Why is the BBC Promoting Sex Work?

[WootMoggie]

I know the BBC tries oh-so-hard to be "progressive" but this is really taking the piss:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5e7dad06-c48d-4509-b3e4-6a7a2783ce30

The BBC state at the top of the article that selling explicit content online can be a lucrative business, and the opening quote of the article is "My biggest fear is going back into an office and being normal again"

Other choice quotes include "I like the freedom it gives me and the celebration of the female form" and also '"I used to make £20,000 a year, and now I make a lot more than that every single month" Lauren says coyly'

"Lauren says coyly"?? WTAF?

I see no problem in writing articles about this subject, but the tone and position of this article is dubious in the extreme IMO.

I don't think as a society we should endorse taking heroin or smoking cigarettes but I don't think we should make either illegal

Banning cigarettes in public venues and taxing them has had a prohibitive impact upon their consumption. There has also been a profound cultural shift. Cigarettes are a particularly interesting example. During the flapper era, few women smoked and to do so was seen as an act of rebellion. During Hollywood's golden age, smoking was a glamorous accessory for a fleet of stars, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Garbo. Many women emulated them from the 1940s onwards. Now? Smoking has become a pariah activity. Attitudes change, laws prohibit what once was acceptable. Legalising prostitution and heroin will legitimise both and increase consumption of both. As for porn? It is now the dominant cultural aesthetic with all the malign effects that creates. Such as women being murdered and their killers getting a reduced charge by claiming consensual sadistic sex.

"So you don’t think that the moral case is against people buying sex? You think society should be neutral and that it is a matter of individual choice whether or not to buy sex?"

I don't think taking into consideration the morals of buying and selling sex helps anyone involved in the industry.

So yes, I believe it should be left as a matter of individual choice as to whether to buy and sell sex although I would impose certain caveats, such as age restrictions etc.

I am talking about buying sex, not selling it. You think that buying sex is a neutral act? That is only has implications for those involved in the transaction or that the wider implications for the whole of society are acceptable?

"Banning cigarettes in public venues and taxing them has had a prohibitive impact upon their consumption."

But it isn't an outright ban in all locations. Banning smoking altogether would be a disastrous policy.

"Legalising prostitution and heroin will legitimise both and increase consumption of both."

And yet smoking remains legal and according to you consumption has declined (I have no knowledge as to whether that is true or not but will assume for the sake of argument that it is) merely by restricting where one can smoke. I'm not advocating for sex in the street nor for the open consumption of heroin.

Thank you for admitting your reasoning was false , butter. We didn't need that pointing out.

Decriminalising means that abused sex workers can safely go to the police as the only crime committed is the abuse, nor the sex. Criminalising means the opposite. That applies when you criminalise buying, selling or both.

So decriminalisation of people who buy sex helps “sex workers” report crimes against them? I can see that, when fear of punters is such a driving force in the industry, but it ignores the wider harm done by legItimising the purchasing of sex as being an acceptable thing to do. But, in any case, making it easier to report the crime is not the same as providing legal protection.

"I am talking about buying sex, not selling it. You think that buying sex is a neutral act? That is only has implications for those involved in the transaction or that the wider implications for the whole of society are acceptable?"

I'm not really sure what a 'neutral' act is. I don't think a man (or woman) hiring an escort has huge implications for society as a whole. Even if it did (and it happens presently in countries where it is and isn't legal) I don't think making buying sex illegal will help society overall and certainly won't help those selling it as is the case in Sweden.

As you keep comparing the human body to a commodity, that is clearly your starting point. It certainly isn't mine.

Of course it has societal implications. Just as hiring any single member of an oppressed group in order to do degrading things to them would have society-wide implications.

"As you keep comparing the human body to a commodity, that is clearly your starting point. It certainly isn't mine."

I don't. My point is that the principle remains the same whether we are talking about drink, drugs or sex. Prohibition of all three makes things worse for all involved. I should be interested for you to prove the contrary but I doubt you can because your emotions and feelings of disgust or too dominant for you to think clearly about the issue.

People in the sex industry use their bodies for commercial ends but so do boxers, stunt men/women, track athletes, dancers etc.

