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

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, I understood your point. That doesn't mean I have to agree that criminalising either workers or buyers is in any way productive.

I very much doubt sillage wants to criminalise prostitutes. I very much doubt any one on here does (although I have no problem in criminalising ex- prostitutes who turn their hand to brothel- keeping or pimping whilst calling themselves "sex- workers")

Criminalising punters however- I'm fine with that.

All you are suggesting is make it easier for punters; once that is achieved it becomes normal- just another job.

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.

So you would prefer to introduce criminalisation of buyers, which has been proven to make sex workers less safe? Is increased violence against sex workers (and the most vulnerable ones) an acceptable trade off to make the point that you think buying sex is wrong?

Criminalising punters however- I'm fine with that.

So you're fine with the increased level of violence that criminalising buyers brings? You're fine with the increased stigmatisation of sex workers? You're fine with significantly less sex workers reporting abuse to the police and accessing health care?

All you are suggesting is make it easier for punters; once that is achieved it becomes normal- just another job.

I'm suggesting a system where abusive men are held to account because attacks are reported. I'm suggesting you don't further marginalise sex workers. I'm suggesting a situation in which we are safer.

So you would prefer to introduce criminalisation of buyers, which has been proven to make sex workers less safe?

Proven ? I"ve seen conflicting reports on that.

Is increased violence against sex workers (and the most vulnerable ones) an acceptable trade off to make the point that you think buying sex is wrong?

I don't accept the Nordic model does that. However it doesn't alter the fact all you are suggesting is make life easier for punters.

Proven ? I"ve seen conflicting reports on that.

I imagine you have seen conflicting opinions, but the facts speak for themselves.

I don't accept the Nordic model does that. However it doesn't alter the fact all you are suggesting is make life easier for punters

How exactly? Decriminalisation won't have much impact on them at all. The legal status of paying for sex will be the same.

In any case, I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about sex workers. Please, please look at some independent research on what the Nordic model does.

"So you're fine with the increased level of violence that criminalising buyers brings?"

Men who pay for sex are the ones brutalizing and murdering prostitutes, therefore it's extortion to say men who are already harming prostitutes will vindictively harm them much more unless their demands for cheap, unlimited access to women are met without resistance.

"attacks are reported"

You know what's even better than filing reports of prostitute-using men committing rape, strangulation, stabbings, burnings, and beatings? Women not being raped, strangled, stabbed, burnt, or beaten in the first place.

Men who pay for sex are the ones brutalizing and murdering prostitutes, therefore it's extortion to say men who are already harming prostitutes will vindictively harm them much more unless their demands for cheap, unlimited access to women are met without resistance.

By creating a buyer's market you reduce a sex workers ability to screen. Not only do the known dangerous men get through, but it attracts those who know they are not likely to be reported, especially when the sex worker is working in illegal circumstances (for instance from the same premises as another worker). It is not a case of non-violent men suddenly turning violent because of a change in the law, it is because the law creates a situation where they have access to vulnerable workers.

Since you have washed your hands of this, I will assume you have no problem with removing the few protections that we currently have.

You know what's even better than filing reports of prostitute-using men committing rape, strangulation, stabbings, burnings, and beatings? Women not being raped, strangled, stabbed, burnt, or beaten in the first place.

I agree. But how do you propose to stop male violence towards sex workers considering criminalising buyers increases violence, and doesn't reduce the amount of sex workers?

Decrim area in leeds is a nightmare

For women working living there

Recent story woman kidnapped off street raped by 2 men. They said we assumed she was a prostitute so it's fine. Police said OK yep.

Shortened version.

Idea that decrim /legalisation will make police, criminal justice system work better for prostitutes is ludicrous tbh. Its hard enough for any women to get justice atound abuse by men, and women who work as prostitutes are even less likely for a host of reasons.

Bogling let's see your stats.

Number of attacks could be down in total but increased % due to overall number of women working as prostitutes being fewer (as demand has decreased).

If you think decrim will automatically bring more protection, police taking seriously, reduction in trafficking, street work etc you are mistaken.

These things can all be done under under any model that does not criminaluse women, they are societal social taxpayer etc.

Prostitution is not currently illegal in UK.

All that will happen is demand will go up, as the social stigma reduces. Of course for part of the 'Sex industry' mainstreaming it is very very desirable. And has nothing to do with looking out for women and girls.

Will admit I haven't had time to read all posts but can see others have pointed out that this is an old article and never verified at the time.

And at that time staff at Job Centres in the UK worked with women's groups to make sure work in the "sex industry" (including telephone sex etc.) were not seen as acceptable jobs.

However as things are now this is the relevant issue that too many women on benefits / universal credit cant survive and with social attitudes towards women prostituting themselves too many see this as the only alternative. There was an inquiry earlier this year www.theweek.co.uk/100287/survival-sex-inquiry-launched-as-benefit-claimants-say-they-are-forced-into-prostitution

And the problem is that what was Wages for Housework and is now Global Women's Strike through on of their many sub groups (usually the same 3 women) the English Collective of Prostitutes and nearly always the group consulted by MPs etc. (in the same way as Stonewall if the go to group for MPs). And they say we should be supportive of women prostituting themselves to feed their children, but as far as I know have never campaigned for better paid and secure jobs for women with children.

Worth noting that all these groups are part of the same politics crossroadswomen.net/groups

Decrim area in leeds is a nightmare

For women working living there

It is a nightmare for women, children and decent men living there.

I really don’t know what the right thing is here, and wouldn’t pretend to. I know I just do not want to see German style super brothels in the UK, and as a man I don’t feel the right to pay for sex is a right I feel I should have.

However I don’t think we do enough to protect women working in prostitution. I am given to understand it’s an incredibly dangerous job at times, and I think we skirt around the issue a bit. It is illegal to beat up, stab, rape and murder women. Why is this such a fucking hard thing to police?

