Legalising Brothels
- Thread starter The Black Hand
- Start date
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
don't dignify the man by capatilising his surname.
'littlescum' 'littleprick' 'littlebrain' etc - the possibilities are endless.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Nougat
metalmonkey to the rescue
I have not read any of the 11pages disclaimer!
Brothels are yucky and the only person laughing, as in all the way to the bank, is the House Madam/Master/Owner. What I do think needs to be looked at from a legal standpoint is deeming it illegal for 2 women to share a flat they work out of. There are many indie's that would never work in a brothel nor would be found dead walking the kerb (no pun intended) but would like to have the option of sharing private premises without the strong arm of the law casting a shadow over them.
Brothels are yucky and the only person laughing, as in all the way to the bank, is the House Madam/Master/Owner. What I do think needs to be looked at from a legal standpoint is deeming it illegal for 2 women to share a flat they work out of. There are many indie's that would never work in a brothel nor would be found dead walking the kerb (no pun intended) but would like to have the option of sharing private premises without the strong arm of the law casting a shadow over them.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Little(insert your own pejorative here) on the murder of 5 Ipswich prostitutes:
"in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss."
"in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss."
Nougat
metalmonkey to the rescue
That's a black and white way of looking at prostitution, there are plenty of male prostitues too.
Actually, there aren't plenty at all. Have a look at the agency list and indie adverts and the most you will see is B/G couples. If you are talking about the gay market, that is a totally different market and cannot be likened to the male hetrosexual escoting market
I don't agree it's always oppressive to women, why is it always?
I agree.
If prostitution wasn't run by (male) pimps would you still feel the same?
Who said it was
!
Nougat
metalmonkey to the rescue
No, she didn't but the production team, including scriptwriters, held focus groups with 3 London based escorts.
Littlemong on Rwanda:
"Does anyone really give a monkey's about what happens in Rwanda? If the Mbongo tribe wants to wipe out the Mbingo tribe then as far as I am concerned that is entirely a matter for them."
Gmart
Well-Known Member
They are indeed in a difficult position.
Have care here. I understand your point. You wish to protect. Yet the problem is that a certain number do not accept your label 'abused'. Those who do need help, fine - we probably agree there, yet those who don't also need to be respected.
Just because they don't accept your label doesn't give you the right to turn round and declare them mad.
If I understand you, you consider their lack of freedom to trade as less important than the abuse that typifies this trade, yet it is like banning a club because of the drugs taken there. That abuse will just move to a different setting.
You are jumping to the conclusion that the club causes the drug problem, but it doesn't, it just gives it a setting.
Prostitution is not the problem, it is the violence. The addiction.
You also seem to forget that we agree that the forcing of someone into a role against their will is a crime.
It has been proved thru years of trying prohibition that in the end it just causes more problems, and worse, that it gives too much power to the punters.
Better to explore methods for enabling the workers to take more control.
The problem is that we don't know how many have a genuine choice or not. It should be obvious that making something illegal just gives more power to the criminals in charge. Only legalisation could empower the women to make her decision from a position of power, all other options take power away.
And this would not change if legal, yet the increase in legal prostitution would slowly mean that the illegal ones would go out of business thru competition. I feel for the women who wish to work here, but who are trapped in this way. I echo Belboid's suggestion that we should stop deportations and open our borders.
Competition for workers leads to the offering of better conditions of employment.
Belboid mentioned this:
The market would be easier to police when in the white economy. And that's without mentioning the control of disease.
I'm sure we all agree that the routes out of poverty and addiction need to be improved.
Considering that there are no reliable figures which accurately state the numbers of pros who are addicted to any drug (including legal ones) as opposed to the clean pros who are only doing it for financial remuneration, I would suggest that we treat both groups equally and help the former.
Legalisation of drugs would enable the user to have a more informed position, thus mitigating the risk of overdose. (Probably another issue that)
LouLouBelle stated:
And there's the rub. So many cases are different and complicated that one has to transfer the decision making from the state to the individual.
Maybe it would get better like the NZ model, or maybe it wouldn't. Still I would prefer a change in that direction considering the proven effects of the Swedish attempt at further criminalisation. (See LouLou's link if you are unhappy with mine...)
Which reminds me - I am similarly confused at any difference between the two terms. I am talking about the move towards legality, which seems the same as moving away from prohibition.
There is no doubt that each country who has legalised has carefully analysed each of the examples of legalisation in an effort to take best practice from each.
This is an assumption, and it is against logic to state that this percentage would go up with legalisation, rather than down.
It is also simplistic just to concentrate on the part of the industry afflicted with violence, while ignoring the lack of the usual recourse to the police which would usually prevent violence.
