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.

Omg butters. I have not really understood much of your argument as you don’t use clear language.

But I do understand when someone uses the word hysteria. As an insult. Towards women

🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️

"(commercial sex - is that what they call it now..)

You can see above that the writer thinks that someone's body is just like other commodities - to be bought and sold."

It is selling a sexual service. Selling is commercial. It is an accurate description of what is happening. I suppose you would prefer slavery or rape to describe it.

A sex worker's body isn't bought or sold. They use their body or voice in various ways but still retain it at the end of the job just as other people who do jobs in which they use their bodies primarily, such as sportsmen and women, stuntmen and women, massage therapists, dancers etc. And no, none of those jobs is exactly the same as being a sex worker.

Using over emotional and inaccurate language doesn't strengthen your argument which boils down to, "I think it's icky so every woman must and we should ban it because of that."

@ RuffleCrow I take it you're not familiar with the research behind Nordic Model Now? I am actually very familiar with that site-and also the supposed statistics it cites.

What they do is never go back to the original source articles of those so called statistics to check that they actually say they what they claim they do-nor do they add any qualifications present in the originals. Their statistics are culled from secondary sources and taken out of context and misrepresented or overgeneralised. So for instance they may take a small scale study on street prostitutes and then extrapolate it to all prostitutes.

I also know that when I write to them to point out their errors they always delete my posts. They are not really interested in having a proper evidence based debate-just pushing their abolitionist line.

But why in this case, butter, is it because you don’t think sex work harms society? Or so just not think that society is as important as individual liberty? Are you a libertarian?

I listened to someone advocating for legalisation of drugs on Triggernometry at one point, except that when you listened to him he wasn’t actually advocating for legalisation of all drugs or total legalisation.

Decriminalisation rather than legalisation of Sex work is interesting because it recognises that so much of the trade would not be possible if it were legalised, as regulation would necessarily follow. The result would be that much if the trade would remain in the criminal sphere.

There is a point where we as a society say that something is not acceptable. I think that buying sex has been and for many still Is, one of those things. Whatever your position on the legalities of sex work, I am interested to know why you consider buying sex to be OK and whether you do not think there are harms to society or whether you think those harms are acceptable collateral damage?

"Omg butters. I have not really understood much of your argument as you don’t use clear language."

I fail to see how much clearer I could be.

"But I do understand when someone uses the word hysteria. As an insult. Towards women"

I am a woman myself and when I see something hysterical I will call it out regardless of my sex or the sex of who wrote it.

Or do you think no woman is capable of being hysterical simply because it has been used as an insult against women making legitimate arguments? Or should we just ignore it when they are to be politically expedient? Or wasn't I clear enough for you in my language?

Wtf are you talking about Butters?! Of course prostitution increases the risk of male violence to all women, that's already been born out in practice many many times. It isn't "hysteria" (more casual mysogyny from you) it's just reality. Women being afraid about real events that threaten them isn't "hysteria". If you don't think that prostitution makes the world more dangerous for all women then you're dangerously naive. As for it being the first wrung on an authoritarian ladder, you wouldn't argue that for anything else. Let's take literally any other example of an oppressed group "choosing" something which caused more harm to that whole group. Let's say some white people still wanted to buy black slaves, and some black people decided this was a great economic choice for them and the whole group started lobbying in favour of legalising slavery, would you be in favour of that? What if they trialed the idea in certain areas and it resulted in a massive increase in racially motivated violence against other black people in the area, would you call anyone who opposed that "authoritarian and hysterical" ? Would you tell them that black people were just always going to be oppressed and banning slavery wouldn't change that so stop being hysterical and let the people who want to be slaves get on with it? Of course you wouldn't. You would recognise, I hope, that such a system would result in the abuse and comodification of some back people, increase the risk to all black people, and reinforce a culture of white supremacy. So why are you making that same argument for an industry that serves to abuse and comodify some women, endanger all women, and reinforce a culture of male supremacy?

I prefer individual liberty and will choose the rights of the individual over the 'protection' of the group in most cases.

@Butters0123 so I guess you will be sunbathing in the park, having a house party and driving to the beach this weekend - because your liberty is paramount. And fuck everyone else.

If anything good can come out of this pandemic, I pray it’s the acknowledgement that we live together in society and sometimes must temper our behaviours for the greater good, even when that goes against our individual wishes.

Which is why - even if they want to - I believe individuals should not be legally allowed to buy and sell sex. Because sometimes, Butters, it’s not just about you.

I haven’t seen a single poster here argue that prostitution is icky, or take any kind of authoritarian stand, butter.

