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.

On top of that all-too-familiar hypocrisy, I would still like anyone who supports decriminalisation to answer Lurcio's earlier criticism:

"If you have ever uttered such nonsense, ask yourself whether you then think such jobs should be advertised in the local job centre, whether a woman should be threatened with having her benefits withdrawn if she refused to take a job as a prostitute, ask yourself in what way her experiences (if she then "chose" prostitution over starvation) would be anything other than state-sanctioned rape?"

I suppose it is great that some individuals are happy selling their bodies. That is what you are doing, whether you like the term or not brazenhussy - or if you want to be absolutely precise you are selling the temporary use of your vagina as a wanksock. (I wonder if your dislike of the term indicates a deep seated dislike of what you're doing actually, but ignore my uneducated psychology if you like). In doing so and in calling for decriminalisation you are paving the way for state, or at least culturally-sanctioned abuse and rape of many others who have no other options in life. The sex industry is on the rise, it's becoming more normal for city folk to entertain clients with sex parlours and lap dancing clubs or so I hear. How do you square with that?

If you like substitute 'if she refuses a job as a lap dancer' rather than as a prostitute. I could see that happening sooner.

0phelia in fact Corbyn along with many organisations, including AI, are calling for decriminalisation, not legalisation. They are calling for no rules or regulations just as in Germany which would make prostitution the only unregulated commercial activity in the country.

BungoWomble - Obviously, sex work is extremely intimate and it takes a certain psychological make-up and attitude to sex to be able to do the job without having any negative feelings surrounding it.
Given the nature of the job, and it's incomparability with other forms of work, I doubt very much that supporting decriminalisation would pave the way to 'state-sanctioned rape'. To suggest it would is alarmist and, quite frankly, ridiculous.
I'd also suggest looking up the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation. The latter of which is not what I, or most other sex workers, support.
prostitutescollective.net/2010/09/28/decriminalisation-of-prostitution-v-legalisation-2/

Regarding the difference between the phrases 'sale of sexual services' vs. 'selling our bodies', if you can't see the important difference there, then there's not really much I can say to help you with that. It's a fairly obvious distinction.
Implying we sell our bodies is dehumanising, insulting and, as I said before, creates an incorrect assumption that prostitutes are selling our bodily autonomy when we are not.
We sell a service that involves sexual contact, and we offer whichever sexual acts we are comfortable with and with whoever we like.

Florafox - Sorry, but you're wrong in your last post. Germany enacted the legalisation of sex work. That is not what sex workers, Amnesty or Corbyn are supporting.
I think you have decriminalisation and legalisation a bit confused...
The only place where prostitution is currently decriminalised is New Zealand.

I strongly suggest everyone gives this link a read:
prostitutescollective.net/2010/09/28/decriminalisation-of-prostitution-v-legalisation-2/

I'm going to post a little quote from the ECP with another link, because I really think this is worth highlighting:

"CLAIM #6: Decriminalisation does not work.

FACT #6: This is not true. New Zealand decriminalised in 2003 with verifiable improvements in sex workers’ health and safety. The law removed prostitution from the criminal law, allowed people to work together collectively, and distinguished between violence and consenting sex. It reinforced offences against compelling anyone into prostitution, stating a specific right for sex workers to refuse any client. A comprehensive five-year government review found: no increase in prostitution, no increase in trafficking; drug users treated as patients not criminals; sex workers were more able to report violence and leave prostitution if they choose.[x] Legalisation (like in Germany, Nevada and the Netherlands) is state-run prostitution which sets up a two-tier system where the most vulnerable workers remain illegal. It is opposed by most sex workers."

The rest of the points made in this link are well worth a read too, and are backed up with citations:
prostitutescollective.net/2015/02/04/press-release-sex-workers-protest-misinformation-biased-press-briefing/

It is not a fairly obvious distinction, except as a word-play.

I do find it interesting that you yourself say that selling your body is dehumanising, but that your particular different wording of the same activity is not.

