Legalising Brothels

[Louloubelle]

I don't have time to run a bit by bit analysis and critique of the points in the link from the The Coalition Against Trafficking of Women as it would take me several days to discuss all the relevant issues.

Just for starters though, their particular political stance can be clearly identified by the following statement from the introduction to the paper CyberRose linked to

This article offers ten arguments for not legalizing prostitution. These arguments apply to all state-sponsored forms of prostitution, including but not limited to full-scale legalization of brothels and pimping, decriminalization of the sex industry, regulating prostitution by laws such as registering or mandating health checks for women in prostitution, or any system in which prostitution is recognized as “sex work” or advocated as an employment choice. This essay reviews the ways in which legitimating prostitution as work makes the harm of prostitution to women invisible, expands the sex industry, and does not empower the women in prostitution.

It would seem that as far as the writer is concerned, there is no such thing as a non-oppressed prostitute. Even if a woman claims to not be oppressed she is really and is just either in denial or too stupid to understand the reality of her own oppression.

Such women should be rescued from their oppressors even if they claim that they don't want to be rescued and would prefer to be left alone to get on with earning their money in the way they choose.

TBH I think that most of not all prostitutes are oppressed, however to put this into context I believe that all human beings are probably oppressed in some way or another. I feel uncomfortable, to say the least, with any group that claims to know what is best for me or you or that woman or man over there, more than we know ourselves.

My personal belief is that our bodies are the one thing we ever really own and that what we choose to do with our bodies (providing we don't harm others) is nobody's business but our own. It is not the business of the state or of some campaigning group of feminists.

 

[CyberRose]

actually this point WAS covered, albeit briefly, in a few posts earlier in the thread. The ones which talked of support for the New Zealand strategy,which supports Small Owner Operated (SOO) brothels. Places where there are, by definition, no pimps, and where there are no trafficked women

But that still doesn't answer the question, it makes a dangerous assumption

Example: Pimping is legalised so the 5 girls working for Peter the Psycho Pimp decide to tell Peter they are setting up on their own, or with the legal brothel in the nice side of town. Peter says "no because then I would have no money" and proceeds to beat them all to a pulp until they learn their lesson that leaving Peter to set up on their own probably wasn't the nest idea.

Or: Peter the Psycho Pimp, after loosing his 5 girls to the legal brothel, and considering his new lack of income, buys 5 Filipinos to replace them with, as does every other pimp in the country, leading to an increase in people trafficking

Now these are just simple (and daft) examples, but you fail to acknowledge in the slightest the pimp in all this. They won't let their prostitutes go. They will either keep them illegally as they do now, or they will work for the pimp in the pimp's newly legalised business

 

[Louloubelle]

But that still doesn't answer the question, it makes a dangerous assumption

Example: Pimping is legalised so the 5 girls working for Peter the Psycho Pimp decide to tell Peter they are setting up on their own, or with the legal brothel in the nice side of town. Peter says "no because then I would have no money" and proceeds to beat them all to a pulp until they learn their lesson that leaving Peter to set up on their own probably wasn't the nest idea.

Or: Peter the Psycho Pimp, after loosing his 5 girls to the legal brothel, and considering his new lack of income, buys 5 Filipinos to replace them with, as does every other pimp in the country, leading to an increase in people trafficking

Now these are just simple (and daft) examples, but you fail to acknowledge in the slightest the pimp in all this. They won't let their prostitutes go. They will either keep them illegally as they do now, or they will work for the pimp in the pimp's newly legalised business

WTF is all this crap about pimping being legalized?

If you consider all the things that pimps need to do to exploit their victims they are all illegal under current laws relating to rape, violence, etc.

Sex workers have always complained that the laws in relation to living off immoral earnings have only one result, and that is to deny sex workers their human right to choose and, if they wish, support a partner.

eta

sorry
I don't mean to sound so attacking but this issue is so important and it amazes me how so many people fail to grasp the basic issues. I'm having a bit of a "face / palm" moment as this stuff has been debated for decades and somehow the penny never really seems to drop

 

[CyberRose]

WTF is all this crap about pimping being legalized?

If you consider all the things that pimps need to do to exploit their victims they are all illegal under current laws relating to rape, violence, etc.

