Important debate in Westminster this afternoon about sexual exploitation and prostitution websites and

[R0wantrees]

THis was discussed on Woman's Hour this morning in an interview with Sarah Champion:
'As sex work moves online, are prostitution websites enabling a growth in exploitation and trafficking? Sarah Champion MP tells us why she believes UK legislation needs to be radically overhauled to keep pace with the changing face of prostitution'

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b85m8r

"Let’s criminalise the men buying sex, and spare the women they exploit
Sophie Walker (WEP)
A new report lays bare the brutal realities of life for sex workers in Britain. The law must now change to protect them"

amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/21/british-sex-trade-women

Lass I agree that normalisation of inequality is a problem, and actually I find the sexualisation (or eroticisation if that's a word) of inequality an even bigger problem.

However, I read Brazen's account differently from your interpretation of someone boasting of immense wealth. Plenty of professional women earn more than £1000 per week. Did I remember correctly that you're a solicitor? I'm pretty sure average solicitor salaries are higher than that. So actually it's not an obscene quantity of money, especially after tax. It's more than I earn, but my work is much less intense. But more importantly, I had opportunities and privilege that a lot of women just don't have.

If prostitution or other forms of sex work are a social problem, then it's not the women doing the work that caused the problem. It doesn't make sense to me to implicate sex workers in the persistence of sexism. I can see the argument for implicating their clients. But it's not as simple and straightforward as you seem to be suggesting.

Plenty of professional women earn more than £1000 per week

Actually very few people of either sex earn more than £52,000 pa. That is well beyond most people's earnings in the UK. And she was at pains to point out that that is for 3 and a half days so grossing that up to 5 days is over £74,000.

The average UK salary is £27,271. Even part time income puts her well into the higher tax rate bracket- in Scotland 14% of tax payers pay tax at that rate.

She has been white-washing and prettifying what she does and what her punters do- as far as I'm concerned she is colluding in oppression.

Crikey. That’s a lot of extrapolation from one very vague figure!

Lass, I don’t earn anywhere near £52,000 a year. I said I can earn £1,000+ a week, not that I earn that every week of the bloody year! (And I only work a total of about 7-8 months of the year..)
The point I was making was that I can earn a decent living without having to put in a huge amount of hours or have any qualifications. It wasn’t a boast at all.

A lot of the women I know in the industry are single parents, or carers, or have health problems themselves or are students. Being able to earn a good income and have flexibility and control over your work hours is a massive benefit in all these situations and there just isn’t an equal alternative for us. If there was, perhaps many of these women wouldn’t be in the sex industry.
These women aren't 'colluding in oppression', we're just trying to get by the best way we can.

For me, I’m a student (science) and being able to earn well while I study and fit my work in around my uni schedule suits me.
You appear to be painting me as some wannabe Belle de Jour so that you can disregard what I’m saying as being a ‘minority happy hooker’ account. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Street workers and trafficked women (i.e. the women who really need help and support) are actually the minority. Indoor workers like me make up the majority of current sex workers, and if you'd read any of the links I posted you would know that...

A lot of the women I know in the industry

That says a lot about you- that you can describe it as an industry.

You have been painting yourself as a wannabe Belle du Jour- you are still doing it- still boasting about what easy money.

You seem a bit confused though- a page back you were wittering on about your punters wanting a girlfriend experience- how it was all lovely coffee and chats- but apparently you aren't happy?

All you are doing is posting propaganda to sanitise and normalise the most exploitative human transcaction which exists. You are part of the problem. I didn't say "those women " are colluding- I said you are

Lass Your remarks about average salaries don't address my point, which is that many professional women are paid much more than the average salary. I'm not saying you'd have to take a pay cut if you were signed for Hibs, but successful solicitors tend to attract salaries much higher than median male earnings. Here's a Telegraph article that suggests, among other things, that a law degree from Edinburgh can get you an average salary of £93,000.
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/11554820/How-much-are-lawyers-really-paid.html

I mean, I'm a bit sceptical that all female law graduates with Edinburgh degrees are earning that much, but it does imply well over £1000 a week. This figure is high, but not incomparable with the earnings of many women in professional careers. However, access to law or medicine or other well-paid (traditionally male) careers almost always involves opportunities and privileges.

