Legalisation of Prostitution
Right i've now read a number of articles on the legalisation of prostition and it's negative effects on woman in the trade as well as woman in general. Now firstly the articles seem to use the same source the CAWT (Coalition Against Women Trafficing) and so I'm not very convinced by their stats, but even if they are correct, I'm left wondering as to what their alternative is? They say decrimilize prostitutes themselves yet continue to criminalise pimps and clients, now i've nothing really against on a moral level (i'm not exactly too worried about peoples human right to buy anothers) I remain skeptical about the outcome this would produce for prostitutes themselves, infact i reckon it would serve only to put them at greater risk.
Now clearly the only real answer is the destruction of capitalism and the abolishment of wage labour but i'm interested in where that leaves sex workers in the present. Do we support their calls for legalisation?
The radical feminist strategy seems to be confused, on one hand it moralises against prostitution, ineffective at actually dealing with the issues and on the other it slips into appealing to the strong arm of the state to crack down on pimps and traffickers, which is abit like appealing to the biggest patriarchial mob boss to sort out the other ones.
it's an interesting problem, but you're just picking a fight with arf aren't you?
well yes and no.
i'm actually interested in the issue because i think it brings to the surface some of the assumptions and foundations that ground radical feminism.
Also there was a spokesperson for a prostitutes group calling for the legalisation of prostitution on the news last night cos of that serial killer in Ipswich.
I'd actually prefer it if a good few other people entered the discussion because in all fairness arf never really responses directly to points.
i don't see any alternative to legalisation, insofar as i'm pretty much an anarchist and don't think criminalisation of stuff generally does much good (of course legalisation will still be state-mediated, legislated etc too). i mean, are the conditions and opportunities for self-organisation enhanced by replacing underworld pimps with petit-bourgeoisie proper? i reckon so
yeah but that only leaves the argument that it legitimises the buying and selling of womens bodies, which would imply that you think that such buying and selling of bodies only counts if it is sex, whilst it's fine to destroy your mind and body down a mine, in a sweatshop, in a call centre, in the military or in a whole host of platonic prostitutions.
which brings us nicely back to the (alleged
) moralism of radical feminism vs our crude communist economism
well sorta, I mean there is no doubting that we view sex in a much different light than doing the ironing, and i don't want to ever conflate the two, either empirically or theorectically.
As it is I think the fact a great many of us are especially repelled by the idea of paying for sex is the residue of dignity that has been washed away by commodification, I also think that it's a necessary ideological exception, a pole that allows the channeling of our disgust at the commodification of all relations.
I don't think that we should give it up and move on, so much as generalise it.
aye, i'd like to see more revulsion at commodification, of course, rather than the final harmonising of sex(uality) as just another commodity
i've wondered abou this re: the sex workers IU of the IWW. one the one hand, why shouldn't they organize, on the other hand, the existence of this IU seems to participate in the commodification of sex, which my troglodytic mind feels is somehow different from the commodification of, say, recycling or coffee pouring. but it's all labor produced for the man, i guess.
yeah but the other problem is that resistance to the commodification of sex is just as much a programme of sexist, patriarchial priests and mullahs.
Which is how Dworkin and Mackinnon ended up with them during the ordinance debate.
Also a generalisation of resistance to commodification shouldn't be some drop out moralistic shite either.
the existence of this IU seems to participate in the commodification of sex
I've heard this point before. If it's a valid one, it seems to me that it works too well, in that you could say that all unions participate in the commodification of labour power, whatever it might be.
Of course, some people do actually think that, but I don't believe you're one of them.
newyawka wrote:
the existence of this IU seems to participate in the commodification of sexI've heard this point before. If it's a valid one, it seems to me that it works too well, in that you could say that all unions participate in the commodification of labour power, whatever it might be.
Of course, some people do actually think that, but I don't believe you're one of them.
i'm not, and i know that catches me in a conundrum:
but it's all labor produced for the man, i guess.
but i'm a troglodyte, full of moralistic shite.
a troglodyte, full of moralistic shite.
Tagline!
is that a dare???
They say decrimilize prostitutes themselves yet continue to criminalise pimps and clients, now i've nothing really against on a moral level (i'm not exactly too worried about peoples human right to buy anothers) I remain skeptical about the outcome this would produce for prostitutes themselves, infact i reckon it would serve only to put them at greater risk.