Sex workers have always complained that the laws in relation to living off immoral earnings have only one result, and that is to deny sex workers their human right to choose and, if they wish, support a partner.

Eh? Are you supporting legalisation or opposing it?! Make your mind up!

Legalising brothels would make the act of profiteering from the sale of someone else's sex legal - that is what pimping is defined as.

 

[Louloubelle]

Eh? Are you supporting legalisation or opposing it?! Make your mind up!

Legalising brothels would make the act of profiteering from the sale of someone else's sex legal - that is what pimping is defined as.

I oppose legalisation and support decriminalisation

just as I said in earlier posts over the last few years, where the issue has been debated in some depth, and on this thread

 

[CyberRose]

I oppose legalisation and support decriminalisation

just as I said in earlier posts over the last few years, where the issue has been debated in some depth, and on this thread

Well in that case you think the same as I do, so I'm really not sure why you would attack me like that?

 

[Louloubelle]

CyberRose

can you tell me why you think that existing laws in relation to rape, violence, sexual offenses against minors and trafficking are not sufficient to deal with pimps?

Why do you feel we need laws relating to "immoral earnings" in addition to the existing laws?

 

[Louloubelle]

Well in that case you think the same as I do, so I'm really not sure why you would attack me like that?

The links you posted are from an organisation that lumps legalisation and decriminalisation together and is opposed to both. From your posts I got the impression that this was your view too. Apologies if I got that wrong and / or came across at attacking

 

[CyberRose]

CyberRose
can you tell me why you think that existing laws in relation to rape, violence, sexual offenses against minors and trafficking are not sufficient to deal with pimps?

They would be sufficient if the pimp committed them, and they were reported. But you seem to be under the impression pimp = rapist/woman beater/etc. No. Pimping means selling someone else's sex. Of course, they have a reputation for committing the acts you list above, and most of them probably use it to coerce their prostitutes, but the prostitutes are too scared to report them. At least while the act of pimping is illegal there is something extra to pin on the vile creatures, but if you legalise brothels, legalise the sale of someone else's sex, it's one less thing we can use to lock these bastards away

Why do you feel we need laws relating to "immoral earnings" in addition to the existing laws?

What do you mean? I thought you were against legalisation!? I think it should be illegal for all the reasons I've listed in this thread, namely that demand will increase (meaning more women forced into prostitution) and people trafficking will increase. I also believe that the pimps controlling the prostitutes now will remain in control of them after legalisation, and therefore will be treated no better

<edit: posted before above post>

 

[CyberRose]

The links you posted are from an organisation that lumps legalisation and decriminalisation together and is opposed to both. From your posts I got the impression that this was your view too. Apologies if I got that wrong and / or came across at attacking

No the link I posted makes the distinction between decriminalising women who are prostitutes (which they support) and a wider definition of decriminalisation that people use when they actually mean legalisation. They do support decriminalisation as both me and you do

 

[belboid]

The fact is, the demand for foreign women is much much higher than for British women, as evidence by the 80% London prostitutes fact. If demand = 100% then following legalisation you would have to assume that 80% would still be working illegally and in conditions that match.

this is wholly fallacious. The fact that 80% of London prostitutes are foreigners tells us about supply not demand. No, they [foreign pros] wouldn't disappear were there legalisation/decriminalisation, but the likelihood is demand for them would fall, as other pros would offer safer, and more secure, services. That would make such non-lawful 'pimping services' slightly easier to police and prosecute as well.

 

[Louloubelle]

They would be sufficient if the pimp committed them, and they were reported. But you seem to be under the impression pimp = rapist/woman beater/etc. No. Pimping means selling someone else's sex. Of course, they have a reputation for committing the acts you list above, and most of them probably use it to coerce their prostitutes, but the prostitutes are too scared to report them. At least while the act of pimping is illegal there is something extra to pin on the vile creatures, but if you legalise brothels, legalise the sale of someone else's sex, it's one less thing we can use to lock these bastards away

so in your opinion if Ms X decides to work as a lawyer or teacher and her husband stays at home to look after the kids that's fine, but if Ms X is a sex worker and her hubby stays at home to look after the kids he should be prosecuted for pimping?

