'Bad Date and Aggressor' Sheet. Why we need feminism. VERY TRIGGERING.

[MrsTerryPratchett]

I dropped off some toiletries and so on to a local women's shelter today. I had to hang around because they were doing a shift handover. Eyes wandering, bored of waiting I saw the 'Bad Date and Aggressor' Sheet. Designed to keep the sex workers safe from rapists and men who rip them off. I used to have to type these up when I worked in shelters. Until I stopped because I just couldn't. The log books in the shelters have hundreds of these stories.

It is printed about every four days. This one was from the 6th December. There are 8 stories. 2 administered rape drugs (they have no memory but one woke up to a sexual assault), 2 rip-offs, 1 anal rape, 2 attempted sexual assaults, one assault.

This shit is so common. The chances are that none of these men will be reported to the Police (some chance considering the average sex workers experience with them). They will go back to their lives and possibly loving families.

All the NAMALT, whataboutery bullshit. It makes me so angry. When people talk about how prostitution is an empowered choice and men who use women in this way are just lonely and need 'love'. Just so angry.

[PlaysWellWithOthers]

Ah, so when the Scottish Government moved it's headquarters to Leith, it was unaware of the RLD there?

How is my knowing or not knowing about the presence of the RLD in any way relevant to either my post or this discussion?

You insinuated that I had called you a nimby. I demonstrated why we want similar things, but come at it from different angles. No accusations of anything, so why so defensive?

[BreakingDad77]

And anyway isn't there already a stigma on men who use prostitutes?

I would say not really, as I have mentioned before, pick up a free newspaper and you will find adverts, this gives it an air of normalcy. Not helped by the common, as seen earlier in the year we had another happy hookers, 'choose' this lifestyle. etc women doing the rounds on tv/radio.

[LassWiTheDelicateAir]

No accusations of anything, so why so defensive?

You appear to think my concern is only house prices. You mentioned property and houses prices as if that were the only reasons one would object to living next door to a brothel.

[VestalVirgin]

My priority isn't house prices. The safety and well being of prostitutes should not trump the safety and well being of women and children who are not prostitutes.

I seldomly agree with you, Lass, but I do agree with this. We recently had a user here who thought her right to prostitute herself should be above every other woman's rights to not be perceived as a piece of meat.

@MrsTerry: NAMALT is bullshit, anyway. Just because some dogs wouldn't bite me if I touched them, doesn't mean it's a good idea to touch strange dogs.
But of course, women are not allowed to be cautious. Only accused of "hating men" if we are cautious, and accused of not having been careful enough if we are raped as a consequence of trusting men.

[itllallbefine]

@vestal - that's an unfortunate metaphor and is what has so far turned me off feminism although I'm dipping my toe in this forum here for the 1st time, I find this view totally at odds with own experience of men, you would never get away with the same thing about muslims for example, and why stop at just men if your interest is in protecting people, would you point out that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crime that white etc etc. ?

Leith was always known to have an area where prostitutes solicited, however it was moved at some point to be in a residential area. No one wants this in their own backyard which is indicative of the general attitude towards prostitutes and men who use them in my opinion. It should also be kept in mind that men walking to or from work through these areas (or perhaps just going to their homes) would also be propositioned by the women - i heard of several colleagues have this happen to them on the way home, they may also be considered to be on the look out for sex, which does carry a stigma for "normal" men. I'm not sure how these things work but do they actually have sex in the "tolerance" zone - or do the punters drive them off somewhere followed by a pimp ? There were residents who "disturbed" prostitutes and clients in their gardens etc, it was terrible.

House prices have nothing to do with it I agree, a safe residential environment for children and a red light zone are incompatible.

[scallopsrgreat]

"you would never get away with the same thing about muslims for example," Muslims (or race) are an oppressed group (in the western world). Men are not. That's the difference.

[scallopsrgreat]

Oh and we never get away with saying "men do..." so I wouldn't worry. Class analysis seems to be not OK when talking about men and women.

[itllallbefine]

How does this work ? Do they gain points for being black and lose them for being men ?

[itllallbefine]

I guess where my beef with what (i don't even know actually so forgive me) I see is the position some feminists adopt, is that the women are just victims and that they shouldn't face prosecution. I think some women choose to do this and they should be arrested and charged for it, along of course with pimps, punters and every one else involved in the whole sorry "industry". The trouble is that there are other crimes that people do not get off with on account of being down on their luck or put up to it, e.g. drugs.

There was a plan here at one time to have the police turn up at punters work and arrest them there which i though was an excellent idea, not sure what happened to it.

[scallopsrgreat]

"How does this work ? Do they gain points for being black and lose them for being men ?" Really? You can't see the difference between talking about an oppressed group derogatorily and an oppressed group talking about what their oppressors do to them?

[itllallbefine]

@scallops I suppose i kind of think it's too broad a group upon which to perform practical behavioural analysis. There are ~30 million men in this country alone. I have never really felt oppressed either.

I've derailed enough, back to the thread (I hope). I think that tolerating prostitution to the extent that "escort services" are allowed to advertise in the press is also unacceptable and does normalise it to an extent. Either as a society we accept prostitution or we reject it, these grey areas and tolerance zones are a waste of time. I know what side of the fence i sit on. Arrogant as it may sound I don't really believe the women who say the are happy hookers either. I wouldn't say that they are engaging in behaviour that is harmful to all women any more than I would say that a rent boy is engaging in behaviour that is harmful to all teenage boys.

[itllallbefine]

to clarify - what i mean is that i don't think it should be banned just on the pretext that it is harmful to all women but I do agree with that, it is not helpful to anyone.