Your ideas about decrim for all vs criminalising just the buyer don't make sense Butters. If buying is an offense but not selling then for a prostituted woman reporting abuse, the abuse is the crime against her in both scearios and she has commited no crime in either. The difference is that in the decrim scenario the man has only commited one offense (the abuse) but in nordic model he has commited 2 (the abuse and the purchase of sex). How does doubling the chance he will be prosecuted make it less safe for the woman to report him?

It really doesn't butters. You simply are very selective in the examples you're prepared to examine. Is life better for prostituted women, or women and girls in general, in Holbeck now the hiring of women's bodies is decriminalised?! Fuck no, is the short answer.

and according to you consumption has declined (I have no knowledge as to whether that is true

It isn't 'according to me' it is a fact. Smoking is in terminal decline in the UK. Air France was one of the last airlines to ban smoking. Now? The concept of smoking long haul is unimaginable. It used to be ubiquitous. It is disingenuous to pretend that legalising an activity does not legitimise it. Of course it does. It makes it socially acceptable. Those who want to make prostitution and heroin socially acceptable? That's a niche agenda. Expect opposition.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-stopping-smoking-what-works/health-matters-stopping-smoking-what-works

The principle is the same only if you view the hiring of bodies as the same as taking drugs or drinking alcohol? You say you don’t, so why do you think the same principle applies?

Bygrathars I think the regiment is that by criminalising the purchasing of sex, you make the prostitute vulnerable because they could bring charges against any of their punters, not just the abusive ones, so in order to keep their punters happy they would not report the abusive punter in case it spooked/riled the non-abusive punter.

Langbannedforsafeguardingkids

I'm saving your post at 11.20 for future use. Brilliantly put.

*argument, not regiment

"How does doubling the chance he will be prosecuted make it less safe for the woman to report him?"

If selling antiques was legal but buying them was not and the antiques dealer depended for his/her livelihood in keeping the transaction secret then they would be likely to put themselves in dangerous situations to sell antiques, such as dark corners in car parks rather than openly in a shop or fair.

You only need to read the reports of sex workers in Sweden to how badly the legislation is impacting them. Don't take my word for it, go look for yourself outside feminist propaganda sites.

If the prostitutes woman is vulnerable from her "non abusive" punters then they aren't non abusive, are they? All you're saying is that they're non abusive until they feel "provoked" by a prostituted woman taking steps to protect herself. In fact if anything it just highlights the fact that even the "nice" punters are a high risk for becoming violent. What you're basically saying is that we shouldn't opt for a system that aims to prevent and discourage men from buying women, in case it negatively effects ("spooks") men who want to buy women. And that we should make it easier for potentially violent men to sexually access vulnerable women in case preventing them from doing so makes them violent. It's the same argument women used to be given about keeping their husbands satisfied so they didn't need to force them. Give me what I want or I'll take it and it'll be your fault for making me do it. These are the kind of men you're admitting are the ones buying sex. How can you not see what terrible danger that puts women in? How can you not see that this industry needs to be stamped out for the sake of all women?

"The principle is the same only if you view the hiring of bodies as the same as taking drugs or drinking alcohol? You say you don’t, so why do you think the same principle applies?"

You're not hiring a body you're hiring a service and a cursory glance at the evidence will easily show you that the same principle applies to both.

£20,000 a month 😲

How do I sign up?

However much it might make economic sense for an individual to choose to sell a kidney or a baby, we consider it unacceptable to protect the greater good, including protecting those at risk of coercion and abuse. For the same reasons it is unacceptable to treat prostitution as a normal job just because some women say they want to do it. I don’t care if you love being a hooker; your individual choices impact all women - and men - in our society, including those who do need our ‘kind of protection’.

This. Perfectly put.

Bygrabthars I think that might be directed at me. I do see it, I was just putting the argument.

"It is disingenuous to pretend that legalising an activity does not legitimise it. Of course it does."

Portugal hasn't found that to be the case. Numbers of drug users hasn't risen with decriminalisation. A lot of evidence shows that drug use went up since drugs were made illegal.

But I grant you it is a risk. Decriminalising drugs could increase the number of users. Of cannabis there would almost certainly be a rise in numbers. However, I think it is preferable to our current war on drugs which is a war we are losing and which has created a huge number of victims of violence.

Ah sorry palebluemoonlight I didn't read the comment properly and assumed Butter had written it and was advocating for it as a system.