Does what Ms X prefer not matter to you?

serious question

What do you mean? I thought you were against legalisation!? I think it should be illegal for all the reasons I've listed in this thread, namely that demand will increase (meaning more women forced into prostitution) and people trafficking will increase. I also believe that the pimps controlling the prostitutes now will remain in control of them after legalisation, and therefore will be treated no better

I am 100% opposed to legalisation
I support decriminalsation
I think that what Ms X or Ms Y choose to do, who they decide to be in a relationship with, whether money changes hands or not, should be entirely up to them and to nobody else

 

[untethered]

I find your good and bad division simplistic, and avoiding of the true issue which is safety through empowerment.

I would suggest that you are letting your own disgust blind you to the dangers your solution maintains.

I don't see many dangers in creating an environment where the vast majority of people working in prostitution are forced to leave.

Now let me tell you something about empowerment.

Prostitution is a job where the work is so unpleasant that almost no-one takes it on except through desperation or coercion. Where getting through the day means psychologically dissociating yourself from what you do.

Where you most probably lie to your family, friends and neighbours about your work, and if you don't, you most likely wish that you had.

It's work where your earnings will dramatically tail off as you reach your late twenties and where you'll probably be forced into retirement by your mid-thirties.

You can't put it on your CV. You won't get a reference that will help you find other work. Unlike any other form of work, the more you work in prostitution the more you reduce your chances of getting another, better job.

It's work where violence is inherently part of the job, where to be raped is commonplace and where acquiring serious diseases is a likely outcome.

Whether legal or illegal, most of these problems and risks cannot be meaningfully mitigated. There is no such thing as "good" prostitution and "better prostitution" is about as mealy-mouthed as "better slavery".

Prostitution cannot be eliminated but it can be massively disrupted and most workers in the business removed from it. We have the means to do this, but we will not have the motivation to move forward on this issue while some people put an entirely bogus "freedom" above the need to intervene decisively in the lives of some of society's most vulnerable and abused people.

 

[Louloubelle]

No the link I posted makes the distinction between decriminalising women who are prostitutes (which they support) and a wider definition of decriminalisation that people use when they actually mean legalisation. They do support decriminalisation as both me and you do

however the criminalisation of the chosen partners of sex workers = a denial of the human rights of sex workers to make adult choices about who they are in a relationship with

also, the criminalisation of customers / clients has terrible consequences for the most vulnerable of sex workers who work on the streets

also, perhaps you didn't know this, but many instances of trafficked women being rescued have been the result of concerned clients going to the police and reporting their concerns. Something that would be extremely unlikely to happen if buying sex was criminalised

 

[CyberRose]

so in your opinion if Ms X decides to work as a lawyer or teacher and her husband stays at home to look after the kids that's fine, but if Ms X is a sex worker and her hubby stays at home to look after the kids he should be prosecuted for pimping?

Does what Ms X prefer not matter to you?

serious question

I am 100% opposed to legalisation
I support decriminalsation
I think that what Ms X or Ms Y choose to do, who they decide to be in a relationship with, whether money changes hands or not, should be entirely up to them and to nobody else

I don't really think the example you gave is a realistic picture of what most prostitutes go through. I also don't think the law would define Mr X as a pimp just for being married to Ms X and "sharing" her spoils.

It also falls back on the argument of "choice". If Ms X has a genuine choice, then fair enough, but the reality is the vast majority don't have the luxury of that choice. As I said earlier, one figure says 95% of UK prostitutes have a drug addiction, that is a massively high figure - how many of them do you think actually want to be a prostitute?

 

[belboid]

also, perhaps you didn't know this, but many instances of trafficked women being rescued have been the result of concerned clients going to the police and reporting their concerns. Something that would be extremely unlikely to happen if buying sex was criminalised

a good point. An other one (although not directly related to this thread) is the fact that such women are almost always deported if they are found. Back to the the people and places that sent them over in the first place. Cracking idea that one. If we want to stop the trafficking of women, stopping deporting them after they've been abused over here would be a good start.

