is considered revolting.

It already is, by the majority(?). It doesn't stop the demand and supply of prostitution.

I'd love to agree with you, I really would. But I don't see prostitution ever going away. For the fundamental reasons that I've already outlined. That men come at sex from a very different standpoint than women.

There are absolutely other areas where I see a sea-change in attitude, one day, eventually effecting change. Rape, for instance. The move from blaming the victim for bringing it on themselves, to putting the blame fairly and squarely on the the shoulders of the rapist. Not everyone thinks like this yet and we still have a long way to go. But attitudes are changing, and I can possibly envisage a future where women who are raped are believed, convictions go up, and rape stops being quite so prevalent.

Prostitution, not so much...

[FloraFox]

Sigh... things I really CBA with: men talking about legalising fucking of women who don't want to fuck them and pretending it is for the welfare of the women. Grim.

[GarlicAugustus]

Then our perceptions of why men hire bodies for sex are very divergent, Margaret. I believe a move away from rape 'inevitability' carries the seeds of a move away from prostitution 'inevitability'. I believe they come from the same set of attitudes.

It's interesting to see you've ignored the fact that women can and do enjoy recreational sex with no fear of unwanted children. Perhaps you're very attached to this idea about men & women having different sexual feelings, I dunno, but your rationale doesn't make sense in the UK in 2014.

[GarlicAugustus]

Flora

[GarlicAugustus]

I don't believe buying access to other people's bodies is considered revolting by the majority of men! How often have you heard of a man breaking the "what goes on tour" stag rule by promptly telling all the WAGS what their men got up to while away? Do we often see blokes arguing vehemently with their pals outside strip bars, explaining why they should find a different late-licensed place to carry on drinking? Do the hooker jokes told by the geezers in your local meet with resounding disapproval from the other geezers?

Thought not.

[DadWasHere]

Sigh... things I really CBA with: men talking about legalising fucking of women who don't want to fuck them and pretending it is for the welfare of the women. Grim.

You think it would not improve their welfare? Is a chance to strike at johns more important to you? Try the Swedish model then. I am not familiar enough with it to know the extent to which it can protect women, given its an odd notion to make selling something legal but the purchase of it illegal, but if it better protects women its a great idea, at least until you get around to inventing that magic wand.

Anyone have links to what the Swedish sex industry thinks of their model?

[sotavige]

@DadWasHere

Here is a quote from a Swedish prostitute/sexworker:

"Carina Edlund, Rose Alliance, Sweden, will speak about the increased stigma and discrimination resulting from of the 1999 Swedish law which criminalised clients.
“Before even thinking of a law that criminalises men who buy sex, UK politicians should hear from Swedish sex workers like myself about how we have treated under the law. We are still criminalised if we work together in apartments, we risk losing our home if we sell sex there even if we own it, social workers treat as like children and we can even lose custody of our kids because we are seen as victims suffering from a form of self-harm who can't take care of ourselves. This law should be taken away not exported to other countries.”"

from
lauraslifeandthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/sex-workers-response-stop.html

[sotavige]

scarletalliance.org.au/issues/swedish_model/Swedish_briefing/

More info here from the Rose Alliance and Scarlet Alliance (groups in Sweden made up of prostitutes).

Sexworkers (prostitutes) in Sweden can:

• lose their homes
  

• be branded as unfit parents and have their children taken off them
  

• be charged with "running a brothel" if they work together (under the Swedish model selling sex has not been decriminalised outright).
  

• deported if they aren't local residents (even if they are EU residents)
  

• cannot receive STD testing anonymously
  

Also:

-Social work resources are now scarce because attempting to enforce the law is so expensive.

-Human trafficking is seen as the same as consenting sexwork in Sweden. This makes it impossible to identify the women/men who really are trafficked.

-As for the clients: the clients who get caught usually pay a small fine and be sent on their way, and not one client who has gone to court has been sent to prison because sexworkers almost always refuse to testify against them.

IMO the Swedish/Nordic model has a lot of deterrents which may prevent a sexworker reporting a client.

I do not support this model, I support decriminalisation.

[lauranorder50]

Prostitution is not illegal in New Zealand. I used to live on the same street as an establishment named, 'JoJo Massage' their opening hours seemed to be 10am till late, as I would see the white (not red) flashing lights go on.

There were no kerb crawlers no drug dealers and no late night trouble.

I now work in an office on the same street as, 'Roxannes Bordello' I kid you not. Complete with the silouette outline of a curvy, naked woman. Pretty similar to what some trucks have on their cab. I walk past this establishment twice a day. Ironically, a second hands goods shop has moved into the ground floor retail space - totally separate to the business next door !

There's also another couple of adult entertainment establishments on the opposite corner.

BTW the street is the main thoroughfare to the centre of town.

[JapaneseMargaret]

It's interesting to see you've ignored the fact that women can and do enjoy recreational sex with no fear of unwanted children.

I haven't ignored this; I've acknowledged it in a previous post.

It doesn't alter the fact that as soon as you become sexually active as a women, you do run the risk of becoming pregnant. No contraceptive is 100%.

The only way to have 100% risk-of-pregnancy-free sex is either via sterilisation, or as a man.

As a sexually active woman, especially in the early years of experimenting with sex, pregnancy is an active possibility. For men, it's not.

