The greens and prostitutes

[IceBeing]

Be gentle as I am new to thinking about this.

I found the Natalie Bennett's comments on decriminalising prostitution pretty persuasive - what am I missing?

She basically said that sex workers would like this policy (having contributed to it) and that research from other countries indicated it was the way forward.

How the "Nordic model" affects those who sell sex:

• They are still criminalised if they work together (hence the Nordic model does not decriminalise selling sex outright.
• Risk of losing custody of their children
• Risk of losing their home, even if they own it

How the "Nordic model" affects those who buy sex (if they get caught):

• Choice of a (small) on-the-spot-fine or going to court.
• Out of everyone who has ever gone to court in Sweden for buying sex, only 2 have been convicted (after pleading guilty) and they did not go to prison.

So who does it affect worse?

There is also zero evidence the model has reduced prostitution/trafficking (Sweden views all prostitutes as trafficking victims and makes no distinction between consenting adults and those who really are trafficked). The only observation is that since 1999 the number of street prostitutes has halved (IMO that may also be to do with the fact 1999 was when internet for homes was just taking off, and as the internet became more popular a lot of street prostitutes would move indoors and take bookings via internet).

Here is a quote from a woman in Sweden, Carina Edlund, who sells sex:

“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.”

lauraslifeandthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2014_03_01_archive.html

I want women who are currently working as prostitutes to be as safe and healthy as possible.

I do not want men purchasing access to women's bodies (or anyone purchasing access to anyone's body for that matter) to be sanctioned by law.

Surely these two things cannot be mutually exclusive? I cannot vote green because of this issue in particular (plus others but this is a biggie) - in many other ways I am a natural green voter

They aren't mutually exclusive, they work within the Nordic model and people putting the exact same quotes into every thread on the subject don't make it so.

Sass's post was good too.

I haven't yet seen anything that persuades me that full decriminalisation (as opposed to criminalisation of just the person purchasing sex) is safer for women who sell sex right now. And I certainly can't see how legitimising the purchase of access to people's bodies causes anything but harm to women in future. We don't allow it in any other way - just sex.

"How the "Nordic model" affects those who sell sex:

• They are still criminalised if they work together (hence the Nordic model does not decriminalise selling sex outright.
• Risk of losing custody of their children
• Risk of losing their home, even if they own it"

So these things happen as a direct result of the Nordic model? And they don't happen to prostituted women in Germany or New Zealand where prostitution is de-criminalised or in Britain where prostitution is criminalised? Is that the argument?

How DO we go about achieving a society in which it is inconceivable to pay for sex?

Especially when you get the apologists for the sex industry saying but we're all wage slaves so what's the difference?

They say it's all very well for someone like me in a high status/ high earning job to think I'm not a wage slave but what about the cleaner / burger/flipper? Are their jobs any better than being a prostitute ? (er yes, they are)

I've had this argument before on MN. I'm not sure of the exact words to defeat it other than, it's nonsense. If anyone can't see the difference between being paid to clean an office/ flip burgers/ close a deal and being paid for sex then it's pointless.

Oh and can all directors and actors in art films like "9 Songs" and "Brown Bunny" please stop the nonsense about real sex in arthouse films being visceral, authentic, challenging etc. You are actors - as Olivier famously said to Dustin Hoffman " try acting dear boy it's much easier"

"Burger flipper". Lord knows what being a burger or a flipper might entail.

Prostitution is not illegal in the UK. It's only illegal to work on the street or to run a brothel. And a brothel is defined as any dwelling in which more than one prostitute works. So, two independent women who advertise individually but share rent on a two-bedroom flat are a brothel. A woman who works in a brothel is not breaking the law, but if one of the two women has her name on the lease and collects rent from the other (even if she otherwise has no input on that other woman's work) then she is running a brothel and breaking the law. In practice, this is very, very rarely prosecuted. Brothels such as massage parlours are rarely prosecuted, for that matter.

As an independent escort in the UK, I am doing OK with the current law. I rent a flat from which to work and work alone. Technically, if I were to share a two-bedroom flat with another girl, that would be a brothel, but that is not why I don't do that. Believe me, I would love the company but I would not risk a roommate for other reasons (reliability, increased footfall attracting the wrong attention, etc.)

I am not sure what my feelings are regarding sex work policies. I do know that I am not pimped or addicted to drugs. I like my work. I am happy to carry on as I am (which is to say, making good money, paying my taxes, enjoying my work.)