 

[belboid]

I don't really think the example you gave is a realistic picture of what most prostitutes go through. I also don't think the law would define Mr X as a pimp just for being married to Ms X and "sharing" her spoils.

it does, tho

 

[CyberRose]

this is wholly fallacious. The fact that 80% of London prostitutes are foreigners tells us about supply not demand. No, they [foreign pros] wouldn't disappear were there legalisation/decriminalisation, but the likelihood is demand for them would fall, as other pros would offer safer, and more secure, services. That would make such non-lawful 'pimping services' slightly easier to police and prosecute as well.

That is true, it is supply. However, that would give us clues about the demand, and gives us clues as to how many British women are willing to be prostitutes than foreign women. It is certainly less fallacious for me to suggest there is an 80% demand to match the supply than for you to claim that following legalisation 80% of the "industry" will just disappear

 

[CyberRose]

it does, tho

Does it? It's illegal to be married to a prostitute?

 

[CyberRose]

however the criminalisation of the chosen partners of sex workers = a denial of the human rights of sex workers to make adult choices about who they are in a relationship with

also, the criminalisation of customers / clients has terrible consequences for the most vulnerable of sex workers who work on the streets

also, perhaps you didn't know this, but many instances of trafficked women being rescued have been the result of concerned clients going to the police and reporting their concerns. Something that would be extremely unlikely to happen if buying sex was criminalised

Now you're arguing for legalisation again!

Buying sex is illegal in the UK (I think), so if your example about trafficked women relates to the UK, it is happening now that prostitution is not legalised, so doesn't really counter my point

 

[Gmart]

But as I understand from others in this thread, prostitution in this country is decriminalised, meaning they can call the police, free from the fear of prosecution themselves...yet they don't

Which part of because they are in an illegal brothel do you not understand?

While I would find it difficult to answer the question of punters' preferences, the fact that 80% of London's prostitutes are foreign women suggests there is a market for them, or there are not enough British prostitutes to meet demand.

The market would take time to adjust certainly, but all these pros would have basic workers rights.

That report is based on New Zealand and therefore does not help understand the situation in the UK. In the UK, the majority of prostitutes are so because they have a drug addiction.

That is pure speculation on your part based on a random letter you found in the guardian quoted by an MP. That you believe such a high percentage and use it to argue against legalisation when the report from NZ suggests that it would fall to 17% in a legal market just shows how lacking in realism your position is.

This has nothing to do with morals, it has everything to do with protecting the rights of oppressed women, so nice try but next time try harder...

Yet you are trying so hard to avoid the evidence given by the NZ report.

That, imo, will lead to an increase in people trafficking.

Yes more people would be attracted by the higher wages. So what, good for them.

But the link you provided didn't actually provide any evidence did it?

Well you certainly seem determined to avoid its conclusions.

According to Fiona MacTaggart MP, the figure in the UK is 95%. So, in future, please don't accuse me of bullshit without checking the facts for yourself...

I can't describe how much I reckon your 95% figure is bullshit.

The fact is, the women are terrified of calling the police on their pimps, and would remain terrified when pimping isn't even illegal any more.

Nope, legalisation would empower them, and so more would get away if they wanted to. You claim that you support more support for these women, but actually, if you listen to them, they say that they need legalisation, and your insistence on not hearing their pleas is heartless.

And your assumption is that prostitutes would be free to leave their pimps - well they're free now aren't they? Yet they don't. You cannot answer why that is because that will be admitting that legalisation will change nothing in the lives of prostitutes.

Your insistance that legalisation would make the relationship between the empowered worker and her employer the same is just rubbish.

Among other things yes. They should be given sheltered, protected accommodation where they can wean themselves off drugs and receive eduction to make something of their lives

On this we agree at least

You think legalising will decrease demand!?

On the street, yes; and I explained very clearly why in my last post.

Here we go again with the "moral" smears. The New Zealand obviously isn't the "only way forward" as Sweden has proved.

Sweden is a mess because of their insistence on your solution see here.

You are just running desperately from the inevitable conclusion that legalisation would improve the lives of the pros, which is why they are asking for it.

And your claim:

The stats from New Zealand simply do not compare to the UK.

Is just laughable. there are few countries more alike, and their solution could improve the lives of many but for people like you insisting that they are wrong.

