So, the sex "work" "debate"

[FizzyDizzy121]

Having looked through a lot of older threads here, I'm asking for some help.

Do you have a DP or family member that you fundamentally disagree with on a topic as black and white (to me) as sex "work"?

In my younger years, I was very much in favour of choice feminism, including in areas such as prostitution. I believed that the pushback was motivated by our issues around sex and that if a woman (usually) wants to run a business that way, supply and demand right? I did argue for better protections, H&S involvement etc.

Now, my whole approach changed a few years back. Buying consent makes me very, very uneasy and I would argue is a form of coercion/distress rather than freely given. Men (usually) who "visit" prostitutes are having sex with someone they KNOW wouldn't have sex with them if there wasnt money involved which is dodgy on so many grounds.
And all that is before we get to the amount of assaults, trafficking etc involved.

My DP is pretty left leaning (as am I) and views all work as unjust. Humans shouldn't have to be coerced to do labour in order to pay for essentials like shelter or food. And he sees sex "work" as within this bracket. Its exploitation but not any different than a retail worker for example. He says he'd be happy for his relative to be involved in sex "work", he argues the money changing hands is not buying the woman but the labour of the woman (I.e. the sex) for a set amount of time.

How do you respond to such thinking? Does it impact show you think of the other person?

Any thoughts/comments gratefully received

'What would you say to a woman who said to her daughter "I'm glad you play your musical instrument with your friends but if anyone offers you money to play for them don't do it!"? And then say you'll end up with sore fingers.'

Bringing children into this seems really off as well.

Strange analogies.

I'm glad that you are having safe sex with your boyfriend (even though you're 15) but if anyone offers you money to do it then don't...?

I mean obvious, no?

So we we've had fucking compared to playing the recorder, and gardening on this thread.

Have I missed any more?

Feel like maybe lots of people may be doing sex wrong if that's what it's like :/ !!

That made me laugh nicegerbil.

😂

Sex IS different. It has immense potential to be harmful.

If sex wasn’t, children would be allowed to do it. Relatives would be allowed to do it.

There are lots of things that children aren't allowed to do. Brothers and sisters don't have sex not because they aren't 'allowed to' but because they don't want to.

Because it’s worked so well in Amsterdam. No trafficking. No murders. No rapes.

The law was changed in the Netherlands in 2000. We need to see if there has been a lower murder rate since then. I don't believe in legalization but in decriminalization as in New Zealand.

Rachel Moran said that 127 prostitutes had been murdered in the Netherlands since legalization. I think she got this statistic from Jim Wells, the Northern Ireland evangelical politician. The truth though is that most of those were killed before not after legalization.

In Nordic model France last year 10 prostitutes were murdered in the space of 6 months. In the whole of 2014 before the Nordic model 12 were murdered. Doesn't prove that the Nordic model causes more murders, but it shows that it doesn't stop murders.

@jennywhitehorses

Sex IS different. It has immense potential to be harmful.

If sex wasn’t, children would be allowed to do it. Relatives would be allowed to do it.

There are lots of things that children aren't allowed to do. Brothers and sisters don't have sex not because they aren't 'allowed to' but because they don't want to.

Want to explain why I was raped by my brother for years as a little girl?

There are lots of things that children aren't allowed to do.

..because those things have the potential to be harmful. Glad you can see this.

Brothers and sisters don't have sex not because they aren't 'allowed to' but because they don't want to.

Yes. Most of them. But sometimes it happens. And when it does see point one above.

The EU report relies upon a huge array of studies and fully explains that many studies have been conducted with an underlying agenda.

If they had checked the statistics instead of blindly believing in them I would have more respect for their impartiality. Maybe they should have read the Länsstyrelsen 2015 report that gives all of the statistics from the surveys and elsewhere, and explains the important difference between prevalence and incidence statistics.

The thing that makes prostitution usafe is the punters - they are the people doing the raping and murdering.

Peter Sutcliffe has died. He started off trying to kill non-prostitutes. Then he realized that prostitutes are more vulnerable. Someone said on a radio show after he died that most of the women he killed weren't prostitutes.

So who is the scum? It is anyone who stands in the way of making women safer. I have mentioned Soho a lot because no prostitute has been murdered there since 1947. That's my 'agenda'. There are always 2 women in a flat and 1 man. It's not true it can't be made safe.