I watched that Chanel 4 program on the German brothels and I was not impressed. It is primarily down to protectionist thinking from a financial POV: I would rather not compete against so much cheap migrant labour. That's strictly a financial POV: I don't think I have the right to deny a woman who has the right to live and work in the UK to do what I do, but I benefit from being in a position to offer a more "exclusive" service because I can sort out a privately rented flat and advertise for myself.

In the past, I have worked in brothels. I have no problem with the situation at the time: I had full autonomy over what I did and the money I made. Management charged customers only for the opportunity to pick a girl and go into a private room, from which point negotiations were made and I controlled all of that money entirely. That is not the case with massage parlours in the UK, but was the case where I worked in the US. I looked into working in Nevada brothels but decided against it because it lacked autonomy: I couldn't always decline customers and I couldn't keep every bit of the money I negotiated. I like autonomy and dislike legalised pimping.

A few days ago I attended a sexworkers conference. I met with several other independent prostitutes there as well as politicians, outreach workers, and activists. I am not on board with all of their views. I think they are as likely to cherry-pick statistics as people on the other side of the debate and I saw little willingness to differentiate between different levels of prostitution, which I see as coming down to motivation and autonomy. That is, financially desperate woman, drug-addicted women, women who would simply rather make £50,00o a year over £20,000 and swingers who figure they might as well get paid for it. To attempt to state that these distinctions exist is dismissed as "whorephobic" or "whore-archic" thinking. That bothers me. To my mind, a crack addict who turns tricks, while sharing some concerns with the "Happy Hooker" has a primary problem with drug addiction. Economic migrants from impoverished countries have different motivations/problems than a university-educated "Happy Hooker."

I am a "Happy Hooker." I enjoy what I do and I have other options. It is true that I could not make the money I do any other way but I would not be destitute if I did something else. I happen to like this because having sex with strangers does not bother me and I can make a great deal of money. I like being self-employed, I like people, and I think sex with strangers can be fun.

I would not like to see my clients criminalised because I don't think that what they are doing is intrinsically wrong. I also don't think it makes ethical and legal sense that we can engage in an act and I am not breaking the law but they are.

Sometimes I wish there were less of a stigma to sex work, but really I acknowledge that the stigma is why it pays so well. If everyone felt the way I do about it, it would pay no better than any other menial work.

Thanks for that interesting post kim

I don't think there should be a stigma around sex work in the sense that I don't believe anyone who sells sex (with their own body alone) should feel ashamed or be seen as anything other than a person worthy of dignity and respect. But I do think that there should be a stigma attached to purchasing access to someone else's body when the risk of abuse, exploitation, the power imbalance and breach of bodily autonomy is so high in our highly unequal society. I don't know how to reconcile these things exactly, but i'm not convinced that full decriminalisation will do anything other than make those risks worse

But that is the problem isn't it ? Squaring the circle that it is OK to sell sex but abusive and exploitative to buy it. And abusive and exploitative no matter how high the price being paid for it is.

I think that answers my own question about prostitution not being a job like any other. An individual burger flipper/ cleaner/lawyer might be being exploited but that can be remedied. Every one using these services is not per se being abusive and exploitative.

The points made by Kim are interesting but for me prostitution is one the things which is an absolute. I made my mind up a long time ago on such things as being pro-choice, anti death penalty, anti- battery farming. There may be arguments made on the other side but I'm not going to change my mind on any of them.

The interesting thing about the Greens is how they can be ultra controlling and statist on some issues (most obviously environmental ones, but also workplace regulation, housing etc.) while practically libertarian on others (membership of proscribed organisations, drugs, prostitution etc.)

The debate about prostitution law is largely a conflict between preserving civil liberties and using the power of government to "make the world a better place". Traditionally political parties have tended to stake out a general position vis a vis this conflict that runs more or less consistently through all policy areas. So if you wanted to maximise liberty generally you could vote Lib Dem, and if you were willing to accept some nanny statism in a good cause you could vote Labour. (And if you wanted liberty but only for the rich, you could vote tory LOL).

But the Greens are unique as far as I can tell, in that they chop and change from one extreme of this spectrum to the other, depending on the policy area. The state-control-to-improve-society approach, which most people here naturally seem to prefer, DOES loom large in Green policy in other areas. So it would be a perfectly "natural fit" to apply to this issue if they wanted to. I wonder why they haven't.

I guess one thing that means is that if feminists wanted to agitate within the Green party for a change of approach to this, they might have some chance of success?

kim thank you so much for sharing your experiences, and I'm really pleased for you that you enjoy your work. My concern though (as a voter, feminist and woman) is for all the very very many women who really don't enjoy prostitution, and who are more likely to be WoC, migrants, drug addicts, have a history of sexual abuse and who are horrendously exploited. We are least likely to hear these women's voices, even though they should have the greatest say in this debate.

