How much for your women?

[davywavy]

I'm reminded of a conversation I had a while ago.
"Have you ever paid for sex?"
"Only emotionally."
"Yeah, I heard you were overcharged."

Prostitution has been in the media a lot lately. More so than usually, anyway, and various people on my flist, like ditzy_pole and sherbetsaucers have made posts on the subject.
The reason for this media interest is the usual - prurient interest in what people get up to in their bedrooms. However, the current excuse being used for all the (oo-er) column inches is that the government has recently taken some tentative steps towards licensing the oldest profession by legalising small brothels, a move which is intended to provide greater safety and security than hanging round on street corners for the (mostly) women involved. This move hasn't been welcomed everywhere, however. Attempts to 'clamp down' on prostitution over the years have largely failed, but more people are pointing to the 1999 change in the law in Sweden, which means that people who purchase sexual services can now be charged with a criminal act just as much as the people they're paying. This has led to a massive decline in prostitution in Sweden, and the trafficking of girls to that country for the purposes of prostitution has dropped from an estimated 15,000 per year to 4-600 per year since the law was passed. This is pointed to as evidence that stricter laws, not liberal legislation, are a means of reducing prostitution and the social ills which are often attendant upon it.
However, the reality is that the legislation has had a twofold effect: firstly, that prostition has been driven deeper underground and is now less safe than ever before, and secondly that Denmark, Norway and Finland have become sex-tourism destinations as randy Swedes nip over the border to get serviced elsewhere whislt everyone simply looks the other way and continues with the increasingly unconvincing charade that Sweden is some sort of socialist utopia with the moral high ground.
Over the years many attempts to reduce prostitution have been tried, but so long as people like both money and nookie it is unlikely to go away and so making it safer for the people selling is probably a good idea until better permanent solutions to the problems caused can be found. A recent edition of Question Time had various MP's asked if they would like a 'small brothel' next door to them but having brothels next door isn't a question of legality, it's a question of zoning. After all, making it illegal to sell something which it it perfectly legal to give away to whomsoever you like is somewhat hypocritical and, like in any legal market, protecting both buyer and seller should be the point of legislation
What the government's new legislation is hopefully likely to do is reduce the incidence of Street prostituion (women engaged in this are significantly more likely to be assaulted, and also significantly more likely to be engaged in injecting drug use), and also the illegal '30 albanians and a mattress' brothels which have been so much in the news lately. Of course, a move towards legislation and licensing of brothels will also mean it will be easier to tax them, which would allow for the revenues gained to be put back into social programmes to reduce the criminality attendant upon prostitution as an illegal trade. Or rather, it would be if Gordon Brown wouldn't piss these extra revenues up the wall in the same way as he does so much of the money he takes already.

The whole thing is a grey area. Whilst drug/trafficked/street prostitutes live lives of misery and degredation, top class escorts can charge hundreds of even thousands of pounds an hour for their services and it's difficult to argue that the same rules can be equally applied to both groups. It is a fact of human nature that if people are paid for doing something then you will find people willing to do it, pretty much no matter what it is. The difficulty is the circumstances in which the actions take placve. After all, if we're going to ban people taking money for sex, then the first thing to do is to stop beautiful women marrying rich men for anything other than love. Suggestions on how to achieve that are welcomed.

[Poll #658878]

Comments

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

However, a key issue for me is that whole "consent" dealy; a full and proper application of consent rules (i.e. no coercion) is obviously necessary, as is addressing the inequalities in pay for regular jobs that women often experience. You gotta get rid of that before it becomes truly acceptable.

However, prostitution does exist and thus anything to make it safer for the people involved is to be welcomed.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

My immediate suspicion (witout evidence) is that the average female prostitute will earn a great deal better than the average male one.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

I've no experience of the prices of either, so don't really feel able to engage in this debate. *shrugs*

Certainly, however, there are many more female than male prostitutes and thus the bulk of the protection should go in that direction.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

As an aside, I did initially tick the "for a million quid I'd do it with just about anyone" box, but then thought about it a bit and realised it wasn't true. It'd certainly lower my standards, however.

[nicnac.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, if you're including rent boys. They have the custom of all the blokes who are in the closet and therefore aren't able to pull openly.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, those LibDems, eh? Bunch of randy drunkards.

[(Anonymous)]

A recent edition of Question Time had various MP's asked if they would like a 'small brothel' next door to them but having brothels next door isn't a question of legality, it's a question of zoning.

But I think part of the problem is that the whole "small brothel" thing takes no account of zoning, and therefore it's more than likely that they will be "that house next door" rather than in specific areas.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, kinda my point - the legislation has missed an important loophole.

