The BBC are sad that prostitution is reducing during lockdown

[2Rebecca]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52821861
A very one sided portrayal. All "poor sex workers how will they pay their rent", no "great, men can't use women for their own gratification and trafficking of young women for prostitution has probably reduced, red light districts may be safer for women and maybe men seeing women as commodities isn't a good thing. "
A one sided sob story about the loss of the wonderful career that is prostitution.

I'm not even going to bother reading it, but the BBC can just FO

It’s in the business section? One of the Bangladeshi women has been in the brothel since she was 7. The latter part of the article doesn’t fit with the first part at all..

I saw the headline, accompanied by the cute pic of a very attractive young lady stroking her arm or something, and I couldn't stand to click through to read what was obviously going to be the usual drivel.

I wonder when women are going to be seen as human enough to make renting body slaves revolting?

Fucking pimps.

The lack of curiosity beyond the narrative of "these poor women who are now unemployed" is beyond depressing.

I can not believe what I just read. They are lamenting that a woman who started being raped when she was SEVEN can't work.

Seven? Don't know if I can stomach reading. I wonder if it's possible to make (another) complaint without having read the article?

Well that can GTF.

For the woman in Melbourne - if you're self-employed, and your business is impacted, you can access help in most countries - it seems to me her issue might instead be that she's not been completely honest with the tax man there!

As to the 1300 women and children in Bangladesh, how on earth can they have both of these in the same article, bemoaning the fact they can't 'work' after saying so many of those Bangladeshi women and children were trafficked? Why aren't they talking about how now could be an opportunity to get them out?

Hmm. An article of two halves? Main reporter named at the top, with the second half of the article perhaps supplied by the reporter named at the end for 'additional reporting'

Gosh that was strange reading.... Why even put in the detail that that woman came to the brothel when she was 7, as its not actually relevant to what they are discussing?

Presumably it is to peddle a 'poor woman, this is the only income she has ever known and now that has been taken away from her' narrative.

But to do that without any sort of 'poor woman, she has been raped since she was 7 years old' narrative alongside it is just fucking bizarre and is not a good look for the BBC! So we are supposed to feel sorry for this woman because she can no longer be raped for money, not because she has been raped probably every day of her life since she was 7?

And by the way, I'm not saying that sex workers no longer having an income isn't an issue, of course it is, and one that needs discussion. But the way that BBC article is written is just awful.

Agreed, hairs standing up on the back of my neck about this article.

Next up: drug dealers should be covered by the government's furlough scheme.

Shorter article - "we think that women should be left to starve if they aren't sexually servicing men, therefore the only possible solution here is to get service restored for those men ASAP".

I really think this is two articles. The first half, which is I suppose what one might call 'sex worker positive', framed in the terms of escorts etc, followed by the second half written about prostitutes in India, brothels, abuse, child rape, trafficking and exploitation. I think that's where the weird, queasy disconnect comes from. The two very different viewpoints smooshed together. It makes it seem that the BBC are sad about child abuse not happening. Very poor editing.

Surely as sex work is work the pimps can just furlough their workers? And those who are self employed can get government help based on previous year's tax returns?

The article is poor but there is an issue here. Some women choose to work in the sex industry, it's their choice - not coercion. They have found themselves without income in some circumstances. I'm not defending the trade, but simply saying it shouldn't exist doesn't help women who cannot put food on the table. I've met a women who has this profession, university educated, no drugs, owns her own house outright at 35, loves sex - they do exist.

okiedokieme

Do you think it is the choice of a seven year old girl to work in a brothel?

Some women choose to work in the sex industry, it's their choice - not coercion.

Yes, I'm sure the woman started being raped for money at 7 years old is definitely doing it out of choice.

I'm not defending the trade, but simply saying it shouldn't exist doesn't help women who cannot put food on the table.

If you're doing it because you have no other way of putting food on the table you are not doing it out of fucking choice then are you?

I've met a women who has this profession, university educated, no drugs, owns her own house outright at 35, loves sex - they do exist.

Yeah, I mean it's every woman's dream to spend her days being penetrated in every orifice by blokes she isn't attracted to in the slightest, who either can't find a woman who will have sex with them unless they pay them, or are so sick in the head that they get an extra kick from the power that comes from paying for another human being's body to do what they please with.

I see the punter bat signal has gone out. Sigh.

Some women choose to work in the sex industry, it's their choice - not coercion. They have found themselves without income in some circumstances

Do you not see the contradiction there?

If someone says "either you can sell me your kidney or you and your children can starve to death", and I agree because I have no other viable options, it does not mean that I wanted to sell my kidney or that I enjoy doing so.

Punter bat signal indeed. There will no doubt be more on the way.

The virus is really just the latest problem for trafficked women. The BBC has really missed the mark with this "oh no, this victim of abuse since she was 7 can't be abused at the moment" narrative.

I've met a women who has this profession, university educated, no drugs, owns her own house outright at 35, loves sex - they do exist

Therefore it's fine for seven year olds to get raped for money.

"The latter part of the article doesn’t fit with the first part at all."

The article is in the business section. If you figure in the mass punter desire for degraded and abused women being forced to submit to them sexually, juxtaposing the sex work narrative with the shredded lives of the 'goods' on offer is more grist for the mill.