Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Confused about prostitution laws - it's basically legal, right?

76 replies

LadyBlaBlah · 03/02/2015 10:53

So, there are clearly and blatantly brothels advertising online and elsewhere.

An example is www.sandyssuperstars.com

It is clear that this is a brothel, you can pick from a menu of sexual services.

I thought this was against the law?

OP posts:
LMGTFY · 03/02/2015 11:01

As far as I am aware, selling sex is not illegal but soliciting for it is. Many years since I studied law though so things may have changed, especially with the Internet.

LadyBlaBlah · 03/02/2015 11:03

Brothels aren't legal though are they??

OP posts:
FloraFox · 03/02/2015 11:19

Brothels are not legal. I don't want to click on the link but there are widespread breaches of the law and very poor enforcement.

LadyBlaBlah · 03/02/2015 11:42

I put the link up just to show how blatant it is.

It's been there years.

I might just report it and see what happens.

OP posts:
BertieBotts · 03/02/2015 11:58

For those who don't want to click: The site states that it is "adult in nature". On the first page after clicking through the over-18 disclaimer, you see pictures of women in pornographic poses and outfits, some naked. Lots of reference to "massage parlour", a link to Punternet, and then on the other pages references to "services" offered, which are sexual in nature but use the kinds of acronyms found on Punternet. There is overt reference to kissing, though. Perhaps that's not illegal. I can't see any reference to actual sex acts, only implied e.g. "Full body to body massage".

I'm not sure - I think that it is probably one of those loophole things. I don't think that a brothel could advertise openly in a newspaper, for example. Although of course "massage parlours" can advertise, strip clubs (with the appropriate licence) and escort agencies, all of which are used as fronts for brothels.

Online is probably more tricky. While that site is immediately obvious about what services they are offering, it might be that the terms used are not recognised in law and hence are allowed to be used. And having pictures of undressed women on their site is not technically an offer of sexual services, although custom dictates that we assume this. (Of course you're right about this assumption, BTW, not saying that you're not - just trying to think from a legal standpoint.)

LadyBlaBlah · 03/02/2015 12:06

If you go on the Specialities link there is a delightful matrix for punters to pick a 'girl' based on what she's prepared to do.

E.g. OWO, CIM, A levels, reverse a, 2 girl scene.

They couldn't be more blatant?

I'm interested to see what the police will say. So I'll see.

Because it seems to me the debate around the legality of prostitution is a bit of hot air while the industry carries on regardless and the police turn a blind eye.

OP posts:
BreakingDad77 · 03/02/2015 15:17

I thought they go after brothels etc in terms of tax evasion rather than soliciting?

BertieBotts · 03/02/2015 16:18

Yes, but I was meaning that those terms might not mean anything legally. I don't know what half of them mean and although I'm sure I could easily find out, they are still slang or code terms - the company could claim that it's some name for a perfectly innocent massage. The acronyms in particular are totally meaningless even if they do stand for sex acts.

SardineQueen · 03/02/2015 19:10

I suspect that unless they have reason to think there is more serious illegality going on (underage, coercion, trafficking, or other gang related activities drugs, weapons, so forth) they aren't too concerned.

Or if they get complaints around noise / other anti0social stuff from neighbours.

My assumption would be this law is used when they want to crack down on a place for some reason, rather than the police actively looking to raid brothels as a matter of course IYSWIM.

That's my guess anyway.

cadno · 03/02/2015 19:12

Whatever those terms mean, its good to know that smoking on the premises is not permitted.

sausageeggbacon11 · 04/02/2015 17:48

Bertie strip clubs are not brothels or fronts for sexual services, at least in the UK, The no contact rules can see clubs lose their license so there are hardly going to encourage something that would lose them money. I am sure there are dancers that will arrange to meet customers outside of work but that can lose a club it's license so they are going to do their best to stop that. People still have their brains back in the late 90s where it was a different story by all accounts but with regulation not so much nowadays. Of course there are still those who will make that claim but their is no research that backs it up in the UK apart from one appalling bad Bindel report from 2003 to Glasgow council which having read I am surprised Glasgow council even paid for. Observation in a dark club is not what I call good quality research especially with so few results. I have had this conversation with my neighbour several times and she just finds that claim amusing.

BertieBotts · 04/02/2015 19:23

No and not ALL massage parlours are "massage parlours". Obviously.

Licensing laws or not, you'd have to be bloody naive to think that every strip club keeps to the no contact policy.

