Legalising Brothels

[The Black Hand]

How do you work that out?

The programme made it clear that the law on brothels probably applies to a dwelling and not a mobile brothel. they got legal opinion on it, a loophole...

 

[The Black Hand]

fucking shit programme that served mainly to laugh at 'funny old women going round talking about sex.' That journalist was bloody awful and should never be allowed near a camera again. A great shame

Typical ultra leftist who can't find entertainment in anything.

 

[chico enrico]

Very few men would risk using prostitutes if they knew they faced a reasonable certainty of a two-year prison sentence.

Like all crimes (murder, terrorism, etc.) you can't abolish people's misbehaviour. But you can make it entirely unattractive for most people and a great deal more difficult for the determined and persistent.

simply replace the word 'prostitution' with 'using cocaine' to illustrate now ill-conceived and unrealistic this argument is.

 

[Gmart]

I'd argue that a lot of those women who don't feel oppressed still wouldn't choose to be doing it if they felt they had other options.

Blimey that goes for lots of jobs.

The priority has to be ensuring that the workers can work as cleanly and as safely as possible, before we start getting all het up about how they are oppressed but they don't know it etc.

The programme clearly showed that legal brothels are clean and regulated, while the one in England was disgusting.

I'm sure that finding out your partner is going to a brothel might be a sad event, yet to find this out, and to find out that you contracted a disease coz the trade is illegal and the workers are not empowered enough to insist on condoms, would be much worse.

Oh and sure most people might dislike the commodification of sex, yet that is their choice, and if others reckon that the returns justify this, then that is freedom.

 

[chico enrico]

When are people gonna realise there will always be prostitution whether we like it or not?

thus, like drugs, legislation/regulation should be concerned with damage limitation 'demystification' rather than penalising those for whom it a livelihood and lifestyle as this simply forces it underground, making it more succeptible to organised crime/exploitation.

 

[The Black Hand]

this, like drugs, legislation should be concerned with damage limitation 'demystification' rather than penalising those for whom it a livelihood and lifestyle as this simply forces it underground, making it more succeptible to organised crime/exploitation.

Words of wisdom

 

[untethered]

The programme clearly showed that legal brothels are clean and regulated, while the one in England was disgusting.

How is a "clean and regulated" brothel likely to stop the emotional damage that working in prostitution causes?

I'm sure that finding out your partner is going to a brothel might be a sad event, yet to find this out, and to find out that you contracted a disease coz the trade is illegal and the workers are not empowered enough to insist on condoms, would be much worse.

Ah, the Great God of Condom will save the day.

Condoms break, you know. Especially if you're having sex 30 times a day with a variety of strange characters, most of whom have little concern for your welfare.

(Not speaking from personal experience, you understand.)

Oh and sure most people might dislike the commodification of sex, yet that is their choice, and if others reckon that the returns justify this, then that is freedom.

Freedom isn't an unqualified good. Never has been, never will be.

 

[untethered]

thus, like drugs, legislation/regulation should be concerned with damage limitation 'demystification' rather than penalising those for whom it a livelihood and lifestyle as this simply forces it underground, making it more succeptible to organised crime/exploitation.

The best way to limit the damage caused by prostitution would be to implement severe regulation and enforcement that eliminates the vast majority of the trade.

As I said above, while it may be possible to limit the physical risks associated with prostitution to some degree, it's very hard to do the same for the emotional risks.

Hey, but that's ok. If someone becomes suicidally depressed because they spend 12 hours a day having sex with dozens of strangers just so they can pay their rent, we can always give them therapy on the NHS.

Prostitution is no more a "lifestyle" than working on a checkout.

 

[_angel_]

Blimey that goes for lots of jobs.

I know this isn't trendy, but prostitution really isn't 'just like any other job'

The priority has to be ensuring that the workers can work as cleanly and as safely as possible, before we start getting all het up about how they are oppressed but they don't know it etc.

The programme clearly showed that legal brothels are clean and regulated, while the one in England was disgusting.

What about non legal brothels though?

I'm sure that finding out your partner is going to a brothel might be a sad event, yet to find this out, and to find out that you contracted a disease coz the trade is illegal and the workers are not empowered enough to insist on condoms, would be much worse.
.