17% of addicts compared to 95%

My stat is for all pros, while yours is for street pros. the corresponding stat if you had bothered to actually read the report (something you seem keen to avoid) is 45%.

This lack of depth in your analysis is your problem. I used to believe much the same as you but during years of research and thought I was forced by logic to accept that though the industry might be unsavoury, one has to listen to the workers who want legalisation so that they can deal with the problems they face.

I can see you point but it would only be true if you could find a number of pros who agree with you and so far you have quoted diddley squat. Sooner or later you will understand that you can't just go around telling other people what to think, and trying to create some utopia. You need to stick with the basics and listen to the workers and do what they recommend. Otherwise we will go down the same route as Sweden where all the reports are that the clampdown is injuring the workers (read the report above).

you will not be able to stop this trade. the same goes for the drug trade, keeping either in the black economy simply gives licence to the pimps to abuse the pros more.

And lots of people are stuck in jobs they don't like in order to pay for their household bills, and that is just the way it is. Any boss has power, but that is just life, and is no more or less abusive. We have the freedom to leave our work and all the indications are that legalisation would normalise the industry.

In a short skip to the end addendum, you are just convinced that being a pro is different to any other kind of work. It may be for you, but it is the individual who makes this call in a free society not the government. The individual has the right to choose what they put into their bodies be it drugs or cock. It is not for others to complain about these decisions coz it is none of their business. And to expect the government to step in just causes the terrible consequences seen in Sweden.

It is not the government's place to take a moral stand when there is no victim, and just whinging that the women are victims when they refuse that label, just shows how divorced from reality such a position is.

 

[belboid]

It also falls back on the argument of "choice". If Ms X has a genuine choice, then fair enough, but the reality is the vast majority don't have the luxury of that choice. As I said earlier, one figure says 95% of UK prostitutes have a drug addiction, that is a massively high figure - how many of them do you think actually want to be a prostitute?

this is another decent point - simply dealing with the legal side of prostitution is far from enough to begin to tackle the issue, and any new laws should take that into account, and should also encompass a full programme of help to get people out of the industry, off drugs, and living a more healthy and safe lifestyle.

 

[belboid]

That is true, it is supply. However, that would give us clues about the demand, and gives us clues as to how many British women are willing to be prostitutes than foreign women. It is certainly less fallacious for me to suggest there is an 80% demand to match the supply than for you to claim that following legalisation 80% of the "industry" will just disappear

good thing I dont claim anything like that then.

 

[Louloubelle]

I don't really think the example you gave is a realistic picture of what most prostitutes go through. I also don't think the law would define Mr X as a pimp just for being married to Ms X and "sharing" her spoils.

so how would you define a pimp for the purposes of your pimping law?

personally there is no creature on the plant that I hate more than a pimp who rapes, traffics and exploits other human beings.

I just personally feel that there is a huge difference between the scenario I gave of Ms X and her house husband and some brutal, violent thug who violates vulnerable people and makes money from them

Granted there is probably a continuum of "pimpness" with brutal pimp at one end of the scale and a caring house husband at the other. Granted also that it might be difficult to tell at which point of the continuum a particular person (it's not always men) is.

I was walking home late the other night and saw a woman in a mini skirt working on a road near to where I live. On a nearby bench sat her "pimp" only she probably thinks of him as a boyfriend. I've seen them both around before and they are both drug addicts. I don't know them as people but I imagine that he was doing his best to take down car reg numbers and keep an eye out for her. maybe he just wanted to know for sure how much money she earned. FWIW he's not the sort of person for whom the word "respect" comes to mind, but neither is he a brutal pimp. He's a pathetic drug addict.

It also falls back on the argument of "choice". If Ms X has a genuine choice, then fair enough, but the reality is the vast majority don't have the luxury of that choice. As I said earlier, one figure says 95% of UK prostitutes have a drug addiction, that is a massively high figure - how many of them do you think actually want to be a prostitute?

Who quantifies this "vast majority"? The vast majority of women attending projects for trafficked women will of course have been pimped. How many women are "kept", how many earn a bit extra here and there without ever being included in the concept of the vast majority? I think that you have to be extremely cautious about statistics relating to sex work as so many sex workers work in secrecy.