Happy hooker accounts tend to dominate the mainstream media, including the feminist media, and I think this is really damaging. Partly because it skews the public's view of the realities of prostitution and focuses on the lucky minority at the expense of the suffering majority, which means that those women are more likely to be ignored in government policy.
It also allows men who buy sex to ignore the suffering they inflict and so encourages them to continue buying sex, to the detriment of the women they abuse.

This is not to say that I don't appreciate hearing your side of it (and I doubt there are many johns who read MN feminist chat, so it's unlikely to make much of a difference!), but I wish the mainstream media didn't focus so much on the women who enjoy prostitution.

KIm, thanks for posting, however, as Rosie said so much more clearly than I'll be able to the 'happy hooker' narrative is the dominant one in news media.

When we hear from women who were coerced, trafficked and harmed deeply by their being prostituted, they are branded as liars, charlatans, the exception. I can't remember if the figure is 87 or 97% of prostituted women who want out of it, but why do we not hear their stories? I believe it's because they don't fit the happy hooker narrative and might make men who enjoy using women as paid for masturbatory aids feel... something. Probably anger at the women for wanting to be heard, if recent events are anything to go by.

I think we "Happy Hookers" dominate the discourse because we're the ones who blog, or read MN, or organise conferences, etc.

I am not sure if it is feasible to actually obtain anything like accurate statistics on prostitutes.

There was recently a study done by someone at Leeds University and the Guardian had something about it last week:

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/27/most-sex-workers-jobs-health-education-charities-survey

"Most Sex Workers Have Had Jobs In Health, Education, and Charities." That headline is just... stupid.

I answered that survey and I am pretty sure that the sample is a self-selected one of sex workers who read a particular support forum that is specifically meant to help independent escorts. That is how I found out about the survey. It was a computer-based, online survey. I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that this will bias the sample towards workers who have the means to learn of the survey and the inclination to fill it out. There may be value to data on that particular group of workers but as you can see, even the supposedly smart, educated people working for the Guardian are naive enough to come to the conclusion that this is "most sexworkers."

However, if you ask the police or women's shelters about prostitution, you will get an equally biased sample. OK, even Mumsnetters can need recourse to a shelter but I think it's as safe to assume that they are encountering a vulnerable group of women as it is to assume the Leeds study encountered a privileged group of women. I have a hard time articulating exactly what I mean, but I do feel that when discussing sex work, there is a distinction based on motivation. A "crack whore" will share several concerns with a "courtesan" but I would say that with the former, her primary issue is drug addiction with prostitution being just one issue related to that.

Obviously, women with little autonomy will not be heard as much as women with autonomy. Indoor prostitution can be much less visible, but they are generally the women who are more empowered to express their opinions and can do so more effectively.

My opinions on what I would like to see happen may often run contrary to what I think is just. For example, I wouldn't cry if the massage parlours in my city were shut down because they are competition for me and drive down prices and distort customer expectations. (Specifically, there is a parlour less than a mile from me where a man can get thirty minute's full service from an attractive woman for £35, and he can pop in with no notice. I can't operate that way.) However, I know girls who have worked in local parlours and there were valid reasons why they wanted to work in them. These women had a moderate amount of autonomy (that is, they could quit whenever they wanted but had a somewhat limited say in what they could refuse to do if they wanted to stay on the rota.) I have far greater autonomy because I am in a position to be able to sign a lease for a work flat and can manage my own business in a legitimate way. But not all women can do that for a variety of reasons and so it would seem churlish of me to say "If you can't work the way I do, then you can't work at all."

I'm sorry this is turning into such a long post!

The final thing I will bring up is that I am not entirely sure if everyone means the same thing when they say "pimp." I'm also not entirely sure if everyone means the same thing when they say "trafficking."

In my experience, by "pimp" many people mean anyone who makes money off the sex work of other people. If that is the case, then I have been pimped. I have worked in a massage parlour in another country. The owner charged punters a flat rate to pick a girl and go into a room with her and then we negotiated privately for sex, and the owner saw none of that money. I was happy to work there because it was a safe, comfortable, easy place to turn up and make money. I have also rented a room by the day from another prostitute in England. She was running a brothel and would therefor be defined as a pimp. However, I had full autonomy over everything I did and I was happy to pay her for use of the room.