Sweden has done this, and together with wider policy on prostitution has reduced prostitution considerably. This is a link to a (partisan) site on Sweden's prostitution policy. From the site
n 1999, after years of research and study, Sweden passed legislation that a) criminalizes the buying of sex, and b) decriminalizes the selling of sex. The novel rationale behind this legislation is clearly stated in the government's literature on the law:"In Sweden prostitution is regarded as an aspect of male violence against women and children. It is officially acknowledged as a form of exploitation of women and children and constitutes a significant social problem... gender equality will remain unattainable so long as men buy, sell and exploit women and children by prostituting them."
In addition to the two pronged legal strategy, a third and essential element of Sweden's prostitution legislation provides for ample and comprehensive social service funds aimed at helping any prostitute who wants to get out, and additional funds to educate the public. As such, Sweden's unique strategy treats prostitution as a form of violence against women in which the men who exploit by buying sex are criminalized, the mostly female prostitutes are treated as victims who need help, and the public is educated in order to counteract the historical male bias that has long stultified thinking on prostitution. To securely anchor their view in firm legal ground, Sweden's prostitution legislation was passed as part and parcel of the country's 1999 omnibus violence against women legislation.
It does seem like this policy is working, though obviously they did not just do it through laws and policing alone. But, there are a lot of critiques of the prostitution law, most notably from Sweden's sex workers and support revol that it endangers them. And in general they just see the legislation as shite.
As a result of the new legislation, the sexworkers say it is now harder for them to assess the clients. The clients are more stressed and scared and negotiation outdoors must be done in a more rapid manner. The likelihood of ending up with a dangerous client is thereby greater.
Choice and safety is the priority. The number of murdered prostitutes all over the world is shocking. There is no answer to this problem I suppose but for prostitutes to have a safe space in the "polis", that is an open one, visible would be better than the outskirts of cities where they are completely isolated.
Second is choice. I have NO problem with prostitution as long as it is a choice, and yes, it can be a choice of lifestyle, I'm not saying that to be provocative. I say that by experience.
Third: fight the pimps: a) legally but it doesn't really work, b) anarchist militia controlling the streets (hey why not?), c) organise against the bosses
This is coming up so often but there is a strong difference between forced prostitution and chosen prostitution. In France, anarchists are often for the interdiction of all kind of prostitutions. Now, come on, the role of a prostitute is only to be a hole? Or does a prostitute have a social role?
Well there's currently a sick fuck killing prostitutes in England at the moment so it's been more of an open issue at the moment over here too.
Yeah that's another thing I don't like about the CAWT report it uses the phrase Trafficing to describe all migration by prostitutes and this quite clearly has undertones of forced (in the directly violent sense) prostitution. I mean we clearly don't talk about Philipino workers in the local KFC being trafficed.
Well there's currently a sick fuck killing prostitutes in England at the moment so it's been more of an open issue at the moment over here too.
to ignore the main topic just for a second - any ideas about what sort of practical help could be offered right now to women who work as prostitutes in Ipswich, or live in the areas women are going missing from?
theres got to be something. the ideas i have arent very good, but there has to be something.
Hi
Do we support their calls for legalisation?
I suppose. But how? I've got a few ideas.
Love
LR
Now, come on, the role of a prostitute is only to be a hole?
er ... yeah ... from some standpoints ...
is this the place to ask why there is prostitution at all? yikes, cancel that, i don't need to hear any rote bullshit about "yeah, admit it, we really are that way" from a bunch of closet liberal feminist men...
go ahead, ask. whats the harm.
clearly if a prostitute just needed to be a hole then alot of prostitutes would be out of work.
it's alot more complex than that, even for mysgonist fucks who actually claim such things.
theres a suggestion of Reclaim The Night marches in ipswich/throughout the UK, in solidarity with women in Ipswich.
history bit:
Reclaim the Night marches and rallies have traditionally been organised by collectives of unpaid women who have worked together in their communities to organise peaceful protests against sexual violence towards women and children, and to promote women's strength and survival. Reclaim the Night represents a claim for women's basic human right to live in freedom from discrimination and fear of violence.The first rally took place in Rome in 1976, as a reaction to reported rapes reaching 'Astronomical' figures (16000 per annum). Around 10,000 women and children marched through the centre of the city.
