Prostitution; help me argue on Facebook

[MrsTerryPratchett]

I'm arguing with a friend on FB about prostitution. She is the most libfem, choosy choice, libertarian person I know. Currently at college so every second post is about gender neutral bathrooms and the like. I almost never engage.

But her argument is that most prostitution is hidden and therefore we can't know that these workers aren't happy, healthy, free and consenting. I've given her the PTSD stats and the violence and rape stats. But she is insisting that these invisible women are all loving it.

Any stats on home-based, self-employed workers? Also, I know that people here have said that workers' organisations are frequently dominated by pimps. Where's the proof of that. And, former workers who are radfem/anti-sex work and have written pieces about it?

Sorry to use your labour

"Pirate are you of the opinion that women should be careful about being out alone late at night?"

Sorry sparrow, you've lost me again?!

Obviously when they are being increased in strength enough for people to OD then that's where the problem lies.
Well I disagree, plenty of people due through taking excessive quantities of legal drugs - thing of all the celebs of the past who died through it (oh and more recently Michael Jackson). Cocaine causes heart attacks, especially when combined with valium, alcohol or diazipam (legal drugs).

Just been following this argument and I can see points on both sides. I believe prostitution is fundamentally wrong and it should in some way should be legally restricted. The Nordic law should be considered. Moreover it's specious to define prostitution as a form of work like any other because it involves the monetisation of a person's body - not their body being utiluzed to legitimate social end like a builder - but the attachment of a price value to a person's - and generally a woman's - body. Politically and ethically, that is unconscionable.

However, we also need to accept that the Nordic law will not eliminate prostitution. Just as speakeasy's existed in prohibition America, there will be still be underground brothels. Child pornography is rightly illegal but the proliferation of it us continuing regardless. And I think for this reason we a broader regulatory structure - perhaps one that makes the advertising of prostitution illegal. That would not be criminalising the sex worker should she be approached by a buyer, but it would limit her custom. Furthermore, pay per view web cam sex has to be criminalized. Although not entailing physical contact, it is a form of remote prostitution, and if paying prostitutes is criminalized I can see sex work migrating to online platforms where it will assume new virtual forms.

But also, it has to be ensured that females in care, refugees, the urban poor and other groups of women vulnerable to becoming mixed up I'm the sex industry receive adequate social housing and economic security so they do not have to consider sex work in the first place.

There has to be a multi-factorial solution. One strategy will not work.

"Well I disagree, plenty of people due through taking excessive quantities of legal drugs - thing of all the celebs of the past who died through it (oh and more recently Michael Jackson). Cocaine causes heart attacks, especially when combined with valium, alcohol or diazipam (legal drugs)."

What's your point??

You know full well what I'm on about. But seeing as you are feigning ignorance I'll explain it.

If it's your view that we can't stop people from choosing to risk their health then surely it's fine for drug companies to pay people to take part in dangerous trials of untested drugs?

It's a simple question pirate. Do you think it's risky for a woman to be out alone late at night?

:facepalm:
Still talking about why prostitution is fine from the prostitutes perspective. Still ignoring the male entitlement that drives it. Ugh.
queenie I'm still confused why if you'd rather deal with cum and dribbling punters than diarrhoea and vomit, you think there's a lower risk of infection in prostitution than nursing, prostitution is also caring for the needs of people who AND it pays better than nursing, why you have given it up? Something isn't adding up in your narrative....

What's your point??
It is the drugs themselves that are dangerous - even when legal and regulated, people can take too much or in a dangerous combination and die.

Regulation doesn't make them less deadly.

I actually didn't know what u meant, as you didn't give any context to your sarcastic statement whatsoever. Clinical drug trials go on all the time so I don't know what you're asking/suggesting?!
In relation to do I think it's risky for a woman to be out at night - well in what context?! How long is a piece of string?
I personally wouldn't feel safe walking alone where I live in the middle of the night, but I live in somewhat of a "dodgy" area. Equally I would worry about my partner doing the same and he's male, so again I don't really know what your point is?!

Guardian - I agree with you so don't know what we're debating 😂 drugs can be dangerous if abused and not taken safely, but surely that doesn't mean we just think "fuc* it, lets not make sure they're less harmful than they could be". Surely having ingredients regulated isn't a bad thing??

So you don't feel safe walking alone at night, but you do feel safe going into a room alone with a stranger who wants to use the most sensitive parts of your body?