Of course not, but the rape, violence and drug addiction are not necessarily caused by the industry. What if it is maintained by the prohibition and inability to call the police? With safe brothels the drug addiction might be maintained, but the first two would probably be mitigated by the ability to press a panic button.
Belboid:
It is a matter of personal choice what someone does for their job surely. We might not agree (to paraphase Voltaire) but I defend the right to choose.
I echo Fela Fan:
I can see no reason why not.
Belboid:
With £1000+ in my pocket, a large bath and a couple of days recovery, I would still have the cash.
Cyber Rose:
I must have missed this coz whenever I've asked you have simply stated that they are different without any reason. It used to be illegal. Even when you state that the addiction rates are different, that really doesn't hold water coz maybe the addiction rates were the same before legalisation...
There seems to be a slight lack of understanding as to pimps. Now it is legal to have a contract for most work. Any boss will have a job description and what is expected on both sides. If we take away the male issue for a moment and have a Madame, then she could run a brothel with exactly such a contract with her girls. The Madame would be a pimp; so I would suggest that actually the problem is pimps who impose their will thru violence.
If legal, the worker would be able to report any harassment, and sure this system would be imperfect, but it's better than pushing the whole industry into the hands of the pimps.
Duratti2 - who seemed to miss the previous bit about the Swedish model. Sure it seems great, a possible authoritarian wet dream, yet I posted a crit on it earlier and it remains poignant:
Which seems pretty straightforward, and strangely contrary to the Bidel and Kelly (2003) report. He goes on to note an interesting quality:
Which is sadly familiar...
Rightly or wrongly people do it all the time e.g health facsists, which is why it's funny to see other posters trying to link it to this littlejohn guy then have a circlejerk over it.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Never seen it done except by obvious trolling (Longdog) or right wing dickheids. Your terminology is the rhetoric of the tosser
Coming soon:
Islamonazis
elf n safety
political correctness gone mad.
btw, wtf is a circle jerk?
Group masturbation?Basically. It's a phrase used to describe a group of individuals who spend all day bigging up each other's egos and points of view (i.e. a group who share and opinion and constantly reinforce it between themselves).btw, wtf is a circle jerk?
Urban is full of them ...
Basically. It's a phrase used to describe a group of individuals who spend all day bigging up each other's egos and points of view (i.e. a group who share and opinion and constantly reinforce it between themselves).
Urban is full of them ...
Ah, like a nodding circle?
I don't think that's always the case though. Most people seem keen to score points against each other, even when they agree!
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
You can’t dismiss the Swedish ‘model’ out of hand on that basis – yes there are certainly some pitfalls – the extent of which are very hard to assess. However, it is indisputable that Sweden has made huge strides in reducing street prostitution, child prostitution and sex trafficking. The importance of these successes cannot be diminished. If you’re going to throw around notions about ‘liberty’ and ‘authoritarianism’, then you have to acknowledge that living under the iron hand of street pimps and sex traffickers is akin to modern day slavery. It’s about as authoritarian as you can get.
The much vaunted New Zealand model, is only in its early days and has some limited successes. On the other hand it has done little to curb the child prostitution or trafficking. Neither has much been done to improve the conditions in brothels that treated their workers badly prior to the 2003 Act being passed nor is there any evidence to suggests that the stigma of prostitution has been reduced by the passing of the law, with brothels coming up against huge opposition from residential communities wherever a licence is sought.
Of the two models I’m convinced that in the long term the Swedish model will prove more fruitful from the perspective of those of us who believe in the principles of equality and human dignity. Ultimately to go beyond a world where women’s bodies are rented out like cattle there will need to be wider societal changes that challenge the profit motive that underpins capitalism. Until then putting laws in place that can control the worst excesses of the flesh trade are required.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I dismiss it after having thought about it very carefully and read many accounts. The link I posted raises issues which are fatal as I said:
And if that it what you want we must disagree.
But you state this without commenting on the list of actual effects of this law, (which I have quoted twice). The successes are due to facilitating routes out of poverty, not the prohibition itself.
I appreciate that it seems like a good idea. And it was worth the experimentation, yet the facts are as I state. If you wish to post links for statements from pros in that country who consider these laws have improved their lives then feel free I would read them carefully.
Which is a direct result of the prohibition we have. Have you at least read the last few pages of this thread?
It is indeed awful, we should ask the pros how they would wish the laws to be reformed to minimise it.
The report I quoted chaired by the former police commissioner seemed quite clear in its success.
Which are other issues completely. It is done little to curb robbery or fraud either...
Competition improves conditions of course. Such NIMBY attitudes you mention have to be considered, but in the end a brothel is just a building and the local communities have the same freedom to protest as against (say) an abattoir, they need to exist and a place will be found.