Men will never fully understand what it's like to have sexual intercourse, knowing that there is a possibility, no matter how remote, that you might get pregnant and have to deal with the consequences. Just like men will never fully understand what it's like to carry an unwanted pregnancy and to want/need an abortion, nor what childbirth feels like.

For men, sex is just sex. It's fun, it's enjoyable, and assuming they know the right way to put a condom on to minimise the chances of STIs, it's risk-free.

This is the mindset of men, as a group, when it comes to sex. My opinion is that it goes a long way towards explaining why they feel it's something they can buy, in a way women (as a group) don't. Why don't women, en mass, buy sex, BTW?

Again, I do not support prostitution, and would love to think that it might be eradicated one day.

[JapaneseMargaret]

I'm in NZ, too.

I just googled the massage parlour in the town I grew up in, and it seems it's still going strong. Monterells. Same situation - no kerb crawlers, no dealers and no late night trouble, and they were open every evening. Possibly day time too, it's just that the flashing light-bulb sign wasn't as obvious. We thought it was hilarious as kids, but it must have done (and presumably still does do) a roaring trade.

I wonder who the punters were/are. It's a tourist town now, but it wasn't when I was growing up. You didn't get many out-of-towners at all so the clientele must have been, for the most part, locals. Right in town, but down a pedestrian street, so easy to be discreet.

[FloraFox]

You think it would not improve their welfare? Is a chance to strike at johns more important to you? Try the Swedish model then. I am not familiar enough with it to know the extent to which it can protect women, given its an odd notion to make selling something legal but the purchase of it illegal, but if it better protects women its a great idea, at least until you get around to inventing that magic wand.

Try the Swedish model? Yes please. No I don't think decriminalisation or legalisation of prostitution would improve the welfare of women in prostitution.

[CaptChaos]

Same old, same old.

DWH making it down to women to stop men raping them for money. The punter doing the same old copy/paste he always does. Next he's going to tell us that he's not one of those punters, he's a nice one, he talks to them, let's them fuss his dog so they stop crying for long enough to let him rape them for money. But they all love it, and are doing it to fund university courses in utter fabulousness.

Of course punters don't want the Nordic Model to be repeated everywhere, not because they give a toss about the women, because they really don't, but because it will restrict their access to those women and because it reframes the problem. It takes the problem off the women's shoulders and places it firmly where it belongs, on the punter's. Attitudes toward men who use prostitutes are changing in Sweden. It is no longer seen as acceptable to pay to have sex on women who don't want them to do it.

[CaptChaos]

No I don't think decriminalisation or legalisation of prostitution would improve the welfare of women in prostitution.

Agree Flora, it's certainly not working in Germany or the Netherlands.

The idea was noble(ish) but the experiment needs to end now.

[SolidGoldBrass]

This is worth a read.

[TheSameBoat]

Oh FGS. Decriminalisation doesn't work, criminalisation doesn't work, because by its very definition it's about pushing the boundaries of what women are prepared to put up with.

Look at porn, which has become boringly mainstream, so what happens? It gets nastier, dirtier, more violent and with more risk to women.

The only way these things will stop is when there stops being a demand for them and that will only happen when the men WALT start seeing women in a different light. And when the social stigma and physical ramifications of sex for women are removed, thus putting them on an equal playing field with men (as JM has finely pointed out)

I'm not holding my breath for any of those things to happen, although I would like them to.

[TheSameBoat]

"Not many people consent to work for free that I know of, why is sex a special case? "

DWH, the difference between sex and other unpleasant jobs is that if one day the benefits office insists that I get a job cleaning loos I may well be pissed off, but if they insist I get my kit off for a complete stranger and let him have his slobbery sleazy wicked way with me.... I will likely be suicidal.

If prostitution were a job like any other men would do it.

[AskBasil]

"Why don't women, en mass, buy sex, BTW?"

Interesting question. Leaving aside historical lack of economic power, stigma etc., I would hazard a guess that it's because women see men as human beings and the thought of having sex with a human being who doesn't really want to be there with you, is pretty horrible for most women.

Why isn't it for more men?

[TheSameBoat]

YY AskBasil. Plus we always have the cougar trope there to make women who do have the power to buy sex feel slightly ashamed and desperate.

For every Samantha there's a dozen Barneys.

[JapaneseMargaret]

Interesting question. Leaving aside historical lack of economic power, stigma etc., I would hazard a guess that it's because women see men as human beings and the thought of having sex with a human being who doesn't really want to be there with you, is pretty horrible for most women.

So what are you saying? That men and women are 'wired' differently....?

Or is it more likely that we're socialised differently? And if so, how, and why?

I'm sure it's the latter, and I'm equally sure it's tied up in the way men and women come at the act of sex from such different vantage points, as already outlined.

[TheSameBoat]

JM, I would guess it's mostly socialisation. Throughout history society has developed a whole host of rationales that increase the social consequences for women who have extra/pre marital sex whilst decreasing those for men.

Personally I think it started around the time that paternity became important, or when women and their offspring began to be seen as labour.

[AskBasil]

I think we're socialised differently.

Men are socialised to believe that women are there for their use.

Women are socialised to believe that men are human beings.

It's that simple IMO. Nothing to do with pregnancy risk etc.

[TheSameBoat]

Take the current one hailed as being oh so objective: that men evolved to be polygamous whilst women were just out to find a strong carer for their kids. Yawn....