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

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

And the emergency services but if anyone can't tell the difference from them and prostitution then heaven help us.

Possibly boxing.

Interesting to see how pointing out that playing a recorder is a shit analogy for fucking, has got someone so annoyed!

In boxing the starting point is 2 individuals of more or less the same capability with more or less equal chances of winning. The power imbalance is not the same.

Well yeah sure. I want suggesting it was in any way similar. Just that if we're trying to think of jobs where someone else can kill you then professional boxer is one.

I can't think of any others TBH

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

My jaw dropped reading this and Jenny's comment about how she would deal with it.

@NiceGerbil

Well yeah sure. I want suggesting it was in any way similar. Just that if we're trying to think of jobs where someone else can kill you then professional boxer is one.

I can't think of any others TBH

I know, but anything you/ me/ even the pro- punters can come up can always be distinguished.

The not having massive red flags about why a young girl would do that is really worrying.

@jennywhitehorses

I have not called you names at any point.

I did in fact read the report referred to. I have now also read Amnesty International's policy on sex work. Their policy does not in fact clash with my beliefs, in respect of the subject of this thread, they state:

This policy does not argue that there is a human right to buy sex or a human right to financially benefit from the
sale of sex by another person. Rather, it calls for sex workers to be protected from individuals who seek to exploit
and harm them and it recognizes that the criminalization of adult consensual sex work interferes with the realization
of the human rights of sex workers.

I still believe that men who purchase use of women's bodies, when they know that those women do not want it, are amoral. I do not consider that true active consent and I do not believe that undertaking such work is possible without significant damage.

Whilst you refuse to answer to clarify your point, I agree that prostitutes should be able to work in teams. The problem will remain that in countries where it has been legalised in theory, the police still penalise. Legalisation is not going to fix that.

A few years ago the estate agent Suzy Lamplugh was murdered. No female estate agent has been murdered since then. This is because the industry adapted to stop this from happening. They probably stopped lone female estate agents from showing an unidentified man around a house.

They were permitted to do this. But sex workers are not permitted to work together for safety. If they do this they can be arrested for brothel-keeping.

In Soho the sex workers have managed to get around that. The way they do that is to have the sex worker there and a 'maid'. There are always two women in the flat.

It's a system that works, no sex workers have been killed in Soho since 1947. Camille Gordon wasn't a sex worker, she worked in a clip joint. The police try to close the flats down and sometimes succeed.

The curious thing is that there are many people who believe that prostitutes should not be arrested for working together yet it never happens. Recommendations in reports somehow never make it into law.

Anytime a woman is alone in a flat with a man she is vulnerable. That's not specific to sex work. There is nothing about sex work which in itself makes it more dangerous than any other job. It's just that every time there could be a change in the law someone will say that we can't do it because it will send a message to society that it's acceptable to buy a woman's body, or it get's quietly dropped.

I can quote what Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon has written on this issue.

There's an old woman in Chester called Diane who is a sex worker. You can look at her website. You would think she would be vulnerable - she works alone - but apparently she's never had a problem. Lots of them never have a problem with violence. It's a random thing and often it's not a punter. Men like Peter Sutcliffe target them because of their vulnerability which is all down to the law.

@chickenyhead

Whilst you refuse to answer to clarify your point

I have made lots of points, which one would you like me to clarify?

Those posts have so much bizarre in them I don't know where to start.

I suppose the idea that old (elderly I assume you mean) women can work as prostitutes with no (additional?) risk to younger women.

But that's just not true. Sex is an activity that requires a certain amount of physical resilience, I suppose. How to put this. Having a man (who is very likely to be bigger and stronger than you) fucking you is a physical challenge. Even when it's consensual. I mean I know you get feathery strokers and etc. But when a man is thrusting towards his orgasm that is not a gentle thing. When you're post menopausal and years on from that (old). Osteoporosis is not uncommon. Women lose muscle mass, strength. We become more fragile. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Working as a prostitute would come at an increased risk of harm to an elderly woman simply and basically through the physical sex act.

I don't understand at all why you've brought into the thread the concept that if it's ok for old women (with an example that no I don't care to Google) then why is it not ok for young women.