On the contrary, it seems to be only you who believes that humans can be compelled to behave morally only by state intervention. I myself believe that discarding the commodification of women’s bodies happens as part of discarding patriarchal structures and thinking, not by more man-made laws. And the mechanism for that to happen is feminism, for my money.

Are you a libertarian

Compared to most posters I'm a libertarian. I mentioned Ben Shapiro early on- now he really is a libertarian. He's not a feminist but he gets the societal damage point re prostitution etc.

It's insulting to talk about liberty as a justification for prostititution even as men around world rob women and children of their right to live lives free of unnecessary pain, humiliation and suffering. Where's their liberty?

Yes, ruffle, I’m now trying to remember that quotation about the law allowing rich and poor alike to be free to starve under bridges.

"so I guess you will be sunbathing in the park, having a house party and driving to the beach this weekend - because your liberty is paramount. And fuck everyone else."

I said in most cases, not all cases. There are important exceptions. I just don't consider sex work to be one of them.

" I believe individuals should not be legally allowed to buy and sell sex. Because sometimes, Butters, it’s not just about you."

As I'm neither a buyer or seller of sexual services it was never about me. I believe individuals should be allowed to buy and sell sex and that the state should, by and large, keep its big fat nose out of people's bedrooms as much as possible.

Using over emotional and inaccurate language doesn't strengthen your argument which boils down to, "I think it's icky so every woman must and we should ban it because of that."

So you don’t actually know/understand the arguments?

"I haven’t seen a single poster here argue that prostitution is icky, or take any kind of authoritarian stand, butter."

If you wish to ban selling sex that is an authoritarian stance. And the objections to selling sex largely arise from an emotional response rather than a logical one. Disgust is the prime motivating factor as it is in most legislation aimed at regulating sexual practices. In some cases, such as paedophilia, that's a good thing. In other instances, such as homosexuality, it's less justifiable.

"On the contrary, it seems to be only you who believes that humans can be compelled to behave morally only by state intervention."

I'm not sure I said that exactly.

"I myself believe that discarding the commodification of women’s bodies happens as part of discarding patriarchal structures and thinking, not by more man-made laws. And the mechanism for that to happen is feminism, for my money."

Feminism is too vague. Pro sex work feminism is hardly in your corner.

How far would you go in eradicating (by some means or other) the 'commodification' of women's (still no interest in the men) bodies? Would you ban all porn, strip clubs, web cams, glamour/nude modelling, lingerie models etc? Or is it just actual sex you object to?

"So you don’t actually know/understand the arguments?"

On the contrary, I know all the arguments, that women are forced into by traffickers, poverty, abuse, addiction; that buying sex is a commodification of women's bodies and has a detrimental effect on the whole of society and all women; that sex isn't something to be traded in a decent society etc. etc.

I just don't agree with any of it and believe that the anti-sex work crowd come to the conclusions that agree with their personal feelings about sex and apply it to all women (they don't care about the men).

As I'm neither a buyer or seller of sexual services it was never about me. I believe individuals should be allowed to buy and sell sex and that the state should, by and large, keep its big fat nose out of people's bedrooms as much as possible.

So are you saying that (a) the harms to society don’t exist or are minimal, (b) that things that some people consider harms are not actually harms and those people just need to change their mindset/die out or (c) that the harms exist but are acceptable collateral damage?

I am genuinely interested in your view and am glad you are engaging.

This is a feminist site, it centres women. That doesn’t mean the people in here to not care about the effects on men. Why do you think it would?

"Of course prostitution increases the risk of male violence to all women, that's already been born out in practice many many times."

You make a lot of ridiculously over the top statements which are all unsubstantiated. What hard evidence do you have to back up any of it?

Yours comes across more as a fanatically held religious conviction rather than a political argument.

As to all the nonsense about slavery....God grant me patience.

Sex workers are not slaves. They choose to sell some form of sexual service or product. If they didn't they would not be sex workers but sex slaves. But then you like to pretend there's little difference.

Interesting stats in this excerpt from Hansard - Northumbrian police visiting brothers in their areas where 70-80% of the women were Romanian. All these Eastern European women ‘choosing’ to sell sex. They need to sleep with about 13 men a day to make the money their pimps require. Even in the first flush of a passionate relationship, I’d find 13 times too much. But Butters will continue to insist it’s a free choice and not exploiting of the women’s bodies at all.

Just a ‘service’

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-07-04/debates/50911795-3525-4F4A-B047-EF87047B5176/CommercialSexualExploitation

It’s completely disingenuous

"So are you saying that (a) the harms to society don’t exist or are minimal, (b) that things that some people consider harms are not actually harms and those people just need to change their mindset/die out or (c) that the harms exist but are acceptable collateral damage?"

