Decriminalisation of the sex industry - Corbyn says yes, what thinks urban?
- Thread starter bimble
- Start date
crossthebreeze
Well-Known Member
or the brothel owners are deliberately not giving the women their workers rights (sick pay etc), charging them loads for being based there, and trying to get out of any legal responsibility for anything that might happen, while having the final say about whether or not they work there (and probably giving them rules they have to keep to) - exactly like the many other cases where business owners do this with other types of "self employed" but not really workers who aren't choosing their conditions - except even more shit.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Even if it is safer, if the conditions and money earned are not as good as doing it independently, is that extra safety worth it? You might not get a choice if they're undercutting you and getting all the business for other reasons - such as punters feeling that they're safer there as well.
I don't know, but capitalism drives to the bottom ruthlessly when there's a ready supply of workers, and there seems to be evidence that the potential to make a lot of money has led to increased people-trafficking in Holland.
crossthebreeze
Well-Known Member
Yeah I would hope that, but that's the trouble isn't it, loads of services are being cut, voluntary sector projects too, so's mental health care, education, benefits are getting harder and harder, so's housing, etc. It seems to me that those are the things that have got to be the priority to fight for rather than any grand scheme to change the law either way.
Johnny Vodka
The Abominable Scotsman
Dunno. You can fight for different things at the same time. If we wait until economic issues are sorted out before tackling 'moral' issues, issues of personal freedom, etc, we'll never get to those things. In fact, many other countries seem to be able to look at these different sorts of issues at the same time. The 'this is more important' argument seems more a British defence not to progress in these areas, because, as I said earlier, the biggest British parties aren't interested at all in civil liberties and such like and in fact would like to bring in more laws, more snooping, etc.
i made binbag a rhyme 
*hopefully* it's sesame street enough that they understand this time around, imagine it's miss piggy spitting it if it helps, it's worth a shot, eh lads? I don't even care that they are trolling it's helping advance my work as an aspiring rap artist, so it's all gravy, baby and I am topless drinking it out of the kfc tub and rubbing it on me nipples ohhhhhh yesssss hotttttttttt
you have no idea what you're arguing for
cus you dunno shit you've never been a whore
lost track of the game you don't know the score
concentrate on other things go back to your anti-war
you've never done cam, content or overnights
you've never had to deal with any white knights
you certainly don't have any kind of price per night
so why are you up out front fighting for vice rights?
cus you didn't get the memo sex work is legal
the alternative you're advocating can be lethal
possibilities that'll make you wanna curl up foetal
but that's it is it? thats gonna make us equal people?
you don't even notice your between the lines shade
when talking ignorantly about the sex trade
according to you buyers have rights to cheaper lays
a green light to pimp is called being played not paid.
#andwhat #cuntoff
*hopefully* it's sesame street enough that they understand this time around, imagine it's miss piggy spitting it if it helps, it's worth a shot, eh lads? I don't even care that they are trolling it's helping advance my work as an aspiring rap artist, so it's all gravy, baby and I am topless drinking it out of the kfc tub and rubbing it on me nipples ohhhhhh yesssss hottttttttttyou have no idea what you're arguing for
cus you dunno shit you've never been a whore
lost track of the game you don't know the score
concentrate on other things go back to your anti-war
you've never done cam, content or overnights
you've never had to deal with any white knights
you certainly don't have any kind of price per night
so why are you up out front fighting for vice rights?
cus you didn't get the memo sex work is legal
the alternative you're advocating can be lethal
possibilities that'll make you wanna curl up foetal
but that's it is it? thats gonna make us equal people?
you don't even notice your between the lines shade
when talking ignorantly about the sex trade
according to you buyers have rights to cheaper lays
a green light to pimp is called being played not paid.
#andwhat #cuntoff
Last edited:
and fyi, while I'm defending the aspects of the already legal sex work, I'm not saying shit shouldn't change, theres always various ways to improve anything, but this needs to start with the women who are less well off in life or struggling so bad that they end up turning tricks or vulnerable or coerced which will happen far more if decrim were to go ahead, so if all this talk of 'mnerrr i dont get why people defend the status quo' I'd just like to disclaim that my defence is of the entirety of prostitution and distance myself from endorsing solicitation because i find i get read wrongly, not in that rhyme tho, that shits on point, thats real talent
i have a hard time listening to those who endorse street walking as this is just so high risk i cannot believe people back it
these sex worker rights campaigners don't walk streets do they? the only people I see really endorsing this shit is online workers who think they have a god given right for their work not to be judged cus it's their freedom of choice (idiots) these people never look or sound like they are struggling, the stories of these whiny little privileged liberal shits are not going to match up with women on the street, it's all very selfish imo cus who is it really protecting? it's not women on the street who you see invisibly suffering but it's ok they are probably choosing to do that, but the point is even if they are choosing to do that it's probably not much of a fucking choice. fuck choice based arguments cus people love to talk about all the choices, but they never talk about when there isn't one
oh yeh and I coined binbag due to their use of 'cheaper imports' and cheap deals on tv's when talking about women in the sex industry that's not worthy of my respect I ain't got the energy nor patience for that basic shit.
raaaa i keep thinking if miss piggy did spit my rhyme it'd be so serious, she would totally murk it,,, I wonder what her feature rate is...
