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?

So by that argument it is payment to rape.

I agree with this. But I can't see MPs or society at large taking this view anytime soon. Prostitutes are the ultimate disposable people in our society. It really seems that those in power lack the capacity to meaningfully give a damn about prostituted people.

The more I learn about prostitution the higher these issues rise in my "things that must change" list.

The Telegraph article that Lass linked to on page 1 is absolutely brilliant and I'd encourage everyone to read it. The casualness of the whole thing is shocking. Thanks for posting - best (worst) thing I've seen on prostitution for a long time.

Escorts display their services on their website.

For exampke I will provide OWO, CIM, A+, and full girlfriend experience just call me. It's £100.

I don't think you can argue that this is not consent to perform sexual services for money with someone, anyone.

However, the circumstances that lead women to end up in this position are probably not something women have consented to.

Girls sitting around in a flat all day waiting for the doorbell to ring know what they are consenting to by working on the premises.

If she didn't want to be there, she could easily get a normal job round the corner in that call centre or whatever. But... maybe she's damaged, or an addict, or under coercion by someone behind the scenes. Well who cares really, she's just a prostitute.

Word yes the article makes it clear that legalisation is a bad idea. So is making it fully illegal. There's no perfect solution, even our part-criminalisation approach has it's drawbacks. Nordic model has drawbacks. But the drawbacks are not as severe as you find under full legalisation.

Our approch in the UK seems to work for us, I don't see the sexists at Westminster even contemplating Nordic Model, though that would be great.

I worked with the vice squad in a large Police Force some years ago, things may have changed but I can say with personal knowledge:

Men were arrested and convicted for raping prostitutes
Men were arrested and convicted for robbing prostitutes
Men were arrested and convicted for assaulting prostitutes

We knew the girls who worked on the streets, we had good relationships with most of them, they regarded being arrested and fined as a cost of working and obviously if they were taken to court and fined the way they paid the fine was to go back out and work.

Girls were forced or coerced to work but equally for some it was a choice and for a few it was the family business.

Persistently soliciting was an offence, selling yourself for sex wasn't and I believe isn't.

Working out of premises does not constitute a brothel, more than one person needs to be using it to make it a brothel so if you want to "entertain" men for men in your bedroom then it is your business.

I knew prostitutes who paid tax, sent their kids to expensive private schools, invested their money wisely and intended to get out of the business when they had made x amount of money. I knew girls who used drugs and alcohol to enable them to work, who were abused by "boyfriends" and punters and were old women before they were 30.

It is a very complicated area and there really aren't any easy answers.

I don't think paying for sex means an absence of consent, the WGs I knew wouldn't accept certain customers, wouldn't perform certain acts, insist on use of condoms. If men later ignored those choices then it becomes assault/rape but the WGs were making choices and in general they seemed to feel those choices were respected.

Theoretically if we went down a route in society where there was a universal basic income would that take the destitute out of the equation?

I can see an issue where drug addicts could still find themselves in coercive situations, but surely the headline issue there is the addiction (for which we'd need to provide quality support services for).

My point is prostitution amongst a lot of other societal problems are also symptoms of a lot of other issues. If we tackle those issues some of the other thing dry up.

It could also be said if we allow free movement into the country we just import in a lot of vulnerable people ripe for exploitation. By all means invite immigrants in, but let's select the skilled who are unlikely to end up being exploited.

Part of the reason the super brothels in Germany are such squalid and horrific places is the ability to ship in waves of desperate Eastern Europeans.

Persistently soliciting was an offence, selling yourself for sex wasn't and I believe isn't.

Working out of premises does not constitute a brothel, more than one person needs to be using it to make it a brothel so if you want to "entertain" men for men in your bedroom then it is your business

That is still the law in the UK; primarily because other people who are neither punters nor prostitutes and who do not wish to be harassed or inconvenienced by the activities involved in prostitution do actually have rights too. It must have been bloody awful living in Edinburgh in a traditional tenement where there are shops on the ground floor to end up with the shop being converted to a "licensed sauna"

"Working girl" is a bloody awful euphemism on several levels.

Theoretically if we went down a route in society where there was a universal basic income would that take the destitute out of the equation?

It would, but we can't afford an universal basic income for everyone from Eastern Europe who wants it. And most of the prostituted women are immigrants.

There's drug habits, which are often caused by childhood trauma, which is also a predictor for prostitution. To prevent that, we would have to tackle sexual abuse of children. Not sure how that could be done better than it is at the moment, though.

Definitely, prostitution is a symptom. But it also causes the things it is a symptom of. We need to break the circle. Might as well start with prostitution.

Well hence my point about completely free movement. I'm not opposed to that btw, but I think it's something of an either or proposition between open borders and welfare provision. You can't have both on the grand scale.

As to universal basic income I agree it's going to be an epic prospect to implement it, but the thing is if we don't implement something like it we'll have to cope with huge numbers compared to now living in poverty which will also massively increase those in prostitution wether legally or illegally.

Note I'm not against full criminalization, I am very swayed by the arguments put foward that paid consent is not true consent. I just feel there will be more to do.