[silver-blue.livejournal.com]

and dammit, I keep getting logged out for no reason. :(

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Ah, I wondered who was using a Japanese demon account.

Entertainment/Retail Premises

[(Anonymous)]

I missed this if it featured in the debate, but is "small brothel" going to be a new description under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order - like a fast-food outlet - whose use is bought & sold with the property? Or is it a licence personal to the trader, like "sale of alcohol" or "betting shop" which needs to be reapplied for? Either way, if the public didn't like the idea of having one next-door, they'd presumably have the opportunity to object during the preliminary stages of the planning/licensing process.

H

Re: Entertainment/Retail Premises

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I haven't a clue, but as that is a jolly good idea I should doubt it occurred to the government when drafting the legislation.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

It's your curse of the underscore. Apparently the Six Apart staff didn't see a problem with turing you into subdomains until.... NOW, you know, when it's happening.

[sesquipedality.livejournal.com]

I don't see anything particularly terrible in the act of prostitution, but I certainly don't want to do it. To me it seems less immoral than say working in advertising (an element of which involves lying to people) but then I seem to have some quite unusual ideas about what professions are immoral. Havine sex with someone you didn't like just strikes me as bugger all fun, something along the lines of cleaning out a septic tank (which I'd also be willing to do for a million quid).

I find it puzzling that people find it at all surprising that politicians can't keep their dick in their trousers though, or that this somehow makes them unsuitable for a career in public service (oh, if only that were what they really did). It seems to me that the most important quality in a politician would be (political) integrity. The notion that this should have anything to do with their sexual proclivities is highly confusing to me.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Bearing in mind that I work in advertising, I'm fascinated to know which part of my job involves lying to people?

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

The interesting point that isn't being looked at is a definition of what constitutes 'sex for money'. In the book 'Ask a Policeman', the author comments that a common claim amongst workers and clients caught in public was that they were temporarily engaged, which allowed the police to use their discretion. Despite knowing darn well what was happening, it was all paperwork, so was brushed aside with a weary sigh. Usually, this was pretty standard 'tuppeny-upright' stuff, as bondage gear and muzzles are few and far between in a Rochdale back alley.

However, prostitution and sexuality in the UK is far more varied than Lord Percy meeting Lady Penny, and sometimes Lord Percy himself is nothing more than an innocent bystander.

If certain rumours are true, Mark Oaten's tastes led to the scatological.
There are hundreds of tales of whippings, constraints, giantism, and anything else you can find by typing 'sex' into google.

How can something that ends in non-genital contact be called 'sex?' Do we say that any action intended to arouse is to be considered sexual? That would be strippers, kissograms and publishers of FHM in the dock, then. Do we say that any physical relationship embarked upon for money is immoral and thus illegal? That could apply to certain nameless individuals - mostly Furnis- female.

The trouble is, as with the rest of the law, burden of proof. To secure a conviction you'd need client lists and an itemised ledger, and it's more likely that they'll eventually stand trial for undeclared earnings, if anything.

The government are just setting themselves up for a fall for the sake of a soundbyte.

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

I reckon that making the profession safe and taxable is a good thing. It can't be got rid of so make the best of the situation. I think that if women want to sell their bodies then that is up to them, they are providing a service which people are willing to pay for only morality dictates it is wrong. In this day and age the immorality of prostitution is harldly the most going to hell type thing you can do, if we can do and have the right to do any manner of sexual acts between consenting adults then surely one person paying another person for a sexual act should be encompassed in that.

The important thing is consent. In a less underground world of prostitution girls who are not doing it because they want to (the heroin addicts drugged by their pimps, the teenage girls living on the street) should stand out in stark comparison. Taxes incurred could be used to help tackle these issues which in reality add up to the results of drugged up slavery and issues of homelessness.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The major flaw here is that it is pretty much a given that the taxes generated would not be used in this manner.

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

I think for the taxes generated to not be used to help those being abused in the name of the trade is deeply unethical. In fact in the whole legalisation issue I would consider this point to be the most morally objectionable.

[colin-boyle.livejournal.com]

That's because taxes go into the consolidated fund - it's a long standing principle (common to all political parties) that taxes are never directly allocated to particular programmes.
Charging mechanisms are different, and in this case it would be more likely to be constituted as a charge for a licence to operate - something that is an optional service (i.e. you don't have to operate a brothel, unlike say income tax which you have to pay). Charges can, but do not have to, be routed direct to a particular programme.

[queenortart.livejournal.com]

Women should be allowed (and for that matter men) to sell their own bodies if they choose to. Someone else selling their bodies for them is another matter entirely.