#yeahibeenlearningwordsandwhat
i have a hard time listening to those who endorse street walking as this is just so high risk i cannot believe people back it
these sex worker rights campaigners don't walk streets do they? the only people I see really endorsing this shit is online workers who think they have a god given right for their work not to be judged cus it's their freedom of choice (idiots) these people never look or sound like they are struggling, the stories of these whiny little privileged liberal shits are not going to match up with women on the street, it's all very selfish imo cus who is it really protecting? it's not women on the street who you see invisibly suffering but it's ok they are probably choosing to do that, but the point is even if they are choosing to do that it's probably not much of a fucking choice. fuck choice based arguments cus people love to talk about all the choices, but they never talk about when there isn't one
oh yeh and I coined binbag due to their use of 'cheaper imports' and cheap deals on tv's when talking about women in the sex industry that's not worthy of my respect I ain't got the energy nor patience for that basic shit.
raaaa i keep thinking if miss piggy did spit my rhyme it'd be so serious, she would totally murk it,,, I wonder what her feature rate is...
#yeahibeenlearningwordsandwhat
Last edited:
still waiting for a response on my queries regarding this classic statement
I bet it's juicy.
bimble
floofy
pengaleng ! I'm gonna shut up now, I *know* I don't know what i'm on about here. Didn't want to click 'like' on it in case you misunderstood but i really do like yr rap, especially rhyming lethal & foetal that's proper.
I didn't mean to argue for 'vice rights' or pushing the prices down but you've helped me understand that's probably what would happen.
I didn't mean to argue for 'vice rights' or pushing the prices down but you've helped me understand that's probably what would happen.
Athos
Well-Known Member
My understanding (albeit based on anecdote - I don't have access to the figures) is that street prostitution continues alongside these mega-brothels. The women who solicit on the streets are excluded from brothels, because they are often the most marginalised, through drugs, mental health, abuse etc.. This means that the women who really need harm reduction are not benefitted, whereas those who were previously able to work safely and with an element of control are now worse off, and exploited by the men who own the brothels.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
Given that the vast majority of sex workers wouldn't choose to sell sex if there was a viable alternative demonstrates that prostitution is coercive, and therefore an abuse of women. Accordingly, we ought to aim to bring it to an end. However, recognising that is not possible in the immediate term, we ought to do what we can to reduce the harm it causes sex workers.
The difficult questions are: first, whether or not decriminalisation will actually reduce net harm (I'm not convinced the case is as clear as many liberals would have us believe, and it seems to me that the voices of sex workers are often overlooked); and, secondly, the problem of a consequence of the short-term goal militating against the long-term goal i.e. where the legitimising of prostitution puts back the prospect of bringing it to an end.
In terms of the long-term goal, since the prostitution we see today is caused by (and a particular expression of) capitalism, the solution is the end of capitalism (which would benefit all workers).
Meantime, there are some measures that could be taken to reduce harm e.g. better social security, mental health provision, education, childcare, a rational drugs policy, harsher punishment for men who abuse sex workers, and for police who fail to tackle such crime. All of which would benefit sex workers and the community to which they belong, without legitimising the abuse of women.
The difficult questions are: first, whether or not decriminalisation will actually reduce net harm (I'm not convinced the case is as clear as many liberals would have us believe, and it seems to me that the voices of sex workers are often overlooked); and, secondly, the problem of a consequence of the short-term goal militating against the long-term goal i.e. where the legitimising of prostitution puts back the prospect of bringing it to an end.
In terms of the long-term goal, since the prostitution we see today is caused by (and a particular expression of) capitalism, the solution is the end of capitalism (which would benefit all workers).
Meantime, there are some measures that could be taken to reduce harm e.g. better social security, mental health provision, education, childcare, a rational drugs policy, harsher punishment for men who abuse sex workers, and for police who fail to tackle such crime. All of which would benefit sex workers and the community to which they belong, without legitimising the abuse of women.
Last edited:
not necessarily - look at established professions for example. Law firms, accountancy firms are run by lawyers and accountants. Those industries/professions have protected themselves. Sure they're not workers cooperatives but they're owned by (some of) the professionals who work within them - it is the lawyers, accountants that add the value/bring in the revenue and they get rewarded appropriately as a result - these firms can't be floated publicly and have some non-lawyer MBA types come in and start cutting pay etc.. it is a regulated profession in which people are able to chose self employment should they not be paid sufficiently.