In supporting decriminalisation you are supporting normalisation of the idea that women's bodies are perfectly valid commodities for sale, therefore supporting the growth in the normalisation of lap dancing and other exotic clubs, therefore ultimately supporting a possible situation where a woman at the bottom of the social heap could have her benefits stopped - i.e. have her ability to pay for her living needs in any other way removed - for refusing to work within the sex industry. Which part of that chain of reasoning do you not agree with and why?

You are renting your body, then.

How's that?

Bungo - Words and their meanings in society matter. Being a feminist, you should be well aware of that.
But regardless, you're distracting from the main point here, which is the safety of sex workers, and which legal model will best protect the women (and men) working in the industry.

I don't view selling sex as being 'selling my body as a commodity', so I can't respond fully to your second paragraph.
But I will point out yet again, that you need to educate yourself on the difference between legalisation and decriminalisation.
The difference between the two is fundamental in answering your question:
"supporting a possible situation where a woman at the bottom of the social heap could have her benefits stopped - i.e. have her ability to pay for her living needs in any other way removed - for refusing to work within the sex industry."

That would not happen under decriminalisation. Again, I direct you to the two links I've just posted (which you clearly didn't bother reading.)

Barefoot - Very useful contribution there

"Implying we sell our bodies is dehumanising, insulting and, as I said before, creates an incorrect assumption that prostitutes are selling our bodily autonomy when we are not."

How have you managed to prostitute yourself for so long in the sex industry without ever seeing the pornography your chosen industry has flooded the internet with for several decades now?

I jest - I know you've seen what the johns who use women like you think of women like you, and I understand 100% why you chose to block that horrific, billion-dollar and very public reality out of your mind, choosing instead to debate feminist women online.

You trust we won't call you any of those disgusting names, which is the only thing that makes it possible for you to get your hackles up about how offensive "selling your body" is when spoken by women on a political forum board.

Eh?

You think "selling" is inaccurate - I can see that, because you retain your body intact afterwards, unlike, say, selling a kidney.

So I proposed "renting" as an alternative term.

You can disagree, but why is it unhelpful?

I'm a bit choosy about what links I click on on the WWW, plus I'm not over-blessed with time. I'm reluctant to click on a prostitutes net link to be perfectly honest.

Yes language use is vital, it is the tool we use to describe the world. But shifting one activity from 'dehumanising' to 'empowering' women is quite a jump to make. It further reinforces my impression that there is something dubious about the activity itself.

I don't think decriminalisarion's main point is about the safety of sex workers. It is also about the safety of all women and their rights, because the way in which one subgroup behaves and is treated will affect us all within the same society, so I reject your attempt to re-frame the question that way.

I have to admit I am not clear on the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation. Except as another semantic, plus legal game. The pragmatic differences on effects within society seems to be nil and no one's ever told or shown me anything to convince me otherwise.

Women in prostitution are uniquely exposed to rape, violence, sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy compared with women working in an actual workplace. Why would it be safer for them to remove all regulations relating to this commercial activity when every other commercial activity is regulated?

Women in prostitution cannot be made safe because the source of the danger is the punters.

sillage - The porn industry is not the same thing as the escorting industry. And my opinions on porn are not relevant to this discussion, which is about the UK prostitution laws.
But nice derail there...

I find it interesting that you choose to 'other' women in the sex industry by referring to me as "women like you" whilst referring to yourself and others here as "feminist women".

Believe it or not, I identify as being a feminist woman too. Or am I excluded from the club for being a hooker?
The difference between us, as feminists, is that my concern is the safety of all women. Not just those I personally deem worthy based on my own moral compass.

p.s. My clients have never been anything but respectful to me. I know that's not what you want to hear, but they treat me with more respect as a human being than many 'feminists' on this thread have done.

Bungo - Hahaha!