There was a fascinating interview with a woman who ran saunas on Radio 4 who had doctors for the 'girls', training, sick pay, proper security, vetted clients, etc etc. She was one person who would be going to prison under the new legislation because she had more than two workers.

Legislation to protect all parties seems the way to go to me. Do the whole thing properly, allow legalised brothels which can be controlled, and cut out the Albanian sex slave option.

[(Anonymous)]

yeah, I think it does have to be an all or nothing thing. Namby pambying about will only cause more problems

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

that was me, doh!

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

I struggle with this. For one thing I think that certain rigid attitudes towards sex are necessary. I mean, look at the UK (really look) and teen pregnancy. People get more open about sex and then KABAM! more horrid little 13 year olds spawning. There isn't necessarily a cause and effect there but the correlation with era change is difficult to ignore.

Tolerance often sacrifices good sense. There are actual lobbyist groups of people who don't believe that single teen mothers on benefits should be socially penalized. What?!

I suffer under the belief that the US and UK criminal justice systems are not designed to catch every crime evar. Much of it leans towards obvious social deviance, which in this case would mean streetwalkers. I'm cynical enough to believe that getting prostitutes off the streets actually means less police forces on the beat. Good motivation for a change in laws, isn't it? Less money spent on law enforcement...

Even if the UK went the whole hog and just said 'hooray! Sex for money in your house is legal!' There will always be a black market. Just like counterfeit DVDs/CDs or the illegal gun trade in the US, there will be a dirty sideline. I'd hazard a guess and say that the black market would be cheaper because it's less regulated.

It isn't to say it would take most customers but those poor little stupid Albanians who keep believing that free holidays exist would still be imported into Birmingham. Some forms of prostitution can be controlled but the stupid and those who take advantage will always exist.

I'm a big fan of the status quo or... alternatively.... for Britian to get its economy back by exporting whores who speak the Queen's English. Now there is an international market just waiting to happen. Who needs financial services?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

It's an astonishingly grey area; personally, I'm anti-prostitution and I'd probably think less of a friend if they used girls-for-hire. However, that's just me and my being disapproving isn't going to stop it so the logical conclusion is that making it safer for the sellers is the right way to go.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

I can't see a real cause and effect though. Reducing penalties or legalizing some forms don't necessarily mean that violence towards prostitutes will be eradicated. For once, I think the 'women's empowerment' crowd are actually on to the right thing.

I can't find any statistics at the moment but there's a significantly high proportion of prostitutes with severe emotional issues. I'm not talking functional either, like sectioned, messiah seeing crazy. With meds and a large amount of treatment they could be functional but they must be removed from the environment completely. I'd say legalizing will actually make getting that kind of support for prostitutes more difficult. Once something like that is in the mainstream, I think people will lose a lot of their sympathy.

Personally, I don't really have a problem with prostitution itself. I doubt it's fundamentally about sexual release for repeat customers. I think there's a certain type of control/power fetish happening.

[fionnghuala.livejournal.com]

That's the concern I have, that the majority of prostitutes are not of sound mind for a number of reasons. Drug addiction, mental health issues, effectively imprisoned by pimps, etc, etc. So that any argument considering the economics of the situation misses the real point. Prostitutes who are meaningfully running a business and fully conscious of what they are doing are a whole different kettle of fish, and perhaps a very small group.

Oh and...

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

'How much for your little girl? The WOMEN! I WANT TO BUY YOUR WOMEN.'

Re: Oh and...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Hence the title of the post...

Re: Oh and...

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

Has anyone else noticed? Or am I just really sad?

I hate Illinois Nazis.

Re: Oh and...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I expect my brother will/has noticed.

Re: Oh and...

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

"Hell, we're the Good Ole Boys (Network)."

[applez.livejournal.com]

Creating a legitimate industry doesn't necessarily eliminate criminal gangs, especially when organized crime already has a significant hand in it. Rather, it will simply push it towards a "grey market" where the criminals will retain their significant holdings, perhaps improve some labour practices, but now with a veneer of legitimacy and government approval.

I think of the yakuza and the pachinko parlours in Japan as a model of this.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I'm a pragmatist; I'll take my good where I can find it. As it isn't possible to do away with it altogether, making the siutation better - even if it is only for some - can only be a good thing.

[applez.livejournal.com]

Mutual consent is critical, but it cannot be the only benchmark. The critical problem that remains is the issue of abuse...both from the perspective of underage, blackmail, addiction and coercion; AND from the organised crime that enriches itself from it.

One can retain all the romantic notions of prostitution one likes, but the fact remains that the majority is abusive, and will always be abusive in most cases.

I remain deeply ambivalent about legalizing approaches. I think there are many opportunities for that to go so wrong as to be rendered meaningless...but I suppose there are ways of doing it right.