Legalisation of Prostitution

Just an aside: paradoxically, I wouldn't want to see any drug legalised or made illegal.

The first means illicit drugs are controlled by conglomerates, multinational corporations etc. The second is controlled by generally nefarious mercenaries who made more nefarious by the fact that it's illegal.

The third way: the drugs become the property of the community to serve in the interests of the community.

Really I'm just referring to marijuana.

There's now a thread discusssing the possibility of a Reclaim/Take back the Night in Ipswich here

On a related note, if heroin were legalised and prescribed on the NHS it would mean that hundreds or thousands of women wouldn't have to be prostitutes any more. I'm not sure of the figures but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of certainly the lower end of british prostitutes are heroin or other hard drug addicts.

Hi

Isn't crack the drug of choice? I can't see them legalising that in a hurry. Let alone prescribing it.

Love

LR

actually no, heroin is the drug of 'choice' for most prostitutes.

revol - dont try to give lazy's posts any legitimacy, i cant even be bothered to get pissy over them, they are that irrelevant and worthless.

so by your implication people who read dworkin dont go out at the weekend, by lazys implication they havent had a shag in a while - please, do roll out some more cliches. they really do wonders for your argument.

if they aren't harming anyone,

seems to be the important part, and seeing as sex involves more than one person, then its worth taking the others into account i would say.

you know, you seem like a passionate and at least fairly intelligent guy. so how come you dont notice the hypocrisy of accusing me of 'moralising' when your argument is based on your own moral judgement of me? its a mind boggler.

Hi

Interesting. I wonder if a preference for smack over cocaine and preference for prostitution over hairdressing are linked at a psychological as well as economic level.

Love

LR

I don't really believe your comprehension skills are coequal to a lobotomised turkey's, nor possibly about as moribund as a turkey is about this time of year, so I cordially invite you to read my post once again, this time perhaps reading it a bit more closely and less impetuously.

Hi

I'm glad there is such a word as "coequal". And here it is...

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/coequal?view=uk

Love

LR

i have to say that i dont agree with this woman in general, but i do agree with her about further decriminalisation/legalisation. there is some stuff that is just plain common sense that is ignored when people shout for 'Legalisation!' without thinking it through.

anyway - first the article, written by a Libertarian Feminist who is also a 'sex worker',

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:gJEUYa6JQVQJ:www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/lapam/lapam027.pdf

obviously i dont id as libertarian, and i winced at the mention even of the ifeminists.. but there is stuff in the article which is relevant.

first - 'sex work' as a term is meaningless. we all use it pretty much because its the politically correct term to use. but it is such a huge category as to be largely meaningless. i've seen women who do phone sex described as sex workers, and ive seen traffiked children referred to as child sex workers. i dont know what to do about this, i know that the term is thought to be a problem too from women who class themselves as sex workers.

second - the call for legalisation is mostly being made by people who are not prostitutes. prostitutes rights organisations are not necessarily made up of prostitutes. its also worth noting that even most prostitutes rights orgs do not call for legalisation but for decriminalisation. this needs to be more specific!

third - the section where i am mostly in agreement with the miranda matthews article is "understanding the state mentality". most of what she has written there is common sense.

to those who support decriminilisation or legalisation. what do you think this will achieve? it isnt enough to say "it will be safer" - qualify that. safer how? for who?

if you stop and think about it, isnt all of that the obvious outcome of legalisation?

another issue, is who is talking for the prostitutes? we all know that there are prostitute rights orgs. but are these made up of prostitutes themselves? and if they are, what type? i guarantee you they are not made up of street prostitutes. like revol said elsewhere - prostitutes should be able to organise for themselves. however any group could call itself a prostitutes advocacy group, and we're just supposed to go along with that? it is not unknown for "pro sex work" orgs to be set up, run, and member-ed (is that a word) by pimps and punters. obviously not all orgs are like that, but we have to be aware that some people are not above doing that sort of shit.

and then im told as a radical feminist to stick my beak elsewhere, effectively. but i know a good number of radfems who have been or are sex workers of one sort or another - remember even andrea dworkin worked as a prostitute. i've done what ive done and ive also lived with and been close to prostitutes. does it not seem fair to say that some radical feminists are prostitutes organising?

there are more than two sides to this. there are prostitutes and their advocates calling for decriminalisation. there are prostitutes and their advocates who do not want further decriminalisation.

i keep saying this, but there are refuges and rape crisis groups all over the place staffed and run by radfems - does that not count for prostitutes advocacy? do the women i know who have spent decades helping prostitutes get access to counselling, condoms, healthcare, refuge, etc, not count?

it just seems very one sided, i dont think this is fair.

prostitutes rights orgs members dont have to reveal their own personal history of 'sex work' to be taken seriously and i dont think its fair that we are forced into the position of come out or fuck off. and even where women do come out ive witnessed times where they are told that their own position doesnt count because they are "damaged" by their time in the 'industry'. witness linda marciano, or again dworkin, for some great big examples. its insane.

anyway - stuff to think about. like i said, im not a libertarian feminist so please dont think that that article expresses my own opinions about anything other than what ive highlighted. i thought that it might be interesting to you is all, and im interested in your own thoughts on this subject.

Hi

arf, sorry about this, but what's your point again?