Surely it would be in the blokes interest to insist on condoms anyway?

 

[ymu]

I'm a bit confused about what the law is at the moment in the UK. I thought it was legal to pay or be paid for sex, but not to make a living from someone else selling sex - ie pimping or being a madam? Or did I dream that?

 

[_angel_]

I'm a bit confused about what the law is at the moment in the UK. I thought it was legal to pay or be paid for sex, but not to make a living from someone else selling sex - ie pimping or being a madam? Or did I dream that?

Yes. You can sell sex as long as it's not solicited and not in a brothel (ie anyone else there selling sex also)

The whole someone-else-living-off-someone-selling-their-body part sticks a little, with me.

 

[Gmart]

I know this isn't trendy, but prostitution really isn't 'just like any other job'

Not to you maybe, but to others it is.

Nothing said here has given a good reason for keeping the trade illegal.

The workers would be safer, end of story.

Anyone who fails to recognise this, is simply putting their moral view of how the world should be (according to them) above the safety of the workers, which TBH stinks!

Screening would help greatly to control the spread of disease; something which cannot happen if it is illegal, and this on its own is enough of a reason to legalise.

So many people going on about how abusive things are, but maintaining its illegal status simply continues this abuse.

 

[untethered]

Anyone who fails to recognise this, is simply putting their moral view of how the world should be (according to them) above the safety of the workers, which TBH stinks!

Don't you think the workers would be safer doing something else?

Screening would help greatly to control the spread of disease; something which cannot happen if it is illegal, and this on its own is enough of a reason to legalise.

So the workers carry on their dismal duties for as long as it takes them to catch some dreadful disease, at which point you deprive them of their livelihoods immediately primarily for the benefit of the customers.

You're all heart, you really are.

So many people going on about how abusive things are, but maintaining its illegal status simply continues this abuse.

Legal or illegal, prostitution carries tremendous emotional, medical and physical risks. You can reduce them (though not by much, I'll reckon) but you certainly can't make prostitution as safe as just about any other job.

 

[Gmart]

Don't you think the workers would be safer doing something else?

Sure even if it were legal, but it's not my decision, it is theirs.
So legalise it, and put resources into adult education, but that's it. If people wish to do this, then it is their choice. It would certainly get safer in the white economy.

So the workers carry on their dismal duties for as long as it takes them to catch some dreadful disease, at which point you deprive them of their livelihoods immediately primarily for the benefit of the customers.

You're all heart, you really are.

That's just how it is. Life is not fair.

Legal or illegal, prostitution carries tremendous emotional, medical and physical risks. You can reduce them (though not by much, I'll reckon) but you certainly can't make prostitution as safe as just about any other job.

Just because we can't make it perfectly safe doesn't mean that we shouldn't make it safer thru legalisation. If you listen to the workers themselves they would love to be able to set up cooperatives for themselves, with panic buttons etc. but they are prevented by the prohibition.

All jobs have different sets of risks, but all have the ability to call the police if they get attacked, this is a basic right.

 

[detective-boy]

The programme made it clear that the law on brothels probably applies to a dwelling and not a mobile brothel. they got legal opinion on it, a loophole...

I think you'd probably find it isn't a "loophole" at all. I do not know of any case in which the Court have held that a mobile brothel isn't a brothel. There may not be any case law on the precise point, but the law on brothels refers to "premises" ... and there is a large amount of case law that mobile homes (and lots of other things) are "premises" in other contexts (especially in relation to powers of search, search warrants, etc.). If I nicked you I'd be extremely optimistic about convincing a Court that it was a brothel all right, regardless of it's wheels, even if you kept it moving.

(Even if there is case law on mobile brothels not being brothels, the Courts always have the option of changing their minds in a new case by "distinguishing" the facts from the previous case)

 

[ymu]

Yes. You can sell sex as long as it's not solicited and not in a brothel (ie anyone else there selling sex also)

The whole someone-else-living-off-someone-selling-their-body part sticks a little, with me.

Ta.

That's the issue with legalising brothels for me. In principle, I'm in favour - but only if it gives the working girls (and boys) more control, not if it's a backdoor to legalising pimping. It's about how it's done, not whether it's done (IMO).