In my experience, the pimps I have seen have been either emotionally abusive leeches (cock lodgers) or "players." The cocklodger pimp can be found anywhere: the women who are coerced or abused may work independently, at brothels, on the street... anywhere. "Players" are the classic stereotype of a pimp. That is to say, very well-dressed black men who proudly identify as pimps and stand around on street corners in America, boasting to one another about how hard their bitches work for them. It sounds like a caricature but I have seen them with my own eyes many times (I used to live in an infamous American red-light district). Again, the women who work with them - for reasons I don't fully understand - seem to have a surprising amount of autonomy in that they choose their pimps (status being linked to the status of their pimp) and have the ability to leave according to some bizarre code amongst the player culture. (I don't fully know how it works but I know that it is generally so.) If you are interested, seek out a documentary called Pimps Up, Ho's Down. You will never look at Ice T the same.

I don't know any parlour or agency owners, but they are also pimps - particularly as they advertise the women's services and rates and set the prices. As I said above, these women have full freedom to come and go, but if they want to work they must do so according to the rules set out by the pimp.

Obviously, the women who are enslaved and forced to work are hidden from us. Law enforcement encounters them but even they have limited access and what they look for and then report may be incomplete or biased according to various agendas that can shift with the times.

Trafficking is defined as "The recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act where such an act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age," (sharedhope.org/learn/what-is-sex-trafficking/) and can be confused with other, voluntary forms of economic migration. in other words, a woman from a poor country may be brought to the UK to work as a prostitute but the question is down to how much autonomy she has. I think it's fair to assume that her position (poor, in a foreign country, and unable to work without the framework provided by a third party) puts her at a disadvantage and ripe for exploitation even if she readily and knowingly signs on to be brought in and set up in a flat with an adultwork profile. However, it still comes down to her level of autonomy and women all over the world deliberately seek to work in foreign countries for a variety of reasons. We can't assume that every Eastern European prostitute in the UK is trafficked.

Anyway, I will sum up thusly: when I hear "facts" bandied about about prostitution, I am often shocked and think "What the fuck are they talking about? That's not my experience and I don't know anybody who has that experience." When I read "90% of prostitutes are trafficked, pimped, and abused" it literally sounds as bizarre as something like, "90% of the women on mumsnet are alcoholics." Obviously, my own experiences are such that I don't see all aspects of prostitution and I concede that much goes on that I never know about. But it would be pretty hard to prove that 90% of mums netters are NOT alcoholics and I am pretty sure that finding out the true percentage would present quite a challenge to those those who gather statistics.

Sorry - been off on another planet...lots of reading to do here!

In other news have joined the Green party! So now if you convince me the current policy is wrong I can try and get it changed from within :)

I'm a member too ice, with the same idea

Very interesting kim, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I do get quite uncomfortable, though, with the argument that there might not be as many trafficking victims as people assume. I've heard this quite often, and sometimes it's as extreme as claiming that feminists are intentionally lying because they're prudes who hate sex etc. (and probably fat ugly lesbians too! Obviously you're not saying that, but there are some very dodgy claims made sometimes).

Isn't it a bit like quibbling over the proportion of women who have been raped? Claiming that the figure is actually less than 1/5, and that recording rape is really difficult, and that most women are lucky enough not to be raped, and how do we even define rape anyway... it might be academically coherent, but I'd seriously question the motives of the person making that argument!

Kim on an ethical/legal point you raised earlier you raised the view that you don't see why punters should be criminized and prostitutes are not.

I would like to point out that you are in full control and knowledge of what will or will not harm you and cause distress. The punter is not.

Essentially nothing you do causes harm. However every punter the more frequently he engages in it the chances he's contributing to the suffering increase. Now it is possible to do a bit of mental gymnastics and argue there is no intent to do harm, and otherwise the chaps may seem perfectly nice, but this concept seems key to me.

We had a punter on here once arguing what he was doing was perfectly fine and raised an anecdote of how he had some young girl burst into tears as it was her first time and how he endeavoured to be sensitive and gentle, but went ahead anyway.

Now honestly this anecdote troubled me immensely. If I was in a similar position, and a potential sexual partner burst into tears that would be like a giant klaxon going off killing any potential for sexual activity in its tracks. The idea that story could come up in a "look at what a nice man I am" context is actually quite terrifying. I do believe he genuinely believed it.