I'm not for one second denying the fact that countless women are abused and violated in systems of prostitution. I just think that everything needs to be looked at in context and considered carefully.

FWIW if this thread consisted of people claiming that sex work is liberating and that it's a job like any other I'd be arguing just as strongly with them

 

[belboid]

Does it? It's illegal to be married to a prostitute?

it is illegal to live of her earnings. Men have been done for doing so

 

[Gmart]

Now let me tell you something about empowerment.

Prostitution is a job where the work is so unpleasant that almost no-one takes it on except through desperation or coercion. Where getting through the day means psychologically dissociating yourself from what you do.

What a crock of shit. The same could be said about practically any job, yet you see this one as different. And furthermore you insist on imposing your view on others. Authoritarianism never works, and Sweden shows the terrible conclusion that your attitude has.

You might not like the empowerment that legalisation gives, but if you listened to the workers instead of imposing your will on them, then things would be a whole lot better. I mean you would have to learn to mind your own business and to learn to listen rather than moralise, but seeing as you and others here have convinced yourselves completely and that even if a pro told you straight out you were wrong you still would justify your position to yourself.

The worst of it is that due to the lack of minority rights in the UK, if you managed to persuade people of the 'merits' of the Swedish model, then once in law it would be very difficult to get rid of, because - who would listen while the pros are being abused more and more? Not you that's for sure.

 

[Louloubelle]

Now you're arguing for legalisation again!

Buying sex is illegal in the UK (I think), so if your example about trafficked women relates to the UK, it is happening now that prostitution is not legalised, so doesn't really counter my point

no I'm not

I'm arguing for decriminalisation

ultimately I think that the best course of action is to punish abusers and to give those working directly in the supply side of the sex industry as much power and as many choices as possible, including the choice to do other things

You can't just stop people from selling sex without giving them alternative sources of income and life / professional skills

Buying sex from an adult is not illegal in the UK but changes in the law are being proposed. Also police occasionally launch crack downs on kerb crawlers . This makes things very difficult and dangerous for the street workers as they have to get into cars very quickly and don't have time to scan the car for rope / weapons / other dangerous dodgy things. if you ask any street worker whether they support the criminalisation of clients and crackdowns on kerb crawlers they will tell you very clearly that it makes their lives infinitely more dangerous

 

[Gmart]

Ironically the letter from which Cyber Rose got the 95% stat from, has a letter from the English Collective of Prostitutes and Women against Rape writing together next to it. Here's a quote:

New Zealand has decriminalised prostitution on grounds of "sex workers' human rights, protection from exploitation and promotion of occupational health and safety". Five years on, sex workers are more able to report violence and find it easier to leave prostitution. Why can't safety be prioritised here?

A good question. Still why listen to informed people when you can just make up your own misinformed mind and use it as an excuse to impose draconian laws on these poor unfortunate workers?

 

[CyberRose]

Which part of because they are in an illegal brothel do you not understand?

You assume they want to be there

The market would take time to adjust certainly, but all these pros would have basic workers rights.

Foreign prostitutes (non-EU) would have no right to be in this country and would be deported, or would be forced to continue working illegally as they are doing now. So for them, nothing would change whether brothels were legal or not

That is pure speculation on your part based on a random letter you found in the guardian quoted by an MP. That you believe such a high percentage and use it to argue against legalisation when the report from NZ suggests that it would fall to 17% in a legal market just shows how lacking in realism your position is.

Well can you find me a more realistic figure of what the addiction % is amongst British prostitutes?

Yet you are trying so hard to avoid the evidence given by the NZ report.

But their figures just don't compare to the UK, and they claim that people trafficking is not linked to prostitution, do you agree with that in relation to the UK?

Yes more people would be attracted by the higher wages. So what, good for them.

You think people trafficking is GOOD?! Jesus. Do you think that people trafficked for the sex trade have actually chosen that?!

Well you certainly seem determined to avoid its conclusions.

Like I said, they don't have conclusions because they offer no research to make conclusions on. What they offer is opinions

I can't describe how much I reckon your 95% figure is bullshit.

Give me to correct figure then...

