Legalisation of Prostitution

Yeah cheers! it just leaves my strange post in the middle of the thread - so bizarre how that happened, Newyawka - given I wasn't even posting on the thread at the time - tech stuff scares me - I know tech types say there is a logical answer to it all - I am not convinced..

Dear Arf and Woolley, on the issue of "prostitutes encouraging rape"... as has been argued more eloquently by others on here, it's a logical conclusion of what you're saying. If someone is "raped" when they sell sex for money, then by advertising their services, they are in essence "asking to be raped for money". You can surely see the logic here? See, according to your argument, I've been "raped" too many times to remember, which is odd really because I thought I'd only been raped once in my life and that was the time when I didn't consent. But I get the impression that the notion of consent seems to be completely irrelevant to you. If there's no consent, then as I understand it, it's rape. But now you tell us that if someone pays for a fuck, irrespective of consent, then it's rape. But if the notion of consent is of little worth, who then is the final arbiter of what is and isn't rape? The actual flesh and blood person who is raped or the radical feminist ideologue on Libcom forum?

Excellent use of buzzwords, Wooley. You really know how to flick all the right switches and ring all the radical feminist bells. Well done. You never know, you might even get yourself promoted to the status of "minion" if you keep this up.

Nah, I don't hit me kids... I'd be more likely to say one of the following, "come on son, just lighten up," or maybe, "tek that lemon out o' yer gob, our kid, and pack it in with yer po-faced rubbish," or even "shurrup an eat yer fuckin tea, yer cheeky little bleeder."

Why would I want to become a 'minion'? This is the internet, I'm obviously not trying to 'win friends and influence people'. And the register of your post did strike me as overtly patronising.

As for the other argument: it's a reductio ad absurdum at best, and besides, I think it is obvious that the prostitutes are not sincerely asking for it, because that would defeat the whole idea of prostitution, the whole idea is that they are forced into it.

All your posts give the impression of a fuming, red-faced little man who desperately tries to make up for a uniform lack of tact or reason, by bashing out crude, self-serving and meaningless contumely.

Perhaps there should be an automatic censor on here which, whatever he (revol) types, ends up being rendered as [insert aggressive, meaningless catharsis here].

There was me thinking that the whole idea was that people pay them for sex.

Power and control plays a role, but you can no more reduce the reasons that some men pay for sex to that than you can reduce it to the bare mechanics of sex.

serge youre a fucking tosser. i didnt say i believed prostitution to be rape, you are deliberately misrepresenting what i said because you've got no fucking argument here. and although there is economic coercion, which y'know, could fall under that if i wanted to stretch the meaning, it is clear that some prostitutes feel they are offering a fair exchange - money for services.

however there are also thousands of women in this country alone who are being forced to give sexual services. the punter thinks he is not committing rape because he is handing over money, but if that woman is there against her will then he is paying for rape, and you cant tell me these guys dont know theyre fucking women who have been traffiked, abducted, kept against their will, because ive read the shit they discuss and they know - hell it's even part of the appeal for some sick fucks.

you accuse me of being black/white but you're the one insisting on that, i am well aware of the various types of prostitution and the differences between them.

all this crap about giving prostitutes what they want - well we know FOR A FACT that the great majority dont want to be in prostitution but cant get out. imo if that is the case, if they DONT WANT TO FUCK BUT FEEL THEY HAVE NO CHOICE, then hell fucking yeh i call that rape. what do you want me to call it, 'fair exchange', 'bad luck' maybe? fuck you.

arf, you're being astonishingly simplistic here.

I agree that it's problematic to look at prostitution purely in terms of choice, but the fact that most prostitutes want to get out of that job isn't a good argument for the status quo, which if anything makes it much harder for them to get out.

what are you talking about when you say "the status quo"?

Street prostitutes being hassled by the police, forced into more dangerous areas. Prostitutes in general being afraid to come forward for drug treatment or go to the police when they have been raped, because they're afraid of how the police will treat them once they know they're prostitutes.