So like law firms, accountancy firms why can't brothels be made legal with the stipulation that they can only be owned and managed by registered sex workers. Things like caps on the number of sex workers per establishment could also help prevent any mega brothels being set up.
Athos
Well-Known Member
"(some of)"
There is a massive disparity between practicing equity partners and employed solicitors. The former appropriate the surplus value of the labour of the latter, in the process often requiring them to work 80 hour weeks for fear of being replaced by someone more 'hungry.' And, whilst there's the illusion if choice, in reality most employed solicitors couldn't start up on their own and compete with established firms. What makes you think it'd be any different for sex work?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Which just makes competition for brothel places a race to the bottom, and allows brothel keepers to exclude the most marginalised women, who'd still end up working the streets. So, not only does it facilitate exploitation of workers, but doesn't even reduce the harm for the most vulnerable.
crossthebreeze
Well-Known Member
The Merseyside Hate Crime Model is harm reduction. I guess its selective decriminalisation - basically if a sex worker reports a rape or assault or other crime to the police, it is treated as a hate crime, and they are treated as a victim not a criminal - so women know they aren't going to get charged with solicitation, or brothel keeping, or have their family members arrested for living off immoral earnings, if they report a rape or assault from a client or report someone for abusing and pimping them. However the law itself doesn't change - so there's no danger of legalising megabrothels, and no signal given out to men that buying sex is now ok.
I wouldn't usually be advocating a model of policing, because i don't trust the police, - but this one really seems to stop women getting killed.
I wouldn't usually be advocating a model of policing, because i don't trust the police, - but this one really seems to stop women getting killed.
no the current situation represents a race to the bottom, more and more Eastern European girls being brought over here by gangs and working in illegal brothels
allowing sex workers to register and group to together to form legal brothels is an obvious improvement
Athos
Well-Known Member
To be fair, that's little more than prosecutorial discretion which has always existed. For instance, the CPS have long since decided not to prosecute victims of serious crimes for any relatively minor offendes they have committed, where to do so would jeopardise the prosecution of the more serious offence.
Athos
Well-Known Member
It's not obvious at all. Apart from anything else, it'd be much easier to bring Eastern European women to staff legal brothels. In fact, that's exactly what has happened in Germany, and has driven down the wages of sex workers.
no it wouldn't if legal brothels require equity partnership, licensing etc..the current situation that doesn't require any of that is far easier for traffickers. The German situation is entirely different with large commercial brothels not owned by sex workers and essentially just acting as a marketplace for them
Athos
Well-Known Member
Requiring equity partnership as a precondition excludes the vast majority of sex workers, particularly those currently at risk of harm. As if a woman currently working the streets for her next £10 bag of smack is going to enter a partnership agreement, and be able to own a share of the capital i.e. the bricks and mortar of the brothel! This is our fantasy.
crossthebreeze
Well-Known Member
Its policing rather than cps though - and it is different to the way policing of prostitution happens in most areas of the UK. Also i think that it involves links to a wide range of support services for harm reduction and exiting, dedicated advocates working with sex workers who report crimes, ugly mugs, etc. Its massively increased conviction rates for rape and assault against sex workers on merseyside, and has been proven to keep women safer.
I don't by any means think its the whole answer - obviously fighting against poverty and for housing, benefits, etc (and ultimately ending capitalism) is what we should be doing.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Because legitimising capitalism leads only to greater explosion of workers.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yes, you're right. It's not quite the same as decriminalisation brothel-keeping, though.
capitalism is already legitimated, we're discussing sex work which already exists and in which workers are already exploited, controlled etc.. How does then allowing legal brothels run as partnerships lead to greater exploitation?
Athos
Well-Known Member
By putting women who would otherwise work for themselves under the control of capitalists who would appropriate the surplus value of their labour. That's what would happen to women employed in brothels. The idea that there's anything but a tiny, tiny minority of sex workers who would benefit financially (i.e. those who own/can borrow to purchase capital) is preposterous. You don't seem to understand how sex work, partnerships or capitalism work.
I'd suggest you don't too but that is a rather pointless path to take so why not stick to the actual argument. Again I'm not proposing mega brothels etc.. What is wrong with some women being able to rent a premises together?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Talk me through the process of how, say, three women currently working the streets to fund a drug habit go about buying their own brothel? Or who these sex workers are with sufficient capital to invest in brothels? They don't exist. People with capital don't sell sex, as a rule - they don't have to. This is a red herring, fuelled by liberals' romantic notions of sex work. Anyone really interested in helping sex workers should listen to what they say; invariably, it's to suggest many other measures that would be more helpful than handing control of what they do to capital.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