The fact is that for old (elderly) women the risk is multiplied enormously.

It seems like a strange point to raise.

Most people would instinctively know that for 85 year old Mavis, selling sex would be a terrible idea. Even if all the men who fucked her just fucked her IYSWIM.

And why are you bringing Suzy lamplugh into this?

Seriously. Why? I remember that. I remember her family.

You bring her into it. To say that no female estate agents have been murdered since then.

I assume you mean in the course of their work. Because it would have been a big piece of work to go through all the women murdered since then and search their occupations. So that's kind of an incomplete statement tbh.

Anyway.

Do you know they haven't? Women get murdered not infrequently. Most of it doesn't make the news.

And you offer up 'They probably stopped lone female estate agents from showing an unidentified man around a house.'

So. A total guess?

So you bring Suzy lamplugh into this thread, simply in order to guess that that lone women aren't allowed to show men round properties since (that sounds unlikely tbh but if you've got info on that I'm happy to say I'm wrong), in order to make a point. That is not even the point of the thread.

The Suzy lamplugh trust seems to focus on stalking.

www.suzylamplugh.org/

Why has she been brought into this thread?

To have her story ( death) used as a vehicle to support... I'd need to check back to see what that poster supports.

Why did you choose her, op? And then just make up some stuff about estate agent 'rules'?

You are also the person who brought the sibling stuff onto the thread.

A lot of people have said. It's known that this type of behaviour can point to abuse. So tread carefully etc.

There is a whole big space between 'I saw what you were doing and it's not good because he's your brother. If you promise me you won't do it again we'll hear no more about it'.' and 'call social services'.

Why is two women in a flat being touted often, and with side edits to a estate agent killed by a stalker I seem to recall. When more prostitution is outside. And wherever its done, it's dangerous, dehumanizing, and a horrible testimony as to how women are treated.

And about lone female estate agents not allowed to show homes alone, is crap. They do still.

Guru I just googled Suzy lamplugh because she was brought onto the thread.

I remember it from the time but it was s reminder that her body was never found and that though there were suspects over the years no one has ever been prosecuted for it.

The trust focuses on stalking so her family have their own ideas.

I'm not sure of the relevance.

Troll hunting is not allowed Cara.

I think maybe report your post and MNHQ can do their thing.

Anyone reading can see the whole thread and take what they will from it.

That's usually the best way tbh.

Do you your post though and say what your concerns are, I think that is definitely the right thing to do.

Mad as a box of frogs.

I believe, using my skills of deduction, which are a bit rusty, that jenny is pro full decriminalisation/legalisation of both prostitution and purchasing sex. On the grounds of safety of women involved.

She provides links to a study of the Norwich model which finds that legalisation of prostitution in the absence of legalisation of purchase, puts prostitutes at further risk. This is a view shared by Amnesty International and the WHO.

New Zealand have decriminalised both. However I have yet to see how this would self impose itself over European countries. Where even legalisation is ignored by landlords and law enforcement.

As a PP has said, making it legal does nothing to tackle widespread human trafficking, child abuse, or the treatment of prostitutes as second class citizens. It doesn't magically make society sit up and wonder why women are in such desperate positions that this becomes their only viable option.

As long as society condones the use of people's bodies for sex, without true consent ie for inducement, men will continue to consider women as a disposable receptacle for their use.

Instead it would be far better to support our young women financially and emotionally to give them real life alternative options.

Nothing much to add beyond there are so many bizarre new points raised by Jenny I don't know where to start, although it's probably a waste of time anyway.

I know that Gerbil, which is why I was careful to phrase it that I don't know whether or not this particular poster is just a very messed up individual with poor boundaries nonetheless posting in good faith (I think it's possible for someone to genuinely but mistakenly believe that complete decrim is a route to safer conditions, which would count as good faith in my books, but be doing so out of vested interest in decrim because of their chosen lifestyle which in turn arose from past abuse/poor boundaries as a result).

But it is important to remember that prostitution threads on here always draw in punters and pimps to defend the indefensible, and people may not always be what they seem online.

