Corbyn - "I'm in favour of decriminalising the sex industry"

[IndominusRex]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/04/jeremy-corbyn-decriminalise-sex-industry-prostitution?CMP=share_btn_tw

Not a huge shock but still troubling to see him say it.

The Nordic model says women don't have do the job of the police in protecting themselves and/or other women from violent criminals

sillage - Eh?

I agree with what 0phelia has already said (though I'm very anti-Nordic model, so our opinions do differ there.)

With decriminalisation, we'd be able to work in pairs or groups legally and that in itself would act as a deterrent to a lot of violent men who target the women currently working in flats alone. And it gives sex workers the confidence to go to the police when there's an issue.

The Nordic model has the opposite effect, making sex workers less likely to go to the police for help as we'd then be in a position of trying to protect our clients/income whilst keeping a low profile ourselves.

Did you watch the ted talk? Or read any of the numerous links posted?

Either way, in your hypothetical situation, obviously two women working together is going to be safer than one woman working alone...
Personally, if a man with a weapon was in my flat I'd rather have someone else (anyone else) here with me.

I have come to the aid of women under attack by men on two occasions.

Most times, an aggressor will desist and scram when they find it's more trouble than they'd thought. But, you're right - if someone is armed and very dangerous it is possible that even the two of us together wouldn't be able to deal with him. In any violent crime the police aren't right there to deal with it.

However, you didn't notice I said that I would do what she wanted to do. Under some models she may not feel safe going to the police.

So Brazenhussy, like Ophelia, has also never actually come to the aid of a woman who was being attacked by a man.

I have, and you better believe I paid for it in blood.

What if standing up for abused women were something you really did instead of a hypothetical thing you can only imagine that you might do?

There's a lot of evidence that punter violence decreases with the Nordic model and only speculation that it doesn't. Under decriminalization such as New Zealand's, capitalism wins and protecting the massive profits provided by male customer is a higher priority than reducing violence.

www.feministcurrent.com/2014/11/24/from-norway-to-new-zealand-pro-prostitution-research-is-its-own-worst-enemy/

Research carried out by pro-prostitution advocates in Norway says your assumption about prostitutes protecting johns under the Nordic model is incorrect. It also shows MASSIVE reductions in the worst male violence in just a few short years after the Nordic model was implemented.

www.feministcurrent.com/2013/01/22/new-research-shows-violence-decreases-under-nordic-model-why-the-radio-silence/

“Most of the women who said they would seek help to protect against violence said that they called or threatened to call the police when they found themselves in a dangerous or threatening situation. This would often scare the customers, or others, who were acting threatening/violent away.”

“A fairly large amount of the women said that there was little they could do to protect themselves against violence. The reason they gave for this was usually that they already did what they could, and that prostitution was so risky that it was impossible to protect yourself against violence. Some of the women who said there was little they could do, also said the only thing they might be able to do was quit prostitution.”

But sillage If it were only done in a German style super brothel presumably those lovely, ethical employers will provide some muscly hard men (who are really softies at heart) to protect them? And then it will all be fine? Just a job like any other.

You must remember the aim is not to make prostitution as ethically and morally unacceptable as say slavery, drink-driving or illegal dogfights - quite the opposite apparently.

sillage - I said I work alone in this job (mostly because I'm scared of being charged with brothel keeping if I have a friend in the next room). I didn't say I've never experienced violent men. I have, and am very aware of the hurt that can be caused by them.
That experience also makes me feel I'd rather not be completely alone with a potentially violent man. Another woman on the premises is preferable to there being no one.

Tell me, how many times a day do you find yourself worrying about being attacked at work?
Whenever I meet a new client, I have the niggle in the back of my mind that asks 'Is this going to be the one? Is this the guy that will end up stabbing me and robbing me?'
That's after 7 years of mostly good experiences, and a genuine love of my job. How do you think other sex workers, with less fortunate experiences, might feel?

It's easy for you to sit there and tell us what would be best for us when you're not the one doing our job.
Don't you think it's possible that we, sex workers, might know what's best for ourselves as a result of our experiences?

A sex worker in my area was murdered recently (might be nearly outing myself here but I'm past caring). She was an indoor sex worker, working alone, and only staying in my area for a few days.
She was strangled on her first night here with a rope tied round her neck.

The Nordic model would not have rescued her from that.

So you can fuck off with your
"What if standing up for abused women were something you really did instead of a hypothetical thing you can only imagine that you might do?"

and your proud proclamations about coming to the aid of a woman under attack.

We live this risk every day. And we do know what is best for our safety.

Brazen, that's exactly why I would like a system that reduced and punished punters!

Punters put you at risk, punters make you afraid. I'm not surprised, I would be too.

So wouldn't it be better if being a punter was both socially and legally unacceptable and women currently working as prostitutes supported (if support needed) to get other work?