 

[detective-boy]

thus, like drugs, legislation/regulation should be concerned with damage limitation

All law should be concerned with the reduction of harm to others, rather than the imposition of morals, judgemental approaches to others lifestyles, etc. The law on prostitution is pretty much there in the UK now - street prostitution harms others by taking place in public places and interfering with others going about their lawful business; carding causes environmental damage for all and there are issues of impact on children using phone boxes, etc and living off prostitution targets those who make a living from the prostitution of others. There is perhaps some scope for liberalisation in that last aspect ... but, if anything, the exploitation of trafficked women we are currently seeing suggests it should be enforced more strongly ...

 

[detective-boy]

I'm a bit confused about what the law is at the moment in the UK. I thought it was legal to pay or be paid for sex, but not to make a living from someone else selling sex - ie pimping or being a madam? Or did I dream that?

That's pretty much it. Subject only to it being illegal to solicit for prostitution in a public place (or, for the customers, to kerb crawl). Provide services in your own premises, or provide a visiting service, that's fine.

 

[ymu]

That's pretty much it. Subject only to it being illegal to solicit for prostitution in a public place (or, for the customers, to kerb crawl). Provide services in your own premises, or provide a visiting service, that's fine.

So if a group of prostitutes set up a collective and ran a brothel it would be fine under the current law? What about if one or two of them owned the premises and charged the others rent? How does the law distinguish between a pimp and a live-in landlord?

 

[detective-boy]

So if a group of prostitutes set up a collective and ran a brothel it would be fine under the current law? What about if one or two of them owned the premises and charged the others rent? How does the law distinguish between a pimp and a live-in landlord?

The law doesn't work by defining various roles. It simply makes it an offence (under a variety of Acts) to have any role in the management of prostitutes or brothels or to live off their earnings. The word "pimp" has no place in the law.

 

[CyberRose]

The workers would be safer, end of story.

Sorry but that's just not true is it? That is merely the liberal middle class attitude that bases its opinion of prostitution on that stupid programme with Billy Piper in where prostitutes love their job. You think prostitutes actually like doing it, or have a choice - this simply is not true in the majority of cases. Legalising leads to an increase in illegal brothels and an increase in people trafficking, and women working in legal brothels won't be treated any better than they are now because the same gang masters and pimps that control their lives now will be controlling their lives following legalisation.

I posted some links to research done by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women earlier, who I assume is more informed about the issues surrounding prostitution than either you or some upper class old bints on a cheesy documentary, I suggest you read their reasons why legalising prostitution would have such a negative impact on the lives of women...

 

[The Black Hand]

I think you'd probably find it isn't a "loophole" at all. I do not know of any case in which the Court have held that a mobile brothel isn't a brothel. There may not be any case law on the precise point, but the law on brothels refers to "premises" ... and there is a large amount of case law that mobile homes (and lots of other things) are "premises" in other contexts (especially in relation to powers of search, search warrants, etc.). If I nicked you I'd be extremely optimistic about convincing a Court that it was a brothel all right, regardless of it's wheels, even if you kept it moving.

(Even if there is case law on mobile brothels not being brothels, the Courts always have the option of changing their minds in a new case by "distinguishing" the facts from the previous case)

SO that is you doing what you denied in another post earlier on today - that you do not create or judge what is crime!! Here it is unclear and there should be a test case to create case law!

 

[Gmart]

Sorry but that's just not true is it? That is merely the liberal middle class attitude that bases its opinion of prostitution on that stupid programme with Billy Piper in where prostitutes love their job. You think prostitutes actually like doing it, or have a choice - this simply is not true in the majority of cases. Legalising leads to an increase in illegal brothels and an increase in people trafficking, and women working in legal brothels won't be treated any better than they are now because the same gang masters and pimps that control their lives now will be controlling their lives following legalisation.

I posted some links to research done by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women earlier, who I assume is more informed about the issues surrounding prostitution than either you or some upper class old bints on a cheesy documentary, I suggest you read their reasons why legalising prostitution would have such a negative impact on the lives of women...

Your post would be so much more convincing if it weren't for all the prostitutes who insist that they would be safer if the industry were legalised and they were empowered.