Marches followed in 1977 in West Germany. Women there demanded, "the right to move freely in their communities at day and night without harassment and sexual assault"
Reclaim the Night marches were initiated in England on 23 November 1977 by women in Leeds in response to the 'Ripper Murders'. They had read of the demonstrations by feminists in Germany. Angry at advice to stay indoors since the last "Ripper" killing, they marched with torches through the town and challenged men in the street, asking them where they were at the time the "Ripper" killed Jacqueline Hill? On this occasion hundreds of women sang protest songs in the city square. Marches occurred simultaneously in 11 towns, from Manchester to Soho.
'Take Back the Night' marches in the USA were first held in 1978. In San Francisco over 5000 women from 30 states marched through the pornography district. These organised protests developed into campaigns such as Women Against Violence Against Women.
"Take Back the Night is a symbolic statement of our commitment to stopping the tide of violence against women in all arenas and our demand that perpetrators of such violence be held responsible for their actions and be made to change."
Women from Ireland, India, Canada, Germany and Holland have also marched through their cities to Reclaim the Night.
In Australia, Reclaim the Night marches were first held in 1978.
"The campaigns here have become large and explicitly political campaigns, focussing on the need for social and legal reform, on the need for more Government resources to assist victims, and on the effects of assault and loss of freedom on women's lives....
On another level, Reclaim the Night represents a challenge to the curfew mentality that is imposed on 51% of the population. It symbolises a rejection of existing beliefs that "women shouldn't walk alone at night" and "that women should be careful of what they wear and who they speak to". Such warnings deflect the onus and responsibility of male violence from men onto women, and endorse a kind of gender apartheid on the streets.
By taking part in this protest we are able to unite in a joyful celebration of our collective strength and solidarity, demanding not only safety on the streets but at home and in the workplace. We march to reclaim our public space and demand that which has been denied us, paradoxically, the right to walk alone."
Lismore was one of the first rural areas in NSW to take part. Women have been holding marches there since 1988.
"To even know that it goes beyond your community that it is statewide, nationwide, an international event is a very strengthening experience for women."
from here
what do you reckon? women in Ipswich are being told to stay home and safe. first - this isnt practical, especially for those women who work as prostitutes and need the money, with christmas coming up and everything. second - why should the women stay indoors, they aren't the dangerous ones, and besides which home is not exactly the safest place for many women to be.
there's a woman in ipswich (ish) on the boards ...
imho, it might be a good gesture of solidarity, but i'm presuming the killer poses as a 'client' so i don't know if it would be of much practical use
Hi
theres a suggestion of Reclaim The Night marches in ipswich/throughout the UK, in solidarity with women in Ipswich.
What, all of them?
Love
LR
yeh, all of them.
Hi
yeh, all of them.
Presumably the marches stay out of the Red Light district then, you wouldn't want to put the punters off.
Love
LR
I think it sounds like a good idea, assuming the right demands are made (amnesty for prostitutes and clients with info about the murders, for one). I'd be up for it, seeing as I'll be back in East Anglia next week.
Who's suggested it arf?
What do the Ipswich Anarchists think about this?
Hi
assuming the right demands are made
I'm sure I heard on the TV that they'd already been granted amnesty. Assuming there are other demands, I'm sceptical this march could enforce them.
Love
LR
amnesty for prostitutes and clients with info about the murders
amnesty for all clients, or just those with info about the murders?








I mean all the issues that the CAWT report raise are hardly (or shouldn't be) shocks to anyone. The whole report reads like a niave liberal being shocked to discover that legal factories are still sweatshops and still routinely break or work round the law.
I mean we all know that sexual abse, harrassment, coercion, management bullying, health and safety breaches all go on under legalised clothes factoies but I don't think it would mean any of us would want to see the state make the industry illegal.
I also think this shows radical feminisms massive hard on for sex. I mean seriously radical feminists must be up there with the catholic church for being obsessed with sexuality. They are rightfully appalled that women sell themselves but they don't seem to extend such disgust to the rest of capitalism. It seems radical feminists share in the judeo christian obsession with sexuality and it's purity. I mean why is paying for sex anymore an act of dominance than paying someone to be all but chained to a production line for 12 hours a day?
The fact that a good few women go into prostitution in an attempt to avoid such sweatshops should be enough to tell prick radical feminisms interest in the exploitative nature of all wage labour.