No prostituted woman have been arrested under the Nordic model for brothel keeping. Here's where I ask you for any proof (news story, government record, etc) that a prostituted women has been arrested in Sweden, Norway, or Iceland for brothel keeping because there were two prostitutes living out of one residence. I have asked for this information before and no one has been able to show this has ever happened once, much less many times.

"Don't you think it's possible that we, sex workers, might know what's best for ourselves as a result of our experiences?"

Of course I do, which is why I relayed what the women who are in prostitution really do when faced with violent men:

"...the women who said they would seek help to protect against violence said that they called or threatened to call the police..."

None of them said they called out for another prostitute's assistance. I'll wager they don't do that because it's a completely useless thing to do when faced with the men who become so routinely violent against prostitutes because they are prostitutes.

Tell me, how many times a day do you find yourself worrying about being attacked at work?

Never. That's not really the point other than to flag up how unsuitable a job prostitution is.

Oh and of course there are plenty of jobs where such a threat does exist exist (e.g all emergency services, army, social workers, animal cruelty officers)

However we can't exist as a civilised society without them and/or they exist to prevent harm/make society better.

No one said prostitutes have been arrested under NM. The brothel keeping example was in reference to Partial Criminalisation in the UK. I agree this needs to change.

I have never "rescued a prostitute and paid for it in blood" as Sillage claimes to have. I have never worked as an Indy like Brazen. I have always worked in groups, because it is safer, and you share important information with your workmates, but I do it knowing the establishment may close down which happened a few times. So you find somewhere else.

I currently work with three women who have moved from Sweden (they aren't Swedish) because the NM was not working for them. They were discouraged from going to the police by their manager, by their punter, by their workmates, it seems to heighten patriarchy in action and female opression in practice, for many working girls.

For society as a whole though, NM looks to be a good answer on paper, because crimes are reported less, although still happening, and those looking for sex work or a sex worker go abroad to do it so occurrences appear to drop.

Many feminists willfully overlook or deny how some WG's are harmed through NM or Partial Crim. They prefer that to thinking Decriminalisation makes prostitution "Fine and Dandy" (which it doesn't). I understand the promblematic implications to wider society of DeCrim too.

As I am probably going to retire soonish, and after years of it all, while DeCrim may make it better and safer for WGs, prostitution itself is a harm to women. NM is possily better for wider society.

Ophelia, brazen - I can see how, if you start from the position that the demand for and active seeking out of paid for consent is immutable and cannot be affected by legal or social pressures, you focus on making the existing system safer for women working as prostitutes.

But surely the lower the number of men seeking to pay for consent, the lower the number of women potentially being put in harm's way.

And, generally, when people are told their behaviour now breaks the law, that behaviour reduces. Employers now mostly pay the minimum wage, for example.

Of course, a few won't care. But many will.

Hence wishing to criminalise punters to achieve the above goals.

"No one said prostitutes have been arrested under NM."

Too much has been written here for you to be this disingenuous now. Brazen says right above that she fears getting arrested for brothel-keeping much more than she fears rape and possible murder from a john, and that's why she works alone.

You claim "20ish years experience in total". You claim people like you can self-regulate the johns who use prostitutes and the pimps who own prostitutes.

However, in your self-reported 20 years in prostitution you have self-reported 0 acts of coming to the aid of a prostitute being assaulted. 20 years.

"They were discouraged from going to the police by their manager, by their punter, by their workmates,"

I am sure they were. I'm sure grisly tales of evil police officers who rape them and lock them up for years were brought out by predatory men, also shaming tales of how social workers and feminists judge and despise prostitutes.

Men lie a lot to get the control over women they want.

I find your use of "working girls" infantilizing, harm minimizing, and pimp-y.

What is the significance of whether or not we've come to the aid of another prostitute being attacked? I haven't, either. I suppose that that is because the knowledge that there are other people in the premises is a deterrent to a fair number of would-be trouble-makers so it's perhaps less common.

The stories I have heard about unhelpful law enforcement, health care professionals, social workers, etc. have all been from prostitutes.

You seem to be implying that we are lying or something. You are very hostile in your tone. To be honest, when you first used the word "wanksock" I did think that you were using it, yourself, personally rather than trying to illustrate what you assume our clients call us. It sounded as if you meant to be spiteful, like it was coming from a place of anger.

I don't know you at all, but I really get the feeling from the tone in which you are addressing us that you would be happy if we were attacked. I get the feeling that you think we deserve it because we aren't being properly vulnerable and grateful for your professed desire to help. I think you are very angry with us for not going along with what you want.

"I really get the feeling from the tone in which you are addressing us that you would be happy if we were attacked. "

That's an utterly unfair misrepresentation of her position.

I had to go back and look - I did have Sillage conflated with the other poster who called Brazen a "wanksock" and another who said that she would feel no sympathy if we had to see a less desirable class of punters under the Nordic model. There is a somewhat nasty, hostile tone towards us as people as much as towards our opinions permeating this thread. If we are not poor, vulnerable victims in need of help by women who assume they know what is best for us, then we are attacked as people.