For the record I am not conceptually against the sex industry, but the unequal gender landscape, and issues like I raised above make it a non starter for me, or at the very least when this topic comes up my thoughts are very much with people who suffer rather than those that don't. I don't particularly want see your chosen means of making a living taken away from you, and I don't see you are doing anything particularly wrong, but I really struggle to say the same of punters. Some may be genuinely unaware of the harm they may have caused, and that is obviously better than those who get off on it, but the fact remains harm is caused.

Kim do you have a link to the survey?

Thank you all for being so polite and civil to me. It is very encouraging. I had lunch at the sexworker conference the other day and we talked about this discourse and despaired at how things often go so horribly pear-shaped. One woman said, "I used to think that if they actually met me and listened to me, it would be fruitful, but instead it just didn't work and was like talking to a very angry wall."

I am not good at formatting so I will just quote questions and answer them without trying to call posters out by name. I hope that's OK.

"So, what would you do about the women who are only selling sex because they are desperate, or coerced or forced, or because they value themselves so little because of abuse, or because they see no other option? It's clear from what you've said that you don't like the abuse and exploitation in the industry.

And a second question, if that's OK? What do you think would happen if all the unhappy, abused, exploited women were able (and chose to) exit prostitution? What would the punters and pimps do? How would it affect women like you, who are happy in their work and in control?"

First question: what I think should be done is to increase resources and alternatives for such women. There should be continued outreach that is sensitive to their needs (i.e., makes them feel safe and not worry about shaming or outing). Basically, the same thing that should be done in greater abundance for all abused women, with specialised emphasis on the unique issue of prostitutes. At the conference were two representatives from English police forces (Merseyside and Leeds) and they had some fascinating things to say about their efforts to provide more practical support for prostitutes. Police obviously deal primarily with the illegal sex work - street and brothels so they deal with some very vulnerable women. First subject addressed was prior failings by the police to respond sympathetically and effectively to victims (blaming the victim mentality) and there was also discussion of the attempts to bridge the demands of community residents associations (who generally just want the public nuisance removed) and those of the vulnerable women. Independent escorts like myself still have particular concerns and needs regarding law enforcement as we are still vulnerable, particularly when we obey the law and work alone. There are schemes and organisations that attempt to help prostitutes. One fine example is NUM: National Ugly Mugs, which acts as a liaison between prostitutes and the police, helping women report crimes and also sharing information on dangerous punters via the Internet, email, and texts.

In short, I would say that what should be done is A) practical help for prostitutes who are currently working and facing unique dangers, B) policies that engender safer working environments, C) counselling and resources that help women exit sex work and/or abusive relationships.

Second question: What would be the effect on me if all the abused and vulnerable women were able to exit prostitution? Well, I think the effect would be largely positive. I am not sure what percentage of us are "happy hookers" who honestly want to do this, but as I said in my previous post: the less competition the better. The only possible downside I can think of right now is that I would have to screen out even more inquiries from clients whom I would not care to see. However, as I wrote that the thought occurred to me that if punters actually lived in a society where the only prostitutes available were the truly happy ones, they would probably have - or be forced to recognise - much less entitlement than many of them currently seem to feel. That is, some of them (not all of them) strike me as thinking that they should be able to have sex with any woman they choose for a relatively low price whenever they like.

Rosie, you wrote: "I do get quite uncomfortable, though, with the argument that there might not be as many trafficking victims as people assume. I've heard this quite often, and sometimes it's as extreme as claiming that feminists are intentionally lying because they're prudes who hate sex etc. (and probably fat ugly lesbians too! Obviously you're not saying that, but there are some very dodgy claims made sometimes).

Isn't it a bit like quibbling over the proportion of women who have been raped? Claiming that the figure is actually less than 1/5, and that recording rape is really difficult, and that most women are lucky enough not to be raped, and how do we even define rape anyway... it might be academically coherent, but I'd seriously question the motives of the person making that argument!"

I agree with what you are saying. I am suspicious of anyone spouting ANY statistics in such a highly heated debate. And I deplore ad hominem attacks as they are counter productive.

I am not sure that statistics really address the issue. Someone else upthread stated her position as being firm in her conviction that prostitution is wrong because our society should not engender the idea that men have the right to purchase sex, or that sex should not be seen as something that can be bought and sold. I like this argument because it seems pure to me and statistics have no bearing on it. You can attempt to have a debate over the ethics of buying sex, defining what that may or may not mean, etc., but the argument holds true whether or not it rarely happens or happens a lot.

I have no problem selling sex and I don't have a problem with most of my clients (this is based on my perceptions of their motives and attitudes) and so I'm not necessarily moved by the argument, but I can respect it and I'm willing to mull over the larger ethical issues at play.