Where do you stand on banning the sex trade?

[PinkyofPie]

I'm a radfem but I have done very little research into the banning of the sex trade and sex workers, but I know it's a bit of a hot topic at the moment, and the likes of the (vile) Paris Lees is a champion for sex workers.

I can't imagine why anyone would think protecting legal rights for the sex trade would be good for women. Can anyone enlighten me to their views?

Men just have these drives, you know...........

Like... disk drives?

That is because the monks are Corrupt and grew Rich selling False Relics - foreskin of the Baby Jesus, anyone?

compares Sweden vs NZ - and safety:

www.feministcurrent.com/2015/11/03/remembering-the-murdered-women-erased-by-the-pro-sex-work-agenda/

Actually Vestal there is a sub section of MRA's that do exactly that called MGTOW or men going their own way. My understanding is the seek a complete avoidance of women.

Detestable... assuming that wasn't rhetorical...

Monks lived longer than other men because they got a much better and more protein rich diet than your average man. They weren't expected to fight anyone either, compared to the average freeman or villein, they lived lives of comparative ease.

Women, if they lived through their childbirth years, which was fairly fraught given that childbirth was even more dangerous to women than it is now. Plus of course, they were often either good with herbs or knew someone who was or were permanently pregnant. Plus they had to have attained a weight at which they were capable of maintaining a pregnancy. If they survived all that, they tended to live well into old age.

The most dangerous time for mortality during the high medieval period (and up to fairly modern times) was between birth and 15. Although even here, oblates tended to survive better than their uncloistered brothers.

If it was rhetorical, please feel free to ignore me.

HisnamewasPrince - that's a very powerful and upsetting article.

Can we add to the list: Daria Pionko, murdered in Holbeck, Leeds, December 2015, in the supposed "safe zone" the city council has been trumpeting as the most progressive and best thing since sliced bread?

Even more upsetting is the vote to "legalise the sex industry" in NZ was passed by ONE vote.

And so many left leaning, educated, intelligent, otherwise fairly "right on" people supported it (along with all the pimps and neo-liberals), on the basis that it was wrong to be "moralistic about sex". It makes me incredibly angry just thinking about widely these people MISSED THE POINT.

The private member bill was supported by the Green Party, and most upsettingly by the then current Labour PM Helen Clark - now one of the "most powerful women in the world" and in the race for being next UN Secretary General.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_New_Zealand

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/helen-clark-former-new-zealand-prime-minister-confirms-bid-for-united-nations-top-job

Hisnamewasprince - I don't understand how you think consent can't be bought.

Of course, any prostitute would withdraw her consent if the money was taken off the table.

She is consenting to do a sexual act for money, of course the consent is being bought.

Genuinely curious why you think consent can't be bought! (can't, not shouldn't - obviously you've made it clear you think it shouldn't be but that's not what I'm asking)

Maggie, I think it's the position that consent is only "true" consent if it is given unencumbered.

If you take the position that consent to sex is a crappily low and enthusiastic participation would be far better as a goal, then you can see how "true" consent can't be bought.

Take blood donations. If you are paid to give blood rather than donating through goodwill, aren't those two very different things?

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea consent can be bought.

If a punter agrees to pay £100, puts the cash down, sex takes place with no physical threats or violence but he runs off with the cash has she retrospectively withdrawn her conditional consent?

Has she been raped or is it theft of services (like doing a runner from a restaurant) or is it a sexual offence short of rape?

I don't know. Google isn't much help.

A crappily low bar, I meant to write.

Interesting question, lass. IIRC something like that happened in Texas...

I'm not sure I expressed myself very well, It wasn't meant to be flippant but meant to highlight what is wrong with the idea consent can be bought.

Oh no, that was the case where a would be John shot at a prostitute who took his money but didn't have sex with him. Ignore.

I didn't think it was flippant. If consent is conditional on a condom, condom removal negates consent. If consent is conditional on payment, does payment withdrawal negate consent?

I'm with you on buying consent being very problematic.

Logically the "it's just a job like any other " brigade should see it as taking services without paying - no different from doing a runner from any other service provider.

Which for me reinforces the view that consent cannot be bought.

Here is a decision by a female judge that not paying a prostitute is robbery not rape.

When is rape at gunpoint not rape? When it’s “theft of services.” | Feministe
www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/10/16/when-is-rape-at-gunpoint-not-rape-when-its-theft-of-services/

Maggi Rachel Moran explains it much better than me.
3rd paragraph here: banishea.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/rachels-rede-bei-femfest-2014.pdf

Basically consent without agency isn't true consent.

Think of a trafficked prostitute - is she actually consenting at any point?

What about a child who has been sexually abused and who ends up as a teenage prostitute? All too common scenario. Can she really consent?

What if you've had 8 punters and you've had enough for the day but have 4 hours left on your shift. Your John insists you keep working or there will be repercussions. Consent?

None of these scenarios are extra ordinary.

Lass that verdict is truly despicable

This deals eloquently with the consent issue.

Can we really consider "consent" as freely given in the act of hiring one's body out for sex? Is it really just like any other form of work? The trouble is, sex is not like anything else we do. If it was, then rape wouldn't have the special significance it does as a crime, and we wouldn't acknowledge that there is a particular and severe trauma associated with it

Selling your body is not selling a service, or selling an object. It is selling yourself. Prostitution is not a form of labour; it is a temporary enslavement, in which a man buys the use of a woman for a particular time. Of course, there's nothing temporary about it for the woman who is being used by 10 or more men a day

But as with slavery, the response shouldn't be to blame the victims. We would never punish slaves for slavery. It is not illegal to be a slave. It is illegal to have a slave, or to be a slave trader

With prostitution, when is consent not consent? - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/jensen-with-prostitution,-when-is-consent-not-consent/7363782

Add to that Prince, in places such as the ones I described earlier the clients you have to service in a megabrothel, consent?

I don't believe that consent is something that can be bought and sold. It's not a commodity.

Would you consider payment for sex to be a form of coersion?

Consider this scenario. Man says "Have sex with me or I'll murder your child" Woman says "Yes yes I want to have sex with you (to save my child)" this is coercion, therefore rape. Not consent.

Now consider the typical scenario that a woman is economically dispempowered, she's unable to find work or keep a roof over her head unless she finds something to do for money. Man says "Have sex with me and I'll give you money" Woman says "Yes yes I want to have sex with you so I can buy food and pay rent" Is this bought consent or coercion?

Women having sex for money are doing it because they need the money in a society that is not set up to favour women. They are not doing it for the sex.

The men get to choose, they go with the one they fancy. The women has no choice, she needs to work.

It's a grey area. Prostitutes do know that they will be having sex with someone but they won't particularly get to choose who.
It's a half consent.

I don't think it's half consent. It's not consent to sex if it is for money. It is a payment in lieu of consent. The payment is not for the sex. It's for the absence of consent.