I don't think that a man hiring an escort, watching porn or going to a strip club has any serious detrimental effect on society. The one most likely to engender a poor attitude to women and/or sex in some men is porn and that is the hardest of all to deal with in the internet age. Porn is here to stay, watched by increasing numbers of women and any attempt to stem the flood is doomed. And obviously not all porn is the same.

I don't believe that the fact that some women sell sexual services means that all women are somehow demeaned or endangered as a result.

I don't believe that no abuses exist within various parts of the sex industry, legal or illegal, but I don't believe those abuses are unique to it or justify trying to eradicate it. I believe such attempts will fail as they have always done and make things worse. The evidence in the US and Sweden is not encouraging. The abuse of power within the police is one of the worst things illegal sex workers have to deal with.

and that the state should, by and large, keep its big fat nose out of people's bedrooms as much as possible

You have argued from a libertarian position that behaviour which may be inimical or even lethally dangerous should not be made illegal by the state. You have argued that heroin should be legal. Along with more exotic beliefs, Libertarians believe in a small state as opposed to a burgeoning welfare state and individual responsibility, rather than state directed attempts to impose unachievable goals like 'equality.' A 'night watchman' state is the paradigm. As a Libertarian, I assume you are opposed to wealth redistribution via taxation? You believe in low taxation because the state should keep its big nose out of people's wallets, right? As a Libertarian, I assume you have many criticisms of the NHS paradigm? Example? Should 'trans' people be able to stick the bill for their pharmaceutical and surgical attempts to transform into the opposite sex onto the hefty burden of UK taxpayers? As a Libertarian, what is your take on state funded unnecessary medical interventions?

"But Butters will continue to insist it’s a free choice and not exploiting of the women’s bodies at all."

Sexual slavery is already illegal. If that is what is actually happening then the powers already exist to deal with it.

This has nothing to do with women who choose to work in the sex industry being stopped from doing so unless you believe that no woman ever chooses to sell sex. If that is the case I would suggest you look at sex worker sites to get a more informed and balanced view.

Few sex workers would come onto a site this toxic for long (there was one earlier in the thread who already seemed to be fed up) so you need to look elsewhere for first hand accounts of sex work in all its forms and advocacy for sex workers rights.

Madame Bovary, I never claimed to be a libertarian. Some of my views might be considered libertarian by some (I would say they are liberal myself) but I never follow any one political creed to the exclusion of common sense.

My opinions are based on observation, historical and of the world around me. The evidence of the failure of American Prohibition and the war of drugs is overwhelming. That doesn't mean I'm unaware of the dangers of alcohol and drugs, merely that I think banning them makes things worse not better. I believe the same thing applies to the sex industry. There evidence is abundant there also.

@SophocIestheFox It’s always easy to pick out selective quotes from prostitutes to bolster one point of view or another. So from the report I originally cited and you picked quotes you missed
…Abolitionists using my story to score political points instead of listening to me explaining how and why decriminalisation would make me safer
Or the point (p14) of the report We should also note that there were a cluster of responses which strongly rejected and problematised the notion that those involved in selling sex have necessarily experienced any ‘disadvantage’ or ‘adverse early experience’. This group often stressed the pleasures, financial freedom, and satisfaction that sex work afforded them. It is important therefore to underline that the experiences outlined above do not define every individual experience
So for instance from Mumsnet Tue 18-Mar-14 13:37:18 here
The constant digs at those working in the sex industry is as soul destroying as the implication of being used, that we were all abused and the rest of the stereotypical assumptions made
And 11-Oct-16 16:37:55 here
I’m a prostitute, and honest to God I’m absolutely fucking sick of being told that I’m being abused in my work or that I must have some kind of childhood trauma in my background. It’s just so insulting to see these kinds of broad-brush assumptions over and over and over again
And here
Fri 06-Mar-15 09:44:47 Anyway, I will sum up thusly: when I hear "facts" bandied about about prostitution, I am often shocked and think "What the fuck are they talking about? That's not my experience and I don't know anybody who has that experience." When I read "90% of prostitutes are trafficked, pimped, and abused" it literally sounds as bizarre as something like, "90% of the women on mumsnet are alcoholics.

So the “cluster of respondents” are pissed off with half-truths promulgated by abolitionists which do not match their experiences is why they “strongly reject” such stories

Perhaps you should look at the number of AMA threads on Mumsnet where prostitutes talk about their work.

There are some who have a good or ok time in prostitution others who have an awful time and others whose experience is between those extremes. Without a proper representative survey one cannot be sure of the proportion that fall into each group

Why is this site toxic?