Quentin - I've never had to deal with a "dribbling punter" so can't comment on that. As I said on a pp - the lack of job security (no sick pay, holiday pay, maternity pay, pension), and it wouldn't have fit into my life long term - I now have a partner, my own home and a family :) that lifestyle wouldn't have gone hand in hand FOR ME. I also never said I "would rather" deal with prostitution than nursing. I have much more satisfaction and enjoyment from nursing.

Clinical trials go on under very strict conditions where participants can't be harmed. If it's your view that people can risk their health and we can't do anything about it, surely we should just let drug companies harm people for the good of medicine? As long as they choose to be harmed of course.

I just think that there is a lot more to consider in the idea of choice and where we as a society decide to draw the line on how much you are allowed to "choose" to harm yourself and others. Our choices do not exist in a vacuum and I actually think it is pretty terrifying to acknowledge the influence that culture has on our choices whilst we think we are acting with fully independent agency.

Quick example is women changing names on marriage. I am astounded by how many of my peers have either not interrogated this choice at all or have considered it and have "chosen" to take husbands name because they didn't like their surname or their dad was an arsehole etc. It's not that they are not valid reasons but it is convenient that the choice upholds the status quo and means an easier life.

Anyway there are situations where we legislate against the rights of adults to make choices because we believe it harms society. You could choose to work in a below minimum wage job and this will generally be because you are unable to "choose" a better option. It you are found out the employer will be punished because we acknowledge this choice is a chimera. You can choose to take drugs but if caught you will be punished because you are seen as having more agency here, although we acknowledge some people are deliberately groomed into taking drugs by dealers for financial gain.

It's sometimes very difficult to know where to draw the lines.

We decide as a society that children cannot choose to have sex until 16. some of my peers chose to have sexual relationships a year or two before that and I would say that some of those relationships were inappropriate and exploitative but others weren't. However the risk of the first situation is seen as so high that we legislate against it. Even whilst acknowledging that some 15 year olds can have consensual and loving relationships with each other.

I would say that my line is drawn around interpersonal exploitation. I don't think you can choose to be exploited as I think circumstances drive you towards exploitation and that choice is not a free one.

Sparrowhawk - yes. As I explained - I was working from a very safe location, with other girls. It was a gated apartment block, clients could only book in using a credit card and if at any point when we were working if we felt unsafe we could just shout and we had a group of people on hand (i never had to do this in 4 years, intact only know of 1.time a girl had to do this). The area I live in used to be a gun capital and is still overrun by gangs with thefts and stabbings happening regularly (hoping to move soon), so yes. I felt much safe when sex working than I would walking round my neighbourhood alone at night.

Surely having ingredients regulated isn't a bad thing??
If it were possible without normalising the trade and causing a greater proliferation in availability and use, then it wouldn't be a bad thing, but I don't see how that is possible. And the long and short of it is legalisation/regulation = normalisation = greater proliferation =more harm and more deaths.

Guardian - maybe the answer would be decriminalisation, rather than actually legalising then?

Really? You felt entirely safe allowing a man you didn't know to engage with the softest, most vulnerable parts of your body? Considering how many women are terrified of having a qualified nurse carefully put a speculum in their vagina for a minute for a possibly life-saving smear test, that's remarkable.

Sparrowhawk yes, I felt completely safe because I was (believe it or not) in control of the situation and what was happening.

"Guardian - maybe the answer would be decriminalisation, rather than actually legalising then?"

Possibly. I'd probably go for legalising some and decriminalising others. David Nutt has done a lot of work around the relative harm of different drugs and MDMA for example is much less harmful that drinking or smoking. Famously less dangerous than horse riding as well which is the statement that got him fired from the government drugs board!

There could be more science in our approach to drugs.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugscauseemostharm

maybe the answer would be decriminalisation, rather than actually legalising then?
How would that help ensure the substances were safe?
There's no need to change the law wrt drugs to make them safer, only provide people with education and the means to test if their own stash has been cut or is of unusually high purity- ie- you can take a harm minimisation approach as we are.

Tartle - absolutely agree, Professor David Nutt is brilliant. Ridiculous that he was fired, although not that surprising when people don't want to face facts!
Guardian - agree aswell, education is the absolute key to prevention / sensible choices, however sadly there will always be people who will just buy things and take substances with zero knowledge about them. If they had been regulated to a safe standard rather than just bought from their local dealer (who is probably the 20th person to pass it on), this would reduce harm?

'Sparrowhawk yes, I felt completely safe because I was (believe it or not) in control of the situation and what was happening.'

Utter bollocks. The entire point of a prostitute is to fulfil the punter's sexual wants. If she does only exactly what she wants, what's the point? The prostitute has to serve the punter no matter whether she's tired, a bit sore, doesn't really like that, whatever. Her wants are immaterial.