I believe in those too, yet the reports I have quoted would have the direct cause against these ideals. I would suggest that as convinced as you are, you might reconsider. As I said earlier:
It is the woman's decision, not yours. Your ideals are all very well until they blind you towards the suffering of others. Then you become an oppressor.
Once you learn to mind your own business in cases where there is no victim, you will recognise that the government's place is not to moralise (that is a personal issue), but to make the world as safe as possible and to empower the workers. Making their industry illegal and then turning a blind eye, is just the sort of narrow thinking that gets people hurt.Sadly prohibition puts the power into the punters and the pimps. If that is the world you wish for then we have to disagree. If you wish to turn a blind eye to the vast problems of the Swedish model, then feel free, but later, when it goes wrong, have the guts to recognise it, and support legalisation, because it is the only way forward.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
G Matthews – there is far too much certainty in your assessment. You’re willing to overlook certain facts when they contradict your dogmatic assertions. For example you imply that’s there’s no relationship between prostitution and child prostitution and sex trafficking which is just baloney. Further you don’t appear to accept that Sweden’s achievements in curbing child prostitution and sex trafficking – which flow directly from the criminalisation of the purchase of sex – are positive achievements in themselves.
I find you’re arguments about women’s right to choose unconvincing. You are looking at those women as isolated and abstract individuals divorced from the pressures of socio-economic inequality and patriarchy. When you look at the situation more concretely you’ll see a different picture. – one in which the majority are funding an illegal drug habit and one in which the majority of women working in prostitution were under 18 when they first did so. Is this really their "choice"? And this is not just a consequence the trade being illegal, the story is much the same when you look at parts of the world where it has been legalised/decriminalised.
In consequence of this the “choice” you are espousing is based on a very narrow and limited type of freedom – essentially freedom of the marketplace. The free market logic of your own position is revealed in your justification of legal brothels on the basis that “competition improves conditions” – oh really, ever heard of sweatshops?
The third limb of your argument appears to be that there’s nothing inherently wrong with the exchange of sex for money. I disagree – I think that the commercialisation and marketisation of what should be the most intimate and personal of human activity has a distorting and homogenising effect on sexuality and sexual autonomy. However, that’s not why I’m in favour of outlawing it. My stance has nothing to do with “morality” and everything to do with the advancement of the civil liberties of the vast majority of women who are working in prostitution and want to get out.
I find you’re arguments about women’s right to choose unconvincing. You are looking at those women as isolated and abstract individuals divorced from the pressures of socio-economic inequality and patriarchy. When you look at the situation more concretely you’ll see a different picture. – one in which the majority are funding an illegal drug habit and one in which the majority of women working in prostitution were under 18 when they first did so. Is this really their "choice"? And this is not just a consequence the trade being illegal, the story is much the same when you look at parts of the world where it has been legalised/decriminalised.
In consequence of this the “choice” you are espousing is based on a very narrow and limited type of freedom – essentially freedom of the marketplace. The free market logic of your own position is revealed in your justification of legal brothels on the basis that “competition improves conditions” – oh really, ever heard of sweatshops?
The third limb of your argument appears to be that there’s nothing inherently wrong with the exchange of sex for money. I disagree – I think that the commercialisation and marketisation of what should be the most intimate and personal of human activity has a distorting and homogenising effect on sexuality and sexual autonomy. However, that’s not why I’m in favour of outlawing it. My stance has nothing to do with “morality” and everything to do with the advancement of the civil liberties of the vast majority of women who are working in prostitution and want to get out.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Not a good start when you can't even read my name.
OK, what relationship do you see? Do you think more prostitution causes more child prostitution for example, and if so why?
I know that I don't know what the causes are. For example, maybe TV causes it, but we cannot ban TV. Better to concentrate on worker empowerment.
Well you have not given any reason why the criminalisation might have done this, as opposed to the extra resources given to routes out of poverty, so feel free to elaborate.
Do you reject that they should be free to choose what to do with their bodies? If so please elaborate.
Really, what makes you say that? How are you looking at them? I see them as individuals who would be safer and have better control on the current violence if we gave them the means to press a panic button.
The high percentage of drug addiction, (even if I accept that it is as high as a majority) is a problem of addiction not prostitution, that just funds it. Do you feel that all jobs which fund an addiction should be illegal?
That's not true though, the reports we have quoted here are quite clear. For example the New Zealand report under the title Common Misconceptions About Prostitution:
It doesn't take a genius to work out that legalised brothels would have to offer better working conditions to attract good staff and more customers.
You see here is the common misconception. I have my own view on whether it is right or wrong, but I will defend to the hilt the right of the individual to make their own decision, because if the government introduces prohibition, this puts the power into the hands of the criminals.