And Sillage does seem exceptionally hostile, to the point where she's not really making entirely rational arguments.

I used the phrase wanksock as an example of punter mindset. I categorically did not call brazen a wanksock. Please do not misrepresent me.

08/03/2016 18:40 BarefootAcrossHotLegoPieces

"Prostitution does not damage women. Prostitutes do not damage other women. Patriarchy damages women. Can't feminists stick together on that?"

Men considering they have the right to buy consent, to rent women's orifices as wanksocks and to complain afterwards if said woman didn't seem enthusiastic enough about it, seems the very definition of a set of patriarchal actions.

08/03/2016 18:41 BarefootAcrossHotLegoPieces

"Blaming prostitutes for men using prostitutes doesn't get anyone very far"

I don't blame prostitutes, I blame punters and want punters criminalised.

And this one from me:

As is, I hope, obvious to anyone who hasn't got a vested interest in twisting my words, I do not think of prostitutes as wanksocks.

Punters do, and worse, and that's why I despise punters.

And brazen herself understood that, as per her post:

Also, the 'wanksock' comment in my last post was meant in a light-hearted way. I honestly wasn't attempting to twist your words.

We are on p10. These posts were on p9. Not far to check back.

I saw your later explanation of why you used the term. But when you first used it came across as your own voice. Perhaps you framed it badly. And I still think that you used it to try and hurt Brazen. To make her feel bad - like she's just a wanksock to her clients. Just because you are hurling the words of others at a target doesn't mean you're not attacking.

It's the first two words in my post - MEN CONSIDERING. Men are the clear target of my post. Did you read the whole sentence?

Men considering they have the right to buy consent, to rent women's orifices as wanksocks and to complain afterwards if said woman didn't seem enthusiastic enough about it, seems the very definition of a set of patriarchal actions.

Again, brazen understood it wasn't directed at her, hence her wink; my post after that was just to make very sure that my clear post was clear.

Once more, for the cheap seats;

I
Judge
Punters
Not
Prostitutes.

Barefoot your sentence would have made just as much sense if you had said "rent women's orifices".

And, generally, when people are told their behaviour now breaks the law, that behaviour reduces. Employers now mostly pay the minimum wage, for example

The smoking ban. It's unthinkable now of what life was like pre-smoking ban. We have a whole generation coming up who can't believe we used to have to share planes, cinemas , pubs, offices etc with smokers

Yeah, it would have made sense. It also made sense as I wrote it.

It ain't going to win a literary prize, but it was clearly a sentence about punters.

So, 'wanksock' discussion aside... though it's hilarious

(thank you Strumpet for your posts. It's appreciated, and your posts on the thread in AIBU are brilliant too.)

Lass - I have respect for your position with this, though I do think it's idealistic. To completely erase sex work from society would mean erasing the problems and circumstances that lead women and men into sex work in the first place. It's a pretty steep hill to climb so I can't see that happening in our lifetimes.

The reasons I got into sex work were the ability to earn large sums of money, quickly, without qualifications, and with the ability to control my own work times/terms/conditions whilst doing something I love (I genuinely enjoy the time spent with most of my clients.)

Would I still be doing sex work if there were another form of work that also ticked those boxes? Perhaps not.

But there isn't, and there won't be. This is why I, and many others, will continue in sex work regardless of which legal model is used.
This is why it's important to pick the one that will best protect us.

It ain't going to win a literary prize, but it was clearly a sentence about punters

It was a sentence about punters. But I'm afraid I agree it came across as in your voice rather than theirs. I can see why Brazen/Ophelia could take it the wrong way.

It was supposed to be the men's voice but it's not an expression I can imagine a punter using. If nothing else don't they see using a prostitute as proper sex not masturbation?

On that awful punter net site they seem to veer from the queasily polite "lady/girl" to outright misogyny of "slut/bitch/ tart". I don't think metaphor or simile are much used.

It was clear.

Brazen made a joke about it so I doubt she was offended.

And I made a further post to make it crystal clear.

Looks like Brazen had no luck in their search for one prostituted woman in any Nordic model country who was arrested for brothel keeping when co-habiting for prostitution.

"To completely erase sex work from society would mean erasing the problems and circumstances that lead women and men into sex work in the first place."

Not really, and your victim-blaming assertion that prostitution results from the "problems and circumstances" of victims aside, your dogmatically strict adherence to the hyper-violent and misogynistic status quo is noted.

Prostitutes in poverty, with drug addictions, or trafficked across borders do not in any way cause punters to seek out prostitutes. It's the other way around.

Thanks to all the goddesses that feminists don't share your selfish, "I get what I want, social change is too hard, nothing ever changes, oh well." attitude.