Nope, legalisation would empower them, and so more would get away if they wanted to. You claim that you support more support for these women, but actually, if you listen to them, they say that they need legalisation, and your insistence on not hearing their pleas is heartless.

But you simply cannot speak for all prostitutes, I doubt anyone can claim to. The truth is, you don't know what they all think.

Your insistance that legalisation would make the relationship between the empowered worker and her employer the same is just rubbish.

My point is that legalising brothels won't make the pimps give up their assets, will it?

Sweden is a mess because of their insistence on your solution see here.

That one report claims Sweden is in a mess, most reports claim Sweden has been a remarkable success. There was a report done by the University of London into the different effects of legislation in Australia, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden. Here is an extract quoted in the Scottish Parliament's research into the matter:

Bindel and Kelly (2003, p 14) noted that proponents of legalising prostitution argue that there
are several main advantages of using this approach:
· legalisation would break the links between prostitution and organised crime, and reduce levels of violence against women involved in prostitution, as women would be working in `controlled' environments, and would find it easier to report attacks to the police if they were not involved in `illegal activities' when assaults occur
· legalisation would improve sexual health of prostitutes, and by implication, their customers, because the activity would be more likely to occur in a clean and safe environment
· the link between prostituted women and their pimps would be broken, as women would no longer be dependent on a pimp for `protection' from the authorities
· legalisation would `free up' time and resources for law enforcers to tackle the illegal sector, such as trafficking and child prostitution, thereby ensuring that priority was given to policing the `nasty' elements of the trade
· legalised brothels would improve the quality of life for people who live and work in areas
currently affected by street prostitution, especially if they were located away from residential areas and schools
· the `revolving door', where women are arrested, fined, and return to prostitution in order to
pay the fines, would end, and women would have more control over if and when they ‘worked'
· taxing the earnings of women in prostitution would generate revenue

Bidel and Kelly (2003) argue that legalisation has not proved to have had the benefits it was thought it would, pointing to evidence that:
· the connections between organised crime and the sex industry have not diminished, and that legalisation encourages the growth of the sex industry
· trafficking has not been eradicated primarily because there have been difficulties in policing the industry, and a lack of resources given to local authorities to carry out license checks and ensure health and safety requirements
· legalisation places a considerable burden on local government
· legalisation of brothels has led to an increase in street prostitution
· child prostitution has increased in the Netherlands
· far from raising taxes, it has been found in Victoria that tax evasion in the sector is commonplace
· violence against prostitutes has not decreased
· there has been an increase in sexually transmitted disease amongst prostitutes

You are just running desperately from the inevitable conclusion that legalisation would improve the lives of the pros, which is why they are asking for it.

But I can point to much more evidence than you can that legalisation would have negative consequences

This lack of depth in your analysis is your problem

Not only is that untrue, it's just a petty insult. It's also extremely hypocritical considering I have posted much more evidence than yourself

I can see you point but it would only be true if you could find a number of pros who agree with you and so far you have quoted diddley squat

Neither have you. The link you posted earlier isn't clear whether it is the voice of prostitutes themselves, or just an organisation claiming to speak on their behalf. It is also unclear whether they support the legalisation of brothels as they state their opposition to government endorsed brothels, whcih si what you appear to be arguing for. I'm also not sure of the relevance of prostitutes calling for brothels to be legalised as I'm not sure they are the best people to comment on the legal implications or whether they have access to the same level of research as, say, London Met Uni which I quote above. Do British prostitutes know the effect legislation has had in Sweden or Holland, for example?

Sooner or later you will understand that you can't just go around telling other people what to think, and trying to create some utopia

Same to you mate

You need to stick with the basics and listen to the workers and do what they recommend. Otherwise we will go down the same route as Sweden where all the reports are that the clampdown is injuring the workers (read the report above)

Read every other report on Sweden, other than the odd one that supports your view. And why do we need to do what the workers recommend? How do you know they are right when the evidence suggests they are wrong (if, indeed, you do speak for all prostitutes)

 

[CyberRose]

no I'm not

I'm arguing for decriminalisation

Then stop replying to my posts because I'm arguing exactly the same thing, yet you keep making arguments why prostitution should be legalised across the board.