Even seeing as you are keen to avoid commenting directly on what I say this must be clear...
Sure, but we are not talking about this. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell these workers that their opinion doesn't count as much as yours.
So why state it?
Routes out thru education is also not in dispute here. The question is why would criminalisation help these workers.
There's nothing out there to suggest that legalising prostitution would eradicate the underground elements. That doesn't therefore turn into an argument against it, just that they're two separate issues and should be treated as such imo.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
I just assumed you'd have known! Btw, using the "You want me to do your research for you??
" smiley isn't coolWell I'm not really sure it adds anything to your argument, in fact I'd say the opposite
I did find this little gem about Turkish men tho...!
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Btw, using the "
Well that's me told
I thought the table was ok, a bit dry, takes a bit of effort! Would like to redo it ideally, or maybe there's a better one online somewhere...
Belboid commented about the SOO's earlier which I thought was a good point. Do you think their existence might mitigate your position? I'm sure that even the most hardcore legaliser would recommend some form of regulation even if only to monitor the disease issue.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
It makes me cringe even more than when someone uses the "Well that's me told
" smiley!In all honesty, both mine and your motives are identical - wanting to improve the lives of women in prostitution. If the evidence from legalisation showed that it did improve the lives of prostitutes I'd be for it, however, proponents seem to be relying too much on what's happening in New Zealand, whilst hoping that what's happened elsewhere won't happen where they are. But let's face it, the reports about New Zealand pretty much say "as you were" - no worse, but not much better
As we've said from the start, prostitution will ALWAYS exist in society, so whether legal or not, there will be women abused and oppressed, which means whichever "model" we choose to stand behind, the other will always be able to point at faults...
Gmart
Well-Known Member
I never use that one as I think it is snide!It makes me cringe even more than when someone uses the "
I think the NZ example gives hope, but I accept that it is early days. That report makes for good reading and I hope that it will become more convincing in time. Maybe it won't! Of course we will never get to perfection! We need to ensure that these workers are able to control the punters, not the other way round!
I agree that we seem to instinctively agree that we need to improve the workers lives, I think.
chainsaw cat
Tea. Biccies. Happy now?
Not too linear as far as the thread goes, but can I put my two penn'orth in?
My experience of prostitutes is limited to holding me mates' wallets while they had a shag in Hannover, Hamburg, Gibraltar and various other places. This is because I'm big enough not to get mugged and losing the wallet is a common thing, apparantly, in brothels.
In doing this I have often chatted to the girls who were not otherwise engaged and I don't think any of them were what you'd call motivated committed career types.
Other than that, my experience is from the Balkans quite recently. One of the main ethnic sub-groups has, as the criminal activity of choice, prostitution. They kidnap/coerce/trick young girls from across Eastern Europe, hold them in houses with armed guards and rape, beat and intimidate them until they are pliable. Then they sell them. Some of them end up in British brothels being used by British men. These are young girls/women who have been repeatedly raped and beaten. What a sentence to type. Slaves. Sold, bought humans, held under threat of further violence and terrified of the authorities who might be able to help them.
You see this stuff in the papers from time to time of course but I don't know if it sinks in much. If it did there'd be a lot more done about it because surely there can't be much more of a vile crime can there?
Any legalising of brothels that didn't address this issue, and assume that at least some of the workers were desperately in need of real help, would be conniving at this horror.
OK my bit over.
My experience of prostitutes is limited to holding me mates' wallets while they had a shag in Hannover, Hamburg, Gibraltar and various other places. This is because I'm big enough not to get mugged and losing the wallet is a common thing, apparantly, in brothels.
In doing this I have often chatted to the girls who were not otherwise engaged and I don't think any of them were what you'd call motivated committed career types.
Other than that, my experience is from the Balkans quite recently. One of the main ethnic sub-groups has, as the criminal activity of choice, prostitution. They kidnap/coerce/trick young girls from across Eastern Europe, hold them in houses with armed guards and rape, beat and intimidate them until they are pliable. Then they sell them. Some of them end up in British brothels being used by British men. These are young girls/women who have been repeatedly raped and beaten. What a sentence to type. Slaves. Sold, bought humans, held under threat of further violence and terrified of the authorities who might be able to help them.
You see this stuff in the papers from time to time of course but I don't know if it sinks in much. If it did there'd be a lot more done about it because surely there can't be much more of a vile crime can there?
Any legalising of brothels that didn't address this issue, and assume that at least some of the workers were desperately in need of real help, would be conniving at this horror.
OK my bit over.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
There are people working as household servants in Africa and elsewhere who are slaves. People doing manual labour, too: let's say, miner.
But that doesn't mean that all household servants and miners are slaves.
Similar threads
