Women who refuse sex work may lose benefits (Germany)

[wigglybluelines]

Terrifying.

Are the public in Germany behind this? (Surely not?!)

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.

She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit.

The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.

More here:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1482371/If-you-dont-take-a-job-as-a-prostitute-we-can-stop-your-benefits.html

Of course it sends the message that men should entitled to buy women to fuck.

What a bizarre answer :/

If prostitution laws are repealed, and prostitution is considered work how to distinguish it from other forms of work when necessary?

We should not be going down the route of legalising prostitution. Several countries have adopted the Nordic model and this is the route to go.

The SNP, in a rare moment with which I agreed with them, passed a conference motion 2 years ago that Scotland should adopt the Nordic model. A pity, unfortunately, that they have done nothing to introduce it.

However the fact they even passed it is good- having in the past thrown out a Labour MSP's private bill on its introduction and Holyrood having given serious consideration to Margo McDonald talking about legalising brothels.

This would be a much more productive conversation to have

Only if you want to throw in the towel. Which I don't.

Of course it sends the message that men should entitled to buy women to fuck.

It doesn't though. If I pay someone to clean my house does that mean I believe I am entitled to have someone clean for me, or does it mean I am willing to pay for a service I want?

Men who feel they are entitled to sex don't tend to pay.

BoglingToAswad

Yes it sends the message that men should have the right to buy women to fuck

So if you pay for a service you feel you are inherently entitled to that service?

Eh? Of course you are inherently entitled to use a service which you pay for. It is utterly bizarre to say otherwise. I spent hours shouting at BT that I was paying for broadband and BT should provide me with broadband. BT agreed.

It doesn't though. If I pay someone to clean my house does that mean I believe I am entitled to have someone clean for me, or does it mean I am willing to pay for a service I want?

You are splitting hairs to the point of rendering them meaningless.

I have paid for cleaners. I am "entitled" to pay someone to clean my house in the sense that it is not illegal for me to employ someone to clean my house.

We should not be going down the route of legalising prostitution.

Finally something we can agree on! Nobody wants legalisation. Decriminalisation, on the other hand, is an excellent harm reduction model.

Several countries have adopted the Nordic model and this is the route to go.

Only if you want to ensure that violence against sex workers rises, our working conditions get more dangerous and we get further marginalised.

If you don't mind that and you main concern is making a point, then it's probably the ideal solution for you.

Eh? Of course you are inherently entitled to use a service which you pay for. It is utterly bizarre to say otherwise. I spent hours shouting at BT that I was paying for broadband and BT should provide me with broadband. BT agreed.

Do you agree that you have a basic human right to broadband because you have paid by for it though? I doubt it.

The point is that one woman being paid for sex doesn't mean all men feel entitled to women's bodies.

BoglingToAswad Do you honestly think paying someone to clean your house and someone paying someone to fuck them are really equivalent services?

Are we actually conflating the commodifying of women’s bodies and sexual access to them with a housekeeping service here? I’ve fucking read it all now.

Decriminalisation, on the other hand, is an excellent harm reduction model

It is not illegal in the UK to be a prostitute.

It is illegal to operate a brothel or be a pimp. Are you suggesting running a brothel or being a pimp should be decriminalised?

I'm afraid I struggle to see the distinction between legalisation and decriminalisation- other than both serve the interests of punters.

Do you honestly think paying someone to clean your house and someone paying someone to fuck them are really equivalent services?

No, I don't think it's the same thing. I was using an analogy to make the point.

It is illegal to operate a brothel or be a pimp. Are you suggesting running a brothel or being a pimp should be decriminalised?

I'm afraid I struggle to see the distinction between legalisation and decriminalisation- other than both serve the interests of punters

There are plenty of resources which explain both models in detail. In all honesty though I'm not sure how you can argue against a system if you are not sure what it is?

Decriminalisation is about fully decriminalising sex workers, so we cannot be prosecuted for working together for example. It is not about pimps or sex buyers, it is about making sex workers safer.

There is plenty of independent academic research on this and I would urge you to look at it thoroughly if you want to make an informed decision.

Do you agree that you have a basic human right to broadband because you have paid by for it though? I doubt it

Eh again? Who said anything about broadband being "a basic human right"? What on earth are you on about? It is a commercial legal service which I am , to use your word "entitled" to buy.

Or are you suggesting that the right to be, or to access a prostitute, is a "basic human right"?

The point is that one woman being paid for sex doesn't mean all men feel entitled to women's bodies

You are spectacularly missing the point. Your choice of "entitled" is odd but sticking with it, if I get rid of my broadband I am still "entitled" to use it.

Another example I am entitled to have an over 60s free bus pass. I don't have one because I don't use buses. My personal non-use of buses does not however detract one whit from the fact society thinks all over 60s are entitled to free bus use.

It’s not an analogy, it’s a wildly overstretched false equivalence and you lost your point when you did that.

Decriminalisation is about fully decriminalising sex workers, so we cannot be prosecuted for working together for example

So you are in favour of legal brothels. I love the way this is always presented as "working together" We are supposed to think of 2 or 3 colleagues happily sharing a flat with perhaps an older retired prostitute acting as a friendly mother.