Love

LR

if we legalise/decriminalise prostitution, when do they become benefit cheats etc.? To legalise this completely would just push them in to a system which is equally as bad, and where, if they are honest with the state, they have to work harder to earn the same amount of money, and probably with draconian regulation as well.Whatever measures are put in place guys will still want to be able to kerbcrawl for sex and not go to safer environments like brothels. As it is condom handouts and gum clinics tend to work on a confidential/need to know basis and so i see no need for legalisation whatsoever as i don't think it would serve to destigmatise prostitution at all.

Hi

This is a good point, as it happens. If it becomes a legal profession then people could be asked to take it up in order to get off benefits.

The best thing to do is for the tarts to form a professional institution with strict entry requirements, like medicine or law or a bit like being CORGI registered.

That way, if you want to stay on benefits rather than fuck for a living it would probably work out. I mean, it's not as if people are forced to take work as a porn actor, butcher, lap dancer or Firefighter if they're not suitable.

Love

LR

Hi

Absolutely. A campaign against legalisation from any quarter other than the religious right is completely absurd in the current context.

Having said that, I don’t really know what “support” for legalisation looks like other than defending the goals of the workers themselves.

Love

LR

That entirely negates the point of an RTN march.

Also one of the main reasons people kill prostitutes is that it is easy. You can get a strange woman to go to a private place with you in seconds. Most prostitutes are used to abuse and mistreatment so they probably won't kick up too much of a fuss when you take them to then place you plan to kill them.

Did you swallow a dictionary or are you an american?

In terms of legalisation it entirely depends upon enforcement. It would be possible to pretty much stop all prostitution but it would eb expensive.

The problem with legalisation for me is that it not only normalises prostitution it doesn't offer any real protection to women. In the same way that legalising pornography hasn't stopped exploitation of women, I also think that the effect has been to make it more extreme and yet more acceptable. Some women have managed to do well out of pornography, in the same way as a small black middle class has prospered in South Africa. Just because a minority have done well (by some measures) does not mean that inequality has been stopped or even addressed)

One of the problems with prosecuting clients is that women end up moving to more dangerous areas themselves because they need the business. If you could prevent unlicensed borthels from operating, prevent street soliciting and effectively police brothels then that might help women. But if you're going to go to all they effort why not ban it outright. Also to what point do you legislate? Do you order the use of condoms? Who is responsible for it legally (buyer or seller)? How do you enforce it?
Do you allow bondage? are there health and safety guidelines, do you need to have someone there to intervene? etc etc

Personally I think that there isn't a way of making prostitution safe. I think that perhaps legal, well-regulated brothels might help to an extent, especially if there was a heavy crackdown on clients. And shutting down the massage parlours operating fairly openly as brothels. One girl who lived in my borough was kidnapped by a man she met on the bus and forced to work in one for months before she finally escaped.

If the police simply enforced existing laws then women would be safer.

That's not the point though. I think you can take it as read that we all agree the police are fuckers and the state will fuck people people over for its cut in the blink of an eye. It's more about whether or not decriminalisation/legalisation opens up more space for prostitutes to organise for themselves.

My post was a little confused I must admit, because I am trying to square a circle,I don't believe a capitalist society has the will (possibly the ability) to prevent prostitution. So it's a question of making something horrible slightly less horrible. It's ok to use someone's drug habit to make them have sex with you but not to slap them about? I think I got caught between recognising that nothing is likely to be done and trying to offer a solution.

I was doing that

If police enforced laws on prostitution violence etc it would make things safer. Also you mention policy, policy and laws are not the same thing. If every rape, assault, robbery of a prostitute was treated as if it had happened to a 'normal' woman then there would be a massive effect.

I remember people arguing that women could empower themselves within legal pornography, not in this discussion true, but I did give it as an example.
Extremity does increase the extent to which women are objectified and this has a corresponding effect on the treatment that they receive and the worse the treatment the worse the expoitation.

With enough resources yes. You could certainly make illegal prostitution not worth the hassle compared to legal prostitution.

Yeah this is the real question.

I think he's saying if prostitution was legalised, he thinks the police could theoretically be able to stamp out illegal prostitution. But practically I can't see why they would, or what difference it'd make to anything.

I said that

I asked this too

Yes.

Im confused, how do they propose to legalise prostitution?

Im sure you can get sex workers into such places, but I thought a large % of such work was done with little linkages to any structure that could become formal. I know in the US, and probably here to, many of the lower working i.e. street sex workers don't have many ties. Also it still wouldn't have any effect on the idea of selling your body for sex, although there could be posistions for organisations to form, although how this would be treated I dont know, similar to other unions or different due to the nature of the industry?

In regards to legalising drugs I think it would be a good idea. Sure it wont probably be a rallying point for a revolution but if it can remove men and women from dangerous situations/jobs that arise from their addiction, and give them support then im all for it. If it also has a damaging affect of the profiters of dealing then that is good as well.

In Glasgow they have a tolerance zone in the business district where there's lots of high resolution cameras, and it's right next to the central police station. There used to be prostitutes bodies dragged up in the Clyde on a weekly basis. Since the cops* brought in the unofficial official tolerance zone murders and assaults are very rare. Altho there is no protection against out-and-out nutters like the guy that hacked that prostitutes arm off recently.

A scheme like that could extended across the whole of the UK with fuckall cost either poltically or economically to each of the local authorities. If they'd had it in Ipswich they'd have caught this nutter by now.

*weird eh?