In short, criminalisation.

okay, well lets go over this again.

prostitution is already partly decriminalised.

street prostitution however is not. it never will be. its not going to happen madashell - there may be further decriminalisation pushing the boundaries of the current laws, say more women allowed to work together per brothel.

street prostitutes themselves do not on the whole support tolerance zones. you can research this for yourself if you like. tolerance zones do not make things safer for street prostitutes, they just move the problem out of the way of the rest of us, like drawing a curtain over it.

street prostitution is also never going to be legalised. even if it were, there would be strict regulations on, requirements of trading licences etc. the great majority of street prostitutes will not be applying for or able to obtain official licenses. in effect, this would create a system where some women were allowed to work but the great majority would be more greatly policed and punished as 'competition' and as working fraudulently or some shit like that.

i support keeping the rules as they are for street prostitutes, not allowing the state to interfere, give licenses, crack down further on unlicensed prostitutes, or shove them in some out of the way 'tolerance' zone. i support not arresting street prostitutes, instead offering them whatever they need to either get out of prostitution. if they dont want out then i might support giving them help to set up as self employed from home as is currently already allowed, if thats what they really want to do.

i dont think the answers to street prostitution lie in legalisation or decriminalisation. i know that the huge majority of street prostitutes want neither anyway. for all this talk abotu letting them decide for themselves, there seems remarkably little interest in actually hearing what they have to say.

As it happens I agree with you about "tolerance zones", they're a pile of shite, prostitutes are still denied the limited level of protection most of us recieve from the state, in exchange for the state 'turning a blind eye'. I'd like to hear what your suggestions are, because at the moment they seem to be limited to the state making everything that offends you illegal.

And no, I'm not going to do your research for you. If you're going to make a claim about what most street prostitutes think or feel, you can back it up yourself.

Hi

Indeed, and what better way to help than to provide them with custom. Give generously comrades, it’s Christmas after all.

Love

LR

Arf, kindly do not talk to me in this way. I have not in any way personally insulted you, but have merely questioned your simplistic, dogmatic and prejudiced line of reasoning.

well for a start theres the article i linked to before (page 4 of this thread)

Thank you for that. Of course I know that you and Arf don't for one minute think that prostitutes are in any way "asking for it," but that is the logical outcome of your absurd argument that paying for sex is rape.

Again, (aside from the fact that we all have to do some kind of work to survive) in this country, it is a minority of prostitutes that are "forced" into it.

bollocks serge, you accused me of holding a position i do not, then when i asked you to retract you ignored me and continued, as well as patronising me in a misogynist manner. if you want me to be respectful to you then id suggest thats a two way street.

Hi arf, I'm not trying to be aggressive, and I don't see myself as taking over anyone else's line of argument here, but a couple of points:

Hi, this point might have been made already, and I can't be bothered to trawl through and see if it has... but: apparently (according to a presentation from the IUS) the proportion of prostitutes who fall into the category of those subject to extra-economic coercion (e.g. violence, drug addiction, immigration concerns) is around 3-5%. As a total figure it's still thousands and thousands of people. And what those people go through is terrible; and there is no excuse for their customers - not least because they can quite easily access the remaining 95-7%, if they're prepared to pay a bit more, wear a condom, etc. But I think that this is worth bearing in mind - that's it's a relatively minor proportion of what prostittion in this country is (by number of people involved, not necessarily severity of social impact). If I've got my statistics wrong, I'd like to hear what your best estimate is, and where you get it from. (I think I'm right in saying that this 3-5% is basically identical with the 'street prostitutes'.)

(I'm assuming that the 'great majority' you're talking about, you're not alledging to be a part of the category discussed in my previous paragraph - if that is the case, I'd be interested to read the source for that.) Would you agree with me that the great majority of cleaners or hotel maids don't want to be doing the job they're doing, but can't get out? Perhaps because they need to keep a roof over their heads, feed their kids, are trapped by a boss who keps back pay over their heads and will report them to the IND if they cause any trouble.

Would you also agree that while it is true, in a polemical sense, that the cleaners in question are 'wage slaves'; they are not - according to the conventional use of the term - 'slaves', despite the fact that they do work that they do not really want to do, but which feel compelled to participate in?

Thirdly, to clarify, are you saying that the group of people compelled to have sex by purely economic constraints are 'raped' whenever they work, or only those who have sex because of extra-economic coercion?