It's not this poster's defence of prostitution which worries me per se, it's the overlap with not understanding child safeguarding, being utterly lacking in empathy towards child sexual abuse survivors and the totally weird non-sequiturs like introducing reference to Suzy Lamplugh into the conversation.

There's something very odd about the posts. Which could be not-very-bright but sincere poster. Or disturbed poster. Or not-in-good-faith poster opting for a scatter gun, gish gallop approach of "throw a load of crap at the wall and see if any of it sticks."

@NiceGerbil

Your comments show me that you know nothing about sex work. I happen to know for a fact that Diane does not do penetrative sex. She does massage, hand relief and oral sex.

In Chester none of the Thai masseurs offer a sexual service. In Liverpool some of them offer hand relief as well as massage. In Manchester some of them offer penetrative sex too. The point I am trying to make is that lots of sex workers do not do penetrative sex. That's why the term sex worker is good because if you say prostitute the image that comes into their minds is a woman on a bed on her back.

An old woman is more vulnerable than a younger woman. I wouldn't want to tangle with a working-class brothel worker or a woman high on crack who probably has a knife on her. But even an old woman can go her entire career without violence.

Last year no sex workers were murdered in Britain. In 2018 one sex worker was murdered in Britain. Her name was Christina Abbotts. In 2017 one sex worker was murdered in Britain. Her name was Romina Kalachi. Neither was murdered by a client.

This is according to this wiki page 'Murdered sex workers in the United Kingdom'.

Last year 10 sex workers were murdered in Nordic model France.

This is according to this page 'Long read: How the Nordic model in France changed everything for sex workers'.

Perhaps you should think about that before you want the Nordic model for Britain. If you think that prostitution should be banned or you want to punish men for paying for sex. How many men pay for sex in Britain? Many thousands. How many of these murder women? None last year or the year before or the year before that.

This is a bit unfair because you need to compare numbers of murders before and after a change in legislation in each country. There have been no murders of sex workers in Sweden since the Nordic model came in in 2000 (unless you count Petite Jasmine), but then there were no murders since the 1980s. So if you think that the Nordic model reduces death you should think again.

No man has been imprisoned in Sweden for paying for sex. They are fined. That's not going to deter the antisocial let alone the psychopathic.

This is according to the wiki page 'Prostitution in Sweden'.

Why did you choose her, op? And then just make up some stuff about estate agent 'rules'?

Well I thought this would be obvious. Every time a woman is alone in a flat or a house with a man she doesn't know and who has not been identified she is at risk. That's not different for sex workers. We need to make sure all women are safe.

If you say that other estate agents might have been murdered too, that's not really helping your argument. Have they? If not, why not? Do women show men around flats alone? I hope not.

You are also the person who brought the sibling stuff onto the thread.

No I didn't. I think that it was Chickenyhead who said that sex is different from other activities because it can harm. She then went on to say that's why we don't allow children to do it and what about incest.

After a comment I made about incest someone said they had been raped by their brother, then someone else challenged me to respond to that. Which I did.

I said I would make her promise not to do it again. I would then have gone on to talk to her about oral sex, that she shouldn't be doing it till she is a teenager and best to wait till she's 16. I don't believe in telling children everything in one go, best to do it over several days. She would then know that some girls do it, better to do it if you're over 16, and never to do it with your brother.

I think that is very sensible and a lot of people will agree with me. A girl putting a boy's penis in her mouth is different from a boy lifting up a girl's skirt. But a 4 year old doesn't know that. You have to teach them right from wrong. When I was a child you knew your mother didn't want you to do something when you got a smack on the back of the head. We should have progressed since then and talk to our children about what is acceptable.

There's something very odd about the posts. Which could be not-very-bright but sincere poster. Or disturbed poster. Or not-in-good-faith poster opting for a scatter gun, gish gallop approach of "throw a load of crap at the wall and see if any of it sticks."

Everything I have said has been said by people more intelligent than you or I. For example, Dr Brooke Magnanti. I get a lot of my stuff from her. Or Dr Belinda Brook-Gordon or Dr Nic Mai. Academics who have got PhDs. You may not understand all of it, but other people who read this thread will. You need to read more and get out of your silo.