Street based prostitutes have their own ways of protecting themselves. For example, taking down the registration number of the car your friend gets into. That can't work when they have to be dodging police.

They aren't always effective which is why I encourage the SOOB system as in New Zealand. Small Owner Operated Brothels where women work together for safety, make their own rules and keep the profits for themselves.

We know that the punters are scum who hate women because they tell us so, on sites like P**ersnet. They tell us so in their own words.

prostitutionresearch.com/the-invisible-men-project/

Why are you so invested in defending the rights of men like these to stick their unwanted dicks into women's bodies because the women are desperate and lack options? What's your axe to grind in this situation?

@jennywhitehorses

Sex IS different. It has immense potential to be harmful.

If sex wasn’t, children would be allowed to do it. Relatives would be allowed to do it.

There are lots of things that children aren't allowed to do. Brothers and sisters don't have sex not because they aren't 'allowed to' but because they don't want to.

But your argument (if you can call it that) is that sex is work.

If my bother was a plumber and I needed help in that area, he’d come and do it for me. I wouldn’t consider using another plumber.

If I was a lawyer, I’d offer my professional services and advice for free to my brother and his family.

Now why is it different for prostitution? If sex work is work and no different to any other career, why wouldn't I want to offer these services to family members as I would any other professional skills?

Unless you can say you’d offer these professional services in the same way, sex cannot possibly seen as work.

Brothers and sisters don't have sex not because they aren't 'allowed to' but because they don't want to.

Also, brothers and sisters aren’t allowed to have sex. It’s illegal. If you aren’t aware of that then I’m surely wasting my time having this debate.

To be honest jennywhitehorses I am not really sure what you are arguing for anymore, or what your actual point is.

I think that we all know that prostitution isn't going anywhere, I also think that we all agree that decriminalisation is far better than the current UK position which puts prostitutes at even higher risk than they could be.

Nobody here is arguing that prostitutes are bad people who don't need laws protecting them from abuse. By punters and other exploitation by brothel owners etc.

The point most are making is that punters, who genuinely believe that they can buy consent and use another person to fulfil their sexual wants, even though they know that person wouldn't be doing it in a million years without money as an inducement, are amoral.

We shouldn't be in a society where young women feel that their options are so limited that this is their best option. And where women become stuck in such a lifestyle by being treated as though they were sub human.

The argument that paid for sex is consent is dangerous.

Oh and BTW, if I caught my DD with my DS penis in her mouth, my first question would be, where have you seen this? How have you been exposed to this idea? Kids aren't born knowing this.

By your argument, if it was a neighbour child it would be fine. It isnt. The exposure of children to sexual acts is child abuse. I personally would ensure social services were involved for the protection of both children. I certainly wouldn't blame my daughter or say I would forget it.

I'm sorry but you have lost all credibility for me in saying that.

Brothers and sisters don't have sex not because they aren't 'allowed to' but because they don't want to

You been living under a rock or something?
It happens an awful lot.

Mm. My mum didn't, when I told her a few years after. The same had happened to her. I was very much discouraged from talking about it to anyone (including my friends at school who had similar experiences at the same time).

I reported when I was 30 . He retired from his job in teaching, but his wife is still head of dept at the prep school connected to where he worked. I went NC with my family, he gave my parents grandsons (who I worry for and will never meet). My mum was terrified that he would get into trouble or lose his job or blame her for me reporting it.

My mum was a teacher with safeguarding training, and had also done some training in child psychology.

What should have happened was wildly different to what actually happens.

^ that was in response to your report to the police comment, @jennywhitehorses

survivorsister.

Wow. Another thread full of posts by an abusers apologist.

Seems like we’ve got a wave of them at present.

Either "Jenny" is actually a pimp or a punter or, if on the level, Jenny has been so damaged by her sexual experiences that she's internalised this damage to the extent of detaching from all normal emotional responses.

This.

A person with such impaired judgement is not someone who should be listened to re: safeguarding women and children.

Holy shit SurvivorSister

You’re a proper survivor! Thank you for sharing your story with us x

@chickenyhead

I also think that we all agree that decriminalisation is far better than the current UK position which puts prostitutes at even higher risk than they could be.