I've read through all these and I still think that paid consent is consent - because ,and this is the big thing for me - it can be withdrawn. (I'm talking about prostitutes who choose to be prostitutes not those who are trafficked). The prostitute can choose not to work that day, or decide she has made enough money that day so that's her last trick. And many prostitutes DO choose it - maybe they are financially constrained but they could make other choices as many many other financially constrained people do.

If she can choose not to work, she can choose to work and that makes it consent.

I know some prostitutes are trafficked/forced into it but that could be said of any form of slavery - trafficked migrants working in fields/ as housemaids or whatever. That's not what I'm talking about.

I don't think prostitution should be banned because although it's not a choice I agree with, I don't generally agree with making people's choices for them (eg I don't believe drugs should be illegal) UNLESS the harm outweighs the cost to personal freedom and for me, I'm on the side of personal freedom with this one. ie if a woman wants to sell herself, then that's up to her to decide whether or not to do it - NOT the government. I don't want to live in a nanny state.

Sorry if that's a ramble. Hope it makes some sort of sense.

Maggie, do you think people should be able to sell their blood? Bone marrow? Kidneys?

In the name of personal freedom?

I've read through all these and I still think that paid consent is consent - because ,and this is the big thing for me - it can be withdrawn.

Yes, and the type of man who pays to use women's bodies is just going to be totally up for stopping what he's doing.

Maggie I don't think what you have said addresses the issue. What you are describing is simply a decision whether short term or permanent to stop engaging in prostitution. That does not affect whether each individual punter has been freely consented to.

Granny mentioned dealing with cases of prostitutes who had been raped. Glasgow police for example make it quite clear paying makes no difference if the woman is being physically threatened or coerced and a prostituted woman can change her mind at any time.

However going back to the scenario I posited of a client who has not been violent or coercive , has not demanded any activity which the woman had not agreed but does a runner.Do you think the women who consented has subsequently withdrawn her consent and been raped?

"It'll never happen as she will always ask up front " doesn't answer the question. You think the cash makes a legitimate difference so you need to consider what the effect is if the cash is not paid.

More the other way round Detestable - someone would have to convince me of why someone shouldn't be able to sell their blood/kidney/whatever ...... a bit like those rent a womb surrogates in india should they be able to do that?

I'm not sure the argument against selling sex is strong enough for me personally to say that it should be outlawed.

We are getting into political philosophy now - liberalism/freedom of individual vs society etc. Which isn't a problem, quite nice to do a bit of armchair philosophy of an evening.

I've read through all these and I still think that paid consent is consent - because ,and this is the big thing for me - it can be withdrawn

I read Maggies post as meaning, "well today I won't bother as I don't need the money" rather than "I'll change my mind when I'm with a punter "

As you say most punters (and indeed the female judge in the case I linked to) are likely to think that's untenable

Lass - if a prostitute can refuse to work then she can refuse to consent so IMHO it is the same thing.

Put it this way, if she can stop - whether for an evening or permanently, then she can withdraw her consent, therefore in what sense is she not consenting?

Now maybe the brothel or sauna has a rule like, no customer must be left un served, in which case maybe she can't choose whether to have sex with that particular punter or not but if she doesn't like that rule she can choose to work elsewhere, or in another way such as on the street.

Its all about choices....

It was Flora who said it is payment in lieu of consent.

Maggie is it your position that if the contracted services were provided but not paid for a rape has occurred? Or should the woman's recourse be no more than any other unpaid service provider has? (Which I can tell you is report it to the police who will say "it's a civil matter")

If prostitution is just like any other job then do the rules applying to any other job apply?

If consent is only given on the basis of payment, and payment is not provided then I'd say in that case consent has not been given.

Sex without consent = rape

It is also an unpaid service.

Don't see why it can't fit both definitions.

Would the police/ a judge see it as rape? I don't know but IMHO they should

Consent definition

consent
kənˈsɛnt/Submit
noun
1.
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
"no change may be made without the consent of all the partners"
synonyms: agreement, assent, concurrence, accord; More
verb
1.
give permission for something to happen.
"he consented to a search by a detective"
synonyms: agree to, assent to, allow, give permission for, sanction, accept, approve, acquiesce in, go along with, accede to, concede to, yield to, give in to, submit to, comply with, abide by, concur with, conform to
"all the patients consented to surgery"

If a woman gives a man permission to have sex with her she has consented.

Don't see why this fails to meet the definition of consent just because money is involved. Its still permission.

Not payment in lieu of consent, but payment FOR consent.

I agree Maggie but often sex for money also fits the definition of coercion.

By that logic would you say that someone working in a 'normal' job that they hate, but need to do to put food on the table and provide a roof over their head is also coerced?

In that case most of the whole working population is being coerced.

If you wish to advance that argument I won't oppose you. However if you want to draw the comparison of "just another job". Then it should like any other job require protective equipment and regulations for dealing with potentially hazardous bodily fluids. This would require training and licensing as it would fall under public health.

Ah, this old chestnut.

If you think that an activity that leaves it's "workers" with the highest rates of PTSD of any employment including combat soldiers, highest likelihood of being killed in the daily line of work, raped in the daily line of work, seriously assaulted in the daily line of work is "just another job" then I'm sorry, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.