Wether women are working illegally is surely a lesser crime than actual bodily harm and loss of life? Surely everyone can agree women being beaten, raped and murdered can agree that’s a bad thing? There comes a point where I think we get so caught up in the debate on wether sex work is morally right (and like I said I have no idea I’m not a moral philosopher) but I know physical violence and murder are as wrong as it’s possible to be. Why can’t they be the focus of this debate?

All good points Dervel

"Surely everyone can agree women being beaten, raped and murdered can agree that's a bad thing?"

If they stopped this on prostitutes - our society would be giving them better protection then ordinary mothers and wives.

"About every 16 hours, a woman is shot and killed by a former or current partner in the USA.

In the United States, more than one in three women report experiencing abuse from a partner in their lifetime.1 The effects of this abuse are far-reaching, impacting not only individual victims, but also their families, their communities, and our economy. When domestic abusers have access to guns, the effects can be deadly. This nexus between guns and domestic violence makes the US the most dangerous country for women compared to other high-income countries."

USA is no worse then any other Country as far violence and rape against non- prostitute women is concerned.

I don't know any sex worker who would describe a pimp as a sex worker (unless they were also having sex for money). I've also never heard a pimp say it. I'm not sure where you have heard this.

You're not very well-informed then are you? Douglas Fox, a pimp who helped write Amnesty International's policy on prostitution (decriminalise pimps and johns) called himself a "sex worker" and was an activist for the IUSW:

toomuchtosayformyself.com/2014/02/07/what-you-call-pimps-we-call-managers/

The fact that you admit the existence of pimps yet still think that they should be decriminalised is appalling.

Bogling let's see your stats.

Number of attacks could be down in total but increased % due to overall number of women working as prostitutes being fewer (as demand has decreased).

The number of sex workers under the Nordic model does not tend to decrease.

Violent attacks against sex workers have risen by 92% since the law changed in Ireland. As you will see from the article the number of sex workers has remained relatively steady, while the number of violent attacks have dramatically increased.

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/crime-against-sex-workers-almost-doubles-since-law-change-37957334.html

This review has details of violence against sex workers in Sweden, with refences which I would suggest you look up.

www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwjT_8PY4cbjAhUCURUIHdmBD1sQFjACegQIBBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.albertalawreview.com%2Findex.php%2FALR%2Farticle%2FviewFile%2F59%2F59&usg=AOvVaw39sIQ-vShvu5dwMWV2Ab2G

Theres also a huge amount of info in here, in case anyone missed it the first time

www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiq0t2848bjAhUUtHEKHejcCvQQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lshtm.ac.uk%2Fnewsevents%2Fnews%2F2018%2Fcriminalisation-and-repressive-policing-sex-work-linked-increased-risk&usg=AOvVaw1yscLwY9FKQ-wCCFlWFiVh

This info is not difficult to find, and to be honest I think anyone offering an opinion on the rights of sex workers should know this very basic information.

Here's Dougie in the Guardian using exactly the same talking points as you Bogling:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/19/prostitution-ukcrime

He thinks money equals "consent" in sex (a rapist attitude if I ever saw one) and claims that criminalising pimps and johns will somehow stop women working together.

Long before the woke were selling women and girls down the river with trans they were doing the same to us, with their support of pimps and johns.

That last link you posted is about prostituted women who are criminalised Bogling. Something which is totally against the Nordic model.

The numbers in the first link are not supported by the police in Ireland. Who runs Ugly Mugs?

No need to answer. Ugly Mugs director, Audrey Campbell, was the partner of a convicted pimp:

www.newsletter.co.uk/news/stormont-witnesses-deny-links-to-pimps-1-5847318

Stats from the pimp lobby don't support your case.

The fact that you admit the existence of pimps yet still think that they should be decriminalised is appalling.

I haven't said that. I think coercion is appalling and should certainly be illegal, but some workers do choose to work under 'managers', and they should be able to do that assuming they are not coercive. It's not something I choose for myself, but I have friends who do. I won't deny I am conflicted about the existence of 'managers' in sex work, but that is because as a currently illegal occupation it largely attracts terrible people. There are some good ones though, and it doesn't have to be exploitative, but the idea of large managed brothels fills me with dread.

You're not very well-informed then are you? Douglas Fox, a pimp who helped write Amnesty International's policy on prostitution (decriminalise pimps and johns) called himself a "sex worker" and was an activist for the IUSW

I'm extremely well informed when it come to the facts of sex work. I will admit I wasn't aware this particular person had called himself a sex worker.

He thinks money equals "consent" in sex (a rapist attitude if I ever saw one) and claims that criminalising pimps and johns will somehow stop women working together.

Well I certainly don't think money equals consent. Sex workers are already criminalised for working together, but arrests for this increase when buyers are criminalised.

No man should make money out of selling women's bodies. I notice you frame it in terms of women's "choice". That is the trick the pro-pimp and john lobby use to hide male exploitation of women and girls. Pimps are not managers. They are rapists by proxy. You need to use the correct terminology.

You're not well informed if you don't know about the infiltration of the International Union of Sexworkers, a union that's supposed to represent women in prostitution, by a pimp. You tell other people here to inform themselves yet you seem quite unaware of these events. I'm sure you wouldn't have linked to the Ugly Mugs survey either if you'd realised that they were set up by the partner of a pimp. To use your own words - I think anyone offering an opinion on the rights of [women in prostitution] should know this very basic information.

If you support the sale of sex then you do believe money equals consent. You've even said it here, that prostitution is consensual sex. It isn't, it's a man using money as compensation for a woman's lack fo sexual consent. Johns are rapists who think money cleans their crimes against women away. It doesn't.