We can agree on something. Do we agree that two women who work together as prostitutes should not be arrested? Lots of people do believe that. You would think that all of the people who believe in the Nordic model would believe that.

If you look on the Nordic Model Now! site there are several places where they say the arrests have to continue. For example this On balance, I do not support legislation to explicitly decriminalise small groups of women operating from the same premises, because it would legitimise and normalise prostitution.

In Nordic model countries women continue to be arrested. In Ireland for example the only thing that has changed for sex workers is that the penalties for brothel-keeping have doubled. The Nordic model is a cruel and hypocritical system.

It's obvious that you can't be bothered to read the truth about this. I have suggested reading the Länsstyrelsen 2015 document which is the only one that gives all the relevant statistics. Your response to that is that you're not sure what my actual point is.

Others have accused me of being an abusers apologist. I'm sure they probably think that Amnesty International is an abusers apologist too. I think that most people reading this thread will realise that you have lost your argument and are just being abusive now.

@NiceGerbil

You don't seem to understand analogy. In analogy you compare two things in one specific way. Not in every way. A prostitute and a musician both earn money by doing something that people do for pleasure but they do for payment. They may or may not enjoy it: their pleasure isn't the important thing. That's the analogy. It's a good analogy to use in response to someone saying that both people in a sexual encounter should always be enjoying it. If both are getting what they want then I think it's acceptable.

The analogy between legalizing prostitution and legalizing abortion is a good one too.

Rachel Moran in her book Paid For compared prostitutes to bank robbers. That could be seen as offensive to sex workers, but what she meant was that both prostitutes and bank robbers will never be accepted in society. In that context the analogy makes sense. It isn't correct though.

@NiceGerbil
Perhaps you would like to be more constructive in your criticism and tell us why exactly you think it is so ridiculous to compare a prostitute and a musician? Is it because you think that prostitutes are handcuffed to radiators while musicians aren't? Is it because you think that all prostitutes are drug addicts? The reality for most prostitutes is more boring than most people want to believe, even in poor countries.

I'm going to leave you with a quotation from Heidi Hoefinger who went to Cambodia and got to know sex workers there. She knows what she's talking about.

Most of the women were born in the Cambodian countryside, and a combination of familial obligation, financial need, and personal aspirations for adventure, freedom or romance drove them to migrate to the cities. Many but not all have elementary educations but that's it, so when they get to the city, their options are limited. They can either do domestic work like cleaning, or street trading of fruits or other goods, or garment factory work, or entertainment or sex work. Many tried their hand at everything and ended up preferring to work in the bars because they were the most lucrative, there was more flexibility of movement, they got to meet people from outside of Cambodia, and learn and improve their English skills, and the bars were just generally more fun than the other jobs. Most women are very resourceful and entrepreneurial, and the ultimate goal of many of them was to open their own businesses like a clothing store, bar, restaurant or salon, so they could support themselves and their families. Of course meeting a nice person along the way, who treats them and their families with love and respect, was also one of the life goals for many.

Something I find very depressing about this debate is even on the pro prostitution side there is an open acknowledgment that this work is super risky and dangerous. A lot of emphasis is put on “harm reduction”. But what is the harm? It’s not like mining where the job itself is inherently risky, and where dangers can be minimised by proper health and safety. The danger from prostitution comes from other human beings, the “clients” who pay for this service. What is super depressing is it is just accepted as axiomatic that these men are dangerous, that they will rape and murder and assault. These men’s actions are minimised and made invisible - treated like an impersonal force of nature.

The only other job where you risk being killed by other human beings everyday is the military, and even then you get body armour and weapons to defend yourself. If sex work is work what I would like to ask the male punters is this - why is murder and assault such a big part of this “job”? Workers in McDonald’s and Tesco’s don’t have to worry about customers killing them. And it’s not just a feature of criminalisation- there is a lot of rape and attacks in counties where prostitution is legalised. The reality is that “sex work” is the ultimate expression of male contempt for women- it is the ultimate domination. You can’t get rid of the inherent violence from these men because for them that’s part of the point - they want to control a woman. Prostitution will always be risky and dangerous because it’s designed that way.