Still, as long as we have high levels of sex inequality it will be possible for some women to earn more than me (and possibly you) by engaging in sex work. This fact doesn't 'prettify' the sex industry; it exposes it as a symptom of a profoundly unequal society. Nothing pretty about a world where I could earn much more by performing sexual and emotional labour than by nursing or teaching or installing boilers. The people responsible for this situation are not sex workers.

You have been painting yourself as a wannabe Belle du Jour- you are still doing it- still boasting about what easy money.

If you perceive it as boasting, then there's not much I can do about that.

You seem a bit confused though- a page back you were wittering on about your punters wanting a girlfriend experience- how it was all lovely coffee and chats- but apparently you aren't happy?

Where did I say I'm not happy? I've been sitting here explaining to you what aspects of my job suit me and why I am happy doing the work I do. There is no confusion on my part, but do feel free to quote any contradictions I've made on this thread.

All you are doing is posting propaganda to sanitise and normalise the most exploitative human transaction which exists. You are part of the problem. I didn't say "those women " are colluding- I said you are

Ah, I get it now. You don't like that I'm speaking out and because I'm not sitting silently letting people who don't work in the sex industry put my safety and livelihood at risk then I'm 'colluding in oppression'.
My experiences and knowledge of the sex industry are not 'propaganda'.
I've been discussing what the likely impacts of banning sex work advertising websites would be and the impacts of the Nordic Model, making frequent references to rape, abuse, robbery and assault. If you think that constitutes as some kind of positive propaganda then you need to give your head a wobble.

Lass, genuine question, do you care at all about the safety of sex workers? Or is it more important to you that sex work ends regardless of the human cost?

It is certainly important to you that you can carry on being a prostitute and peddling the idea that it is an easy, convenient and flexible way to earn lots of money.

It is perfectly clear you have a vested interests in maintaining a despicable "trade" regardless of human cost.

I won't be coming back to this thread so don't waste your time writing any more pro-punter propaganda.

Cards - no idea what point you are trying to make comparing the salaries of women in actual professions with those of a , I assume "high class" prostitute.

Lass
no idea what point you are trying to make comparing the salaries of women in actual professions with those of a , I assume "high class" prostitute.

Really? Then you should probably do a bit more research into the material realities of sex work before you accuse sex workers of colluding with oppression.

Current thread:
OP QuarksandLeptons comment:

"Such fantastic news and real progress. The leader of the opposition has come out in favour of the Nordic model.

twitter.com/sarahchampionmp/status/1015603574829658112?s=21

This is real progress. Sarah Champion and Jess Phillips must have been instrumental in explaining why this model is needed to Jeremy Corbyn who had previously voiced support for full decriminalisation. Full decriminalisation legally favours the corporate prostitution industry (pimps and buyers) over the safety and dignity of the women who end up in prostitution.

The Nordic model is the name for a legal approach to prostitution where the woman (or man) selling themselves for sex is decriminalised and is not prosecuted. Support services are provided for people leaving prostitution. Pimps, brothel owners and buyers who make money out of or buy women for sex are criminalised.

This model is in use in Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Northern Ireland, Canada, France, and Ireland. Rates of trafficking drop when the model is implemented as it reduces the demand for buying women for sex.

More info here:
nordicmodelnow.org/what-is-the-nordic-model/ "

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3300217-Jeremy-Corbyn-now-supports-the-Nordic-model?

Thanks for that, @R0wantrees
This is disappointing but not surprising.

BrazenHussey doesn't sound boastful to me at all.

I support a family of five and I want my children to have nice things, like a comfortable home in a safe area and modest but nice holidays. The only way I can do that with my qualifications is prostitution.

I try to work one week and take one week off. Make £2,000-£4000 a week, before expenses and taxes. I'm proud of being able to provide for my family, but I'm not boasting about the money.

I only know other escorts like myself: independent and indoors. That doesn't mean that I think everyone is like me. But I think there's always going to be a sample bias. Someone working in law enforcement will see a very different sample.