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.

Sorry - don't know what to say except Gosh how interesting.

Fantastic to hear form Kim who has simultaneously given me some solace and some further worries.

I now see how a non-representative group of women selling sex may have dominated the conversation (not through any particular fault of their own - but history is written by those that turn up).

The decision to sell sex in the current social environment doesn't seem to me to be a feminist decision. But then neither is wearing make up or high heels. Obviously their are degrees, but we are likely all guilty of propping up the patriarchy one way or another.

Is it crazy to completely believe it should be impossible and inconceivable to buy or sell sex AND that the best first step to achieving this is through legalization?

The decision to sell sex in the current social environment doesn't seem to me to be a feminist decision. But then neither is wearing make up or high heels. Obviously their are degrees, but we are likely all guilty of propping up the patriarchy one way or another

I profoundly disagree with this comment.

The problem I have with prostitution being ok and a postive choice for women like Kim is the view point that at the same time her customers are still despicable. It's illogical

Is it crazy to completely believe it should be impossible and inconceivable to buy or sell sex AND that the best first step to achieving this is through legalization?

Yes I think that is crazy. Legalisation will imprint prostitution with the state seal of approval, as a service provided by women for the gratification by men. In Germany, one million men go to prostitutes every day. Men currently wrestling with a desire to use a prostitute will receive a loud and clear message that it's hunky dory.

If you want to reduce prostitution, it has to be by tackling demand and sending a strong message to men that buying sex from someone who doesn't want to have sex with them is not acceptable.

Posted too soon. If the buyers are to be treated with such levels of disapproval how can it possibly be acceptable for the sellers to be involved in the transaction?

And no, I am not defending men. I am not saying we should not view punters as being exploitative and abusive . I'm puzzled at the notion a transaction so apparently wrong can be tolerated.

Flora absolutely spot on.

Still it does seem illogical but the rationale for the Nordic model is that so many of the women are victims of abuse (past or continuing), addiction, coercion or extreme poverty that they should not be further criminalised by making their participation in prostitution criminal. In theory, I would be fine with making it an offence to sell sex with defences available for abuse, addiction, coercion or extreme poverty however I think that could lead to vulnerable women being insecure in their position.

I think of it more like unlicensed doctors. It would be illegal for me to remove your kidneys but it would not be illegal for you to allow me to remove your kidneys. Not sure if that's a useful analogy.

It's useful in that you are identifying a situation where the "seller" is not penalised but the taker is. The difference is that it's a situation where we , certainly in the UK, would not contemplate anything which facilitated what the seller wants to do except in a very controlled situation for altruistic reasons.

And of course if the seller were willing to sell it's an act which is banned.

I wasn't necessarily considering or advocating the criminalisation of the sellers of sex (although logically that is where my argument is taking me) but simply the illogicality of it being legal and acceptable to sell sex but not to buy it.

I'm also a Green member, to let them know I fully agree with their current policy on the matter :)

"A political party can talk about legalising prostitution, and a debate can be had.
If a political party talked about legalising slavery, they would be insane."

Prostitution and slavery are two different things. In GB it is legal to buy and sell sex (with restrictions) between consenting adults, but there are also laws in place against trafficking and slavery.

"the rationale for the Nordic model is that so many of the women are victims of abuse (past or continuing), addiction, coercion or extreme poverty that they should not be further criminalised by making their participation in prostitution criminal"

Women are criminalised under the Nordic model if they work together. And the law can make them homeless, or get social services involved who might remove her children. These are things that happen under the Nordic model, but not decriminalisation.

It's the same in N.Ireland. Before the Nordic model was implemented there women would be criminalised for working together in the same flat etc while selling sex. The Nordic model did not change that.

Everyone in favour of the Nordic model always seems to over-simplify it by saying "it's legal to sell sex and illegal to buy sex" but always miss out what I mentioned above and in my previous posts.

Are those things necessary to it though?

I mean, it ought to be possible to implement a system in which selling sex is legal and buying it illegal, WITHOUT criminalising prostitutes who work together in the same premises. It's then reasonable to say one is for such a system, regardless of whether calling it the Nordic Model is strictly accurate.

I'd be curious to know WHY they criminalise sharing premises in Sweden, when the idea behind the model is supposed to be to protect prostitutes. Does anyone know?

No, fayyive, we don't ignore... we've responded to your 'points' before, you just did't listen. That's fine though. we get it, you're all about commodifying women's bodies for men. Quite how you can be when you read about how the majority of women are treated is beyond me, but there you have it.

Wackadoodle... it's to prevent anyone profiteering from prostituted women.

(Is it me, or are some people quoting others, saying they disagree and then going on to completely agree, and vice versa?).

I wonder if the debate is full of happy hookers because those who are unhappy don't want people to know we have done it.
And I did sex work in a place where it is legal and you know what it doesn't really feel all that great even if I was "safe".

In fact I wonder now if it hadn't been legal and advertised like a job if I would have ever gone down that road.

I don't have any evidence or facts but I imagine that social services get involved once the woman admits to being a prostitute - thinking it is now deemed 'acceptable'. High instances of addiction and drug use as well as strange men around regularly would be a huge red flag I should think.

I have done it under full criminalisation (where the women were easier targets for law enforcement and so more likely to be arrested) and I didn't see it deterring the many other women I worked with. It just made our lives that much shittier. And it compounded the problems of the most vulnerable. Having a criminal record for something so salacious doesn't help someone get a better job.

I guess the idea behind the Nordic model is that drying up demand will mean the supply just has to move elsewhere or find another means of supporting themselves. If the "supply" is women with serious mental health, addiction, or financial problems, then I don't think this is making their lives any easier unless the community is truly committed to helping them with their underlying problems.

However, if a community is seen as very tolerant of prostitution, then what trafficking there is will concentrate there. Goods will be moved to where they can be most easily sold.

I see various areas of concern that people want to address, and the means of dealing with them may be at odds with one another.

If our poster Kim put it as a career on her tax returns and then had children she might be flagged purely on job description, if you see what I mean? It's partly stigma but mainly the diversity of reasons behind people doing the job.

Sorry x post Kim!
Do you think then that we have the balance as right as we can get it at the moment? It strikes me that the girls most of us worry for are not in your position but can you see any real way their lives could be improved without profiting a pimp?

No I wasn't one of those. I'm not convinced either model is best or better than what we have. I sadly can't see a time where men won't buy women's bodies, much as I wish it could be different. Maybe the living wage doubled with stricter laws on trafficking and enhanced trafficking measures would be a start. I don't think having the living wage would deter Kim though and trafficked women wouldn't benefit at all. The only other idea would be to tier the workers from drug addict to independent worker but that is very open to abuse and enhances stigma.