FloraFox · 04/02/2015 23:20

Bertie I agree. Totally naive. The women I know who have worked in strip bars have been very aware of which bars stuck to the no-contact rules and which bars did not. The women I know who worked in no-contact bars considered themselves on a rung above the women who worked in bars that tolerated it.

The hierarchies that exist among "sex workers" make nonsense of the "listen to sex workers" mantra. The ones we can hear are those on the higher rungs (e.g. escort workers) who may, or may not, want to go even higher into "management". The "listen to sex workers" mantra does not include women who work on the streets, who have abusive pimps, drug addictions, histories of abuse etc.

fayyive · 05/02/2015 01:40

In GB buying and selling sex between consenting adults is legal per se

Advertising sexual services is legal

Prostitution taking place in the street is illegal
Solicitation is illegal
Pimping is illegal
Running or working in a brothel (any premises with 2+ prostitutes, even if they aren't working at the same time) is illegal
Buying sex from a brothel I'm not sure about

fayyive · 05/02/2015 01:44

The homepage also has this:

"comments or questions? Click here to email Merv!
[email protected]"

I wonder if "Merv" would answer our questions?

FloraFox · 05/02/2015 07:31

I don't know what you mean by "our" questions.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 05/02/2015 10:21

Is "merv" an exited woman? If not, I doubt any of his answers would help, but by all means, ask away.... Hmm

PuffinsAreFictitious · 05/02/2015 19:05

Rebecca Mott is an exited woman, who writes passionately about her life. These are the only voices worth listening to.

Greysanderson · 05/02/2015 20:05

I'm not particularly invested in this topic but I am curious why is it only exited women's voices worth listening to? Are the women who are currently part of it to be ignored? Also if an exited women says something which you disagree with by talking about prostitution in a positive light would she also not be worth listening too?

PuffinsAreFictitious · 05/02/2015 20:16

As you're not particularly invested in it, it would be a waste of my time to rehash things that have been discussed on other threads, would you like me to link you to them though?

AICM · 05/02/2015 20:20

Out of curiosity I'd like the links.
Thanks

Greysanderson · 05/02/2015 20:25

Fair enough I just think it's odd that the opinions of those who do it are the ones not worth listening to, whether they have good or bad experiences.

links would be much appreciated thank you.

BertieBotts · 05/02/2015 21:43

I would say a good part of it is FloraFox's excellent point about the hierarchy. The women most in a position to speak out about prostitution and sex work are those in more fortunate positions. Therefore their views and experiences are not representative.

Women who are currently in prostitution may have employers to protect. They may be inaccessible to have their views listened to, because they are working illegally, have been trafficked illegally, are underage, don't speak English, or are hidden for some other reason. They may be addicts who are focused on their addiction and nothing else. They may be in a well known stage post sexual abuse where they are trying to re-write the narrative of their own sexuality and hence lying to themselves about their reasons for being in sex work (massive, massive simplification of the complex reality of that situation, which is extremely common.) The abuse might be prostitution itself or prostitution might be a reaction to previous, even historical abuse.

We know that women in vulnerable situations (care leavers, women in deprived areas, women leaving school with low or no qualifications, addicts, women with mental health problems or learning difficulties on a minor scale, not enough to be institutionalised, enough to make life difficult to navigate, etc etc etc) are more likely to go into prostitution or sex work than women in the general population. We have stats and numbers for some of these categories. Again, these "categories" of people are often less able to speak up, less easily found, their views less easily accepted by many.

That's just off the top of my head.

PeckhamPearlz · 05/02/2015 22:31

The bald statement "The voices of exited women are the only ones worth listening to" makes it sound like all the women who have not exited are worthless, and 'wrong'.

When I try that useful technique of applying it to other situations, like

"The only prisoners worth listening to are those who have exited"

"The only slaves worth listening to are those who have exited"

It just sounds wrong - oppressed people are only worth listening to once they've escaped oppression? Hmm

Would it not be fairer to say that "the voices of all prostituted women are worthwhile but you have to be sure that they are able to speak freely, without coercion or the negative influences of drugs or abuse, and in practice the only way to be sure of that is when they have escaped from that situation and recovered".

Not such a snappy soundbite, I know, but less likely to be misunderstood, I think.

MN really needs a 'sticky' feature for this kind of thing.

AICM · 06/02/2015 06:42

I suspect what Puffins really means is that the only voices worth listening to are the ones in 100% agreement with hers.