[scallopsrgreat]

Well how do you assess if a group is oppressed or needs protection if you don't look at it in terms of class analysis? No, not every man displays those behaviours but every man benefits from being in the oppressor class. If you don't think men oppress women then feminism is probably not for you .

I don't think prostituted women engage in behavior that is harmful to other women either. I think men engage in that behavior. Their entitlement to women's bodies and their violence towards women is what does the harm. I do think promoting prostitution as a valid "choice" is disingenuous and is harmful to women.

[MrsTerryPratchett]

I think the analogy with drugs is a good one, and (I know you meant it the other way around) one that illustrates some good points.

The reason some drugs are illegal are cultural. The reason prostitution is illegal is cultural. However there is massive harm associated with both, perceived to be prevented by being illegal, but actually not. Who and what are the problems; violence, trafficking, punters and dealers, rape, death, slavery, addiction, overdose. So why do we criminalise the victims of those things worse? And the more victim people are, the worse they are punished.

So prostitutes are arrested but also suffer massive harm and abuse. Addicts and growers are arrested and killed in some countries but dealers mainly get away with it. People die of overdoses.

If we want to stop the HARM rather than the activity per se (although I'd love to stop both altogether), we should work out where the harm is located and stop that.

[VestalVirgin]

If you don't think men oppress women then feminism is probably not for you.

Yeah, though I can hardly imagine how one manages to "never feel oppressed by men" as a woman.

I live a comfy privileged life, most men in my family are fairly tolerable, or at least turned out be be tolerable after growing up, but I still noticed sexism in little boys who wouldn't play with me because I was a girl, and I still get molested by men even though I am hardly ever out after 10 pm.

I got molested at job interviews with people who worked for my parents! (Long story, but what I take away from it that only interacting with members of a tightly knit village community isn't safe, either.)

How any woman with a normal social life has never experienced oppression is beyond me.

[MrsTerryPratchett]

How any woman with a normal social life has never experienced oppression is beyond me. I find this interesting. I want to listen to people's lived experiences and maybe there are women who have never been groped, hassled for sex, told they can't do something or discouraged from it because of sex, pressured, worried about pregnancy with an unsupportive man, been made responsible for contraception/tea/planning because they are female.

The one that I just can't believe is the lack of sexual harassment. I was catcalled, groped, pressured pretty much constantly as a teenager. But even as a chubby, boring, respectably dressed 40+ women I have been harassed by drunk men twice in the last year. And worried about turning them down.

[VestalVirgin]

I have never been groped, hassled for sex, had to worry about pregnancy or made responsible for contraception, because I am more or less a hermit who rarely ever leaves home, and made myself as unattractive as possible while I was still in school (I was still sexually harrassed, but without any real intent to get me to have sex with them)

But one still has to go to school (where there is a lot of pressure to perform femininity, among other things), go to job interviews, go to work.

Maybe a woman can be homeschooled, then go to a very progressive university, never go to parties or otherwise take part in normal social life, then go to work in the family business, and marry her childhood sweetheart without ever experiencing any of the ugly things men do to women, but she'd have to be extremely lucky.

When I remember the slimy primary school teacher who made inappropriate comments about a classmate, I really cannot see how anyone gets through the school system without noticing any such thing.

[PlaysWellWithOthers]

Fuck, I hate being right sometimes

But as long as naice people are ok, these women probably don't matter too much, eh?

[MrsTerryPratchett]

[VestalVirgin]

But as long as naice people are ok, these women probably don't matter too much, eh?

Wait, wasn't that what people were thinking before prostitution was legalized?

So ... how did the legalization improve anything?

[LassWiTheDelicateAir]

But as long as naice people are ok, these women probably don't matter too much, eh?

That's a bit of a leap- what are you suggesting? Allowing prostitution in residential areas? Why should "naice" people have to put up with prostitutes and punters?

And as Vestal points out this is a quasi-legal situation and has solved nothing.

[VestalVirgin]

I hope that Plays suggests that we get rid of prostitution by punishing pimps and punters, so that those women who are prostitutes at the moment can work in actual jobs and can live in residential areas without it having a negative impact on anyone.

[LassWiTheDelicateAir]

Yay, to that but all we seem to hear are proposals to make it easier to access women.

[LurcioAgain]

That Yorkshire Evening Post article underlines everything I hate about the "it's just a job", "women can choose" attitude. The safe zone has clearly done bugger all to make women safe. Quel surprise - street prostitution is clearly intrinsically unsafe - this much should be obvious to anyone with even half a brain cell. All you can do to make it safer is to criminalize the men - they're the ones carrying out the violence, up to and including murder.

And it also gives the lie to the choicy-choice brigade. No woman ever thought "yeah, walking the streets in all weathers, giving blow jobs for a tenner to a bloke who might strangle me while I'm doing it - that's my dream job". Yes, we sometimes do get independent women working from their own homes coming onto threads here to say they've chosen to do it, and I respect their claims that they genuinely have chosen this and don't mind it. (I disagree that society at large should allow them to make that choice, because their choice has very real knock-on consequences for other women, in terms of normalising and legitimising the idea that women's bodies are commodities which can be bought). But I simply do not believe that any woman chooses, in any real sense, to be a street prostitute - they are driven to it by poverty, alcoholism, drug adddiction and male violence (e.g. one woman I talked to had what I guess would be a typical story - lured into it by a pimp giving her free drugs, kept there by the threat of violence).

"Safe zones" are the biggest crock of shit going. There's nothing safe about it because there's no way you can make street prostitution safe. What "safe zones" actually mean is "here's a place you as a john can go and know you won't be done for kerb crawling", "here's a place we as police can ignore because of budget cuts while we turn our limited resources elsewhere."

[LassWiTheDelicateAir]

Spot on, on all points Lurcio There isn't really more to it than what you have encapsulated in 3 paragraphs.