The reality is German brothels or a flat being used by a stream of different women doing shifts. throughout the day

SNOPES says this isn't true. There's also hardly anything online to suggest it is more than a theoretical risk at moment.
www.snopes.com/fact-check/hot-jobs/

There is plenty of independent academic research on this

No, there isn't. There is plenty of ideological academic wankfesting on this, funded by interested lobby groups or captured third sector funders.

MagneticSingularity
It’s not an analogy, it’s a wildly overstretched false equivalence and you lost your point when you did that

Isn't it just. Getting back to my free bus pass, I don't have one because I don't use buses. I still think I'm entitled to one. I've never met any one over 60 who doesn't think they are entitled to a free bus pass.

And I say "entitled in the sense of being legally entitled because that is what the rules are and morally entitled because of being over 60.

Society has determined that it is ethical and desirable over 60s should get free transport and the law implemented that ethical decision.

Or are you suggesting that the right to be, or to access a prostitute, is a "basic human right"?

The post I was originally replying to stated that men feel entitled to buy women bodies because sex work exists. I am attempting to point out that just because a service exists it doesn't change the perception that someone is entitled to use that service.
Obviously, as a sex worker, I do not think buying sex is a right or entitlement, and honestly I find that view to be quite damaging.

I apologise if anyone thought I was being flippant.

So you are in favour of legal brothels. I love the way this is always presented as "working together" We are supposed to think of 2 or 3 colleagues happily sharing a flat with perhaps an older retired prostitute acting as a friendly mother.

There is absolutely no need for the 'friendly mother' (or pimp) to be involved in that situation for it to be considered a brothel. If I were to work from the same premises as another worker and talking bookings only for myself I could be prosecuted under the current law.

The reality is German brothels or a flat being used by a stream of different women doing shifts. throughout the day

That's really not what full decrim is aiming for. That's legalisation, which is a different thing.

The post I was originally replying to stated that men feel entitled to buy women bodies because sex work exists. I am attempting to point out that just because a service exists it doesn't change the perception that someone is entitled to use that service

I am not clear what point you are making here. I really can't make sense of your second sentence.

If a service is legally available everyone is entitled to access that service whether they want to or not, or even if they never even think about that service they are still entitled to use it without justification or fear of opprobrium.

I am labouring the analogy but I am entitled to use buses free of charge. The fact that I personally don't makes no difference whatever to the moral, legal or ethical position of other free bus users or that society as a whole thinks free bus use is a good and acceptable thing.

@BoglingToAswad
How would decriminalisation help keeping sex work distinct from other forms of work when necessary (eg, allowing public programmes to help women leave sex work, not allowing sex work to be advertised in job sites, decoupling sex work from general working requirements for purpose of public assistance and welfare, outlawing offers of sex work to students, etc)?

It's irrelevant if unemployed women are forced into legal prostitution by the government when poverty forces women into prostitution. Most of the world's women live in places without unemployment benefits and with the men around them perpetually on the hunt for vulnerable female bodies. Men aiming to get away with rape by any means is the core of it, not official legality.

The real motivation behind this old story is to frighten middle class women with the same "let yourself be raped for money" option the majority of the world's poverty-stricken women currently face.

I am not clear what point you are making here. I really can't make sense of your second sentence

That's because, reading it back, it's complete bollocks! Apologies, I'm cooking and it came out a bit jumbled.

Just because I am selling something, it does not mean I have to sell it to someone I don't want to. The original comment implied to me that because sex workers sell sex, it makes all men feel they are entitled to buy sex from any woman. I find that attitude to be quite damaging. It is the equivalent (to me) of paying someone to clean my house then expecting any random woman to clean my house because the other one did it (is, ridiculous).

If a service is legally available everyone is entitled to access that service whether they want to or not, or even if they never even think about that service they are still entitled to use it without justification or fear of opprobrium.

But sellers don't have to sell to someone they don't want to. If I'm working in a bar I don't legally have to sell someone alcohol just because they happen to want a drink. Nobody is entitled to use my services simply because I provide them.

It's irrelevant if unemployed women are forced into legal prostitution by the government when poverty forces women into prostitution.

Exactly. If you want to get rid of prostitution (or at least reduce it), get rid of poverty. Until then, harm reduction is the only productive thing to do.

"If you want to get rid of prostitution (or at least reduce it), get rid of poverty."

My entire point was there would be no prostitution without men's widespread desire to exploit vulnerable women. Men could decide to stop using prostitutes tomorrow and it would end.

My entire point was there would be no prostitution without men's widespread desire to exploit vulnerable women. Men could decide to stop using prostitutes tomorrow and it would end

Yes.

And talking of damage limitation until that happens is simply introducing measures to make it easier for men and to remove the element of social opprobrium. Once that happens it won't be rolled back.

Of course a bar tender has the right (provided they are not breaching equality legislation) to refuse to sell alcohol to an individual customer. However, setting aside strict Islamist countries , almost all adults are entitled to buy alcohol with no fear of criticism or loss of reputation. The entitlement is the norm.