I can agree that women who are forced by addiction or violence to have sex are being raped, but not if you're saying that all economically-coerced prostitutes are raped.

I think that to frame this debate in a sensible way, there are a couple of questions:

1. Will any sort of legalisation or decriminalisation help street prostitutes?
The IUS argue that yes, it will. They say that a regulatory atmosphere will make it easier to crack down on street pimping operations. I'm not entirely sure this is wrong, but it seems to be stretching it a bit. Afterall, legal DVD sales doesn't stop irregular migrants selling copied DVDs outside my local Sainsbury's. And I don't see why it should be any different for prostitution. Presumably it's already harder for men to get caught going to a non-street prostitute, so it's unclear how it could alter their motivations. I might have this wrong, but I think that given that this is the case, most of arf's suggestions for practical changes seem sensible.

2. Will any sort of legalisation or decriminalisation help non-street prostitutes?
Difficult. It'd probably make it better on an individual level. But it'd also allow big business to get its dirty paws in the pot. I guess that's why some were briefly talking about legalising it for worker-run co-operatives of 3 women or less (have I got that right?).

Random other responses.

Dude, the thread is called 'legalisation of prostitution'. It's always been about 'drafting new laws'; that's what everyone's talking about. (Especially since increases in public spending on certain areas have to be approved by law as well.)

Flaming's ok here now, is it?

But no need for that now, was there?

Arf, I have not done this. Moreover, you have made no attempt to answer any questions put to you. Neither have I patronised or been in any way misogynistic... unless you think I should just go along with whatever you say because you're a special case?

Either way, do not use terms like "fucking tosser" when speaking to me. I only let people call me that for "the right price," and as far as you're concerned, you haven't paid and it's not consensual.

the english collective of prostitutes on legalisation

on decriminalisation

there are several problems i have with this position on decriminalisation, i've numbered them in the paragraph for simplicity.

1 - this is true of the general population - women, prostitutes or not, are vulnerable and powerless in the UK as far as sexual assault and rape are concerned. prostitutes are of course even more vulnerable than other women, but the simple fact is that women on the whole recieve daily discrimination by the police and that the police rarely pursue complaints of sexual assault or rape. i do not believe that decriminalising prostitution further is dealing with the real problem here.

2 - loitering laws should be being challenged and changed anyway, again this is not a problem specific to prostitutes, although street prostitutes are again more vulnerable than most of us.

3 - ASBOs need to go, period. and prison should not be being used for non violent offenders.

4 - true, but this implies looking at the care system and dealing with that rather than making it legal for them to prostitute.

5 & 6 - in what bizarro world does anyone really believe this is going to happen?

7 - is already possible.

every single problem she identifies is a problem that goes way beyond simply decriminalising prostitution. i dont see how decrim. prostitution will actually change any of the tings she mentioned.

article here

That last sentence is what i keep coming back to over and over again. Is anyone else even bothered?

Hi

The ones who stay in it.

Love

LR

wow. theres an answer to be amazed by.

Hi

Job's a good'un. I knew you'd come round eventually.

Love

LR

which part of it? the only actual plans i can find in there are the following.

yep, i agree with all the above.

i also think that when brothels using traffiked women are raided, that the punters inside should be arrested and charged with rape, and that the women should be given whatever help they need to get on their feet in the uk. currently, the women are carted off to detention centres before deportation, and the punters are let to skulk off quietly. i dont believe that these men dont know they are paying to have sex with abducted women and therefore i believe they are committing rape. i think that when a woman has been brought here to service our men the least we can do is look after her afterwards.

you're confusing me with the government? okay, if i had my way, starting today i would bring in at least the following:

i do want a living wage introduced, thats something i've supported for years, way before i became a feminist. i would like a cap on top earnings too.

i also want prescribed heroin for heroin addicts, under certain conditions. for example id like the heroin given on site at the surgery, and as part of a programme to help addicts ultimately get off it.

i want rape crisis and dv refuges given proper funding, without 'strings'.

i want women only hostels for temporary housing, including space for their children, and taking girls from 12 upwards.

i want massive changes in the care system.

i want brothels using traffiked women shut down, the pimps and the punters arrested, and the women given any help they might need to get on their feet here.

theres tons of stuff id change but those are a few places id start.