"I'm a bit choosy about what links I click on on the WWW, plus I'm not over-blessed with time. I'm reluctant to click on a prostitutes net link to be perfectly honest."

So you're just outright refusing to read evidence and educate yourself on the subject? The links I gave are to the English Collective of Prostitutes. They are a group campaigning for sex worker safety.

I think I'm done here.
I gave my opinion as a sex worker and that opinion was ignored.
My experiences were ridiculed.
The links to supporting evidence and facts are being ignored.

Many of you clearly have your minds made up on this and refuse to listen to sex workers, Amnesty International, sex worker charities and organisations, facts, figures or basic reason.
There is literally nothing more I can do here.

"I gave my opinion as a sex worker and that opinion was ignored.
My experiences were ridiculed. "

You were disagreed with,not ignored - ignoring would have been if no one engaged with you.

Your experiences weren't ridiculed, posters pointed our that many women in prostitution have had a much worse experience.

Your adamant refusal to engage with how industry pimps and johns openly prefer to hate women in the sex industry, which includes ALL forms of prostitution, is why the Nordic model will continue to expand into more and countries.

Because you either won't or can't, feminists will continue to speak about the men most responsible for hurting, raping, and murdering prostituted women - the johns.

My clients have never been anything but respectful to me.

If that is the case you are harming women who suffer violence and abuse from pimps and punters by trying to normalise prostitution and by advocating for decriminalisation which will fuel demand and expose more women to more danger. You cannot claim to have anything meaningful to say on behalf of the women who are subjected to violence in prostitution.

Re educating, I've seen Amnesty International's and other's arguments, I'm not convinced. At all. If I get time I'll see what I can find about your group before I click on a direct link which prior, possibly incorrect, assumptions lead me to expect will have porn and other unsavoury material linked in.

I liked the way you claim to have the safety of all women in mind, after telling me that talking about the safety of all women rather than just sex workers was distracting from the point. Trouble is 'all women' is rather a large class, but non-sex-workers currently outnumber sex-workers. Long may that continue.

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

Thanks for your posts Brazen Wishing you well.

"Patriarchy damages women. Can't feminists stick together on that?"

No.

Patriarchy does not have a penis to rape with. That's men.

Patriarchy does not have fists to punch with. That's men.

Patriarchy is an incorporeal idea. Men have bodies they frequently use to cause harm and destruction.

Men who use prostitutes are the leading cause of damage to prostituted women.

Lass decriminalisation isn't the same as legalisation. It'll never become a free-for-all

Opheliafor the avoidance of any doubt I don't really care which term you use. I do not want pimps, brothels , madams and minders to be legal nor for prostitution to be seen as just a job.

I don't want women in prostitution to pay tax. The idea that one in three times (or so) a woman in prostitution is used for sex is for the benefit of the tax man is just grim. It makes the state into a pimp

Flora Yes indeed but that would be inevitable if any form of decriminalisation/legalisation happened.

At present prostitutes are liable to pay income tax the same as anyone else except enforcement and assessment is problematic. If a woman is a legal employee of a brothel (or an employer in a brothel) then they will be in the tax system. It might be distasteful to take tax off such an employee but, it would be illogical not to. And deeply unfair to many workers in low paid/ dangerous / unpleasant jobs. There is no sustainable fiscal case which can be made not to collect tax.

The only place where prostitution is currently decriminalised is New Zealand

If we are going to nit-pick, that is not strictly true. Selling/hiring your body in private is not illegal in the UK. Soliciting, pimping,brothel-keeping and living off immoral earnings are illegal.

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

No - for reasons set out by sillage. And I do not agree that prostitutes do not damage other women.

Ok sillage so men damage women. Blaming prostitutes for men using prostitutes doesn't get anyone very far. Don't vulnerable women (including prostitutes) need protecting?

Lass there really is a difference. Decriminalization does not make it "any old job" and still lists it as an offense. Legalisation is completely different.
Goodness just RTFT please. Repetition galore here.