When you said:

Legalising leads to an increase in illegal brothels and an increase in people trafficking, and women working in legal brothels won't be treated any better than they are now because the same gang masters and pimps that control their lives now will be controlling their lives following legalisation.

It is pure conjecture on your behalf and it would seem pretty obvious that the prostitutes would be more able to take control from the people you mention if their industry were legal and they could phone the police.

I wonder how you seem to be able to ignore the opinions of the workers so easily.

We probably share an unhappiness at the gang masters and pimps, yet only my solution would actually do anything about it...

 

[ymu]

The law doesn't work by defining various roles. It simply makes it an offence (under a variety of Acts) to have any role in the management of prostitutes or brothels or to live off their earnings. The word "pimp" has no place in the law.

That's what I was asking really. It's legal to take money for sex if you do so in private, but if a group of prostitutes decide to rent a flat together to work from it becomes a brothel.

I'd support a change in the law that was intended to avoid criminalising prostitutes simply for establishing somewhere safe and clean to work from - as long as it did nothing to decriminalise/legitimise those who act as pimps. Tricky, in practice, I guess.

 

[The Black Hand]

That's what I was asking really. It's legal to take money for sex if you do so in private, but if a group of prostitutes decide to rent a flat together to work from it becomes a brothel.

I'd support a change in the law that was intended to avoid criminalising prostitutes simply for establishing somewhere safe and clean to work from - as long as it did nothing to decriminalise/legitimise those who act as pimps. Tricky, in practice, I guess.

Easy peasey actually - its just that there's never been the political will to do something USEFUL before or still...

 

[untethered]

Easy peasey actually - its just that there's never been the political will to do something USEFUL before or still...

So while you're all for challenging the oppression of the working class, you're happy to support the idea that there is no area of human activity that should not be traded as labour, just as long as the workers are protected by the state from the worst predations of capital?

 

[CyberRose]

Your post would be so much more convincing if it weren't for all the prostitutes who insist that they would be safer if the industry were legalised and they were empowered.

How would they be safer? I've asked this question over and over again and nobody answers it other than to give simplistic and ill thought out replies like "they can call the police" "the brothel will be inspected". Well they can already call the police. Please tell me who you think will run legal brothels? Please tell me why women will be able to call the police when brothels are legal if they can't call them now when they are illegal?

It is pure conjecture on your behalf and it would seem pretty obvious that the prostitutes would be more able to take control from the people you mention if their industry were legal and they could phone the police.

On the contrary, before I had my eyes opened to this subject by people who had actually conducted intensive research (women's rights organisations etc) I had the same opinion as you, that legalised brothels was the only way forward. However, their research showed that legalising brothels increases demand (and therefore illegal prostitution), increases people trafficking and does not improve the conditions/safety of prostitutes working in legal brothels, let alone the increased number of prostitutes working illegally.

I wonder how you seem to be able to ignore the opinions of the workers so easily

I'm sorry but who are all these prostitutes? The ones the WI found to interview?! You show me the "prostitute public survey of 1000 randomly chosen prostitutes"! Do these prostitutes you mention have access to the results of the research conducted on the subject? Do the Filipinos or the Russians have access to data showing how many more of them will be trafficked to countries that legalise prostitution?

We probably share an unhappiness at the gang masters and pimps, yet only my solution would actually do anything about it...

Your solution will make things worse, and that has been proven in studies conducted. There is no reason, like drug addicts, why we can't offer them protection and assistance right now without resorting to legalising the trade, it just takes effort and will.

 

[The Black Hand]

So while you're all for challenging the oppression of the working class, you're happy to support the idea that there is no area of human activity that should not be traded as labour, just as long as the workers are protected by the state from the worst predations of capital?

So you are not interested in improving peoples' welfare now and today?

 

[CyberRose]

Can I put a slightly different slant on the same question to people:

Are you in favour of legalising pimping?

 

[ymu]

Can I put a slightly different slant on the same question to people:

Are you in favour of legalising pimping?

I know what you're getting at - it's the same as I've been getting at. It's down to how the legislation is framed, surely? There's no reason why brothels can't be legal whilst "living off immoral earnings" or whatever it is remains very much a crime. It is important to be aware that legislation has been counter-productive elsewhere, but it's not actually a reason for abandoning the approach altogether.