quote:The law is to be changed to allow two prostitutes and a receptionist or maid to work together legally in brothels, the government has confirmed.
Ministers have ditched earlier plans for licensed red-light zones, believing they could send out the wrong message.
But prostitute groups said crackdowns could put sex workers in greater danger.
Former home secretary David Blunkett announced plans in 2004 to decriminalise some brothels in what would have been the biggest shake-up of prostitution laws for 50 years.
But the Home Office has rejected this proposal, saying prostitution blighted communities.
The only time I ever attempted to get sex for cash, it ended in embarrasing failure. But for many men, paying for sex is the only way they can get it. Maybe you're ugly as sin, but not depressed enough to join a swingers club. Maybe you lead a busy international lifestyle, making long term relationships difficult. Or, more commonly, perhaps you're a fucking freak, and it's the only option you've got - nobody will sleep with you for love, so it's got to be money. Whatever your reasons, it has just been made a bit more okay to do it!
So, now it's okay to run cheery little brothels from your living room. Is this enough though? I've been to the 'dam and seen the chicks in the windows, and it seems reasonable enough, but could it work here? I watched some program about a load of whores at a whorehouse in America, and they all get on and have a laugh, and it's basically like a big holiday.
Is whoring actually, you know, bad? If not, then why don't we just have one on every high street?
Lastly, why not post your funny stories of going to see whores?
[ 17.01.2006, 07:58: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
for the record, the lads over at Team Have Your Say are generally in favour of everything to do with prostitutes, the filthy fucking perverts.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
It's a good idea if properly regulated.
Even here in whore happy Holland we still have junkie street whores who you can pay to fuck you in your Opal whilst in a glorified 'red light' car park. These are skanky, unwashed toothless crones who probably don't charge as much as your higher class window hookers simply because of either the need for drugs or the lower overhead costs.
If these UK brothels end up being glorified crack den cum cum depositaries I can't imagine anyone wanting one in their street (How are they going to zone them ?)
Better to have it out in the open though, make them pay tax too, which should bolster up the economy.
Posted by Good Fairy (Member # 479) on :
I was chatting to a worker from the Angel Project. She was telling me of girls who now just work to pay for a rock, then go back and smoke it, come out again to earn enough, etc... Crack has changed the whoring in East London. Girls she has known for years are just crack whores now. It made me squirm to hear of one girl whose hair was crawling with lice,letting a guy do her without a condom for £10. There was a child seat in the back of the car.... Will making things legal change this?
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Me and Dougie staked out Portman Road in Ipswich once (before it was made a no-go-between-7-and-7 area and was still Ipswich's top whore hang out) and waited for a whore to pick up a 'trick', so we could follow them in Dougie's Datsun Cherry. After about an hour, we got lucky. We followed them to a car park, gave it a couple of minutes and then we moved in for a closer look. They were at it. A man and an actual whore, at it. Imagine my shock when Dougie hammered on the window and actually opened the passenger door. This wasn't part of the plan.
"Police!" Dougie announced, confidently. To be fair, the man shit himself. He was pulling up his trousers and looked like he was about to get down on his knees and plead to the Lord to forgive him. The whore was less impressed. I can't blame her. Undercover police generally don't wear silver Farahs and Diadora Borg Elites and drive Japanese hatchbacks with hardly any clutch plates.
"Show me some fucking ID." She cooed.
"ID!" Dougie ordered holding out his hand to me.
I just winged it and handed him my wallet. He flashed it at our whore as if it contained a badge.
"Let me have a better look."
He handed her my wallet. With my fucking name and address in it. She opened it and looked at my name and address. Dougie suddenly snatched it back, grabbed her exposed tit in one hand, squeezed it very hard and shouted, rather imaginatively I thought, "You fucking whore!"
Then we ran off and drove home. I was worried for weeks that she had memorised my address and would come and kill me with *whore weapons. Oh those were the days.
*See Fort Apache, The Bronx.
[ 17.01.2006, 09:09: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: Dougie suddenly snatched it back, grabbed her exposed tit in one hand, squeezed it very hard and shouted, rather imaginatively I thought, "You fucking whore"
hahahahahahahahahahahaha - ha ! Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
lol @ Jonesy's story.
*serious*
I don't know if anyone else saw that bleak drama Sex Traffic last year, but that made a pretty powerful impression on me in its depiction of the awful predicament of young women tricked into coming to the UK (even abducted) on the promise of a legit job and finding themselves being forced into prostitution (or, 'raped repeatedly' if you prefer) by vicious pimps once they got here.
I suppose some will chide me for being naive and relate instances of prostitutes being savvy, empowered women who oughtn't be patronised so - I don't know, though. Seems to me that the whole phenomenon is bound up with exploitation of one kind or another.
If we're talking about 'zones of tolerance' maybe it'd be better to have individual booths in licensed internet cafes where guys can wank themselves into a stupor over hardcore porn without having to trouble any 'real' ladies?
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
quote:Originally posted by Good Fairy: Will making things legal change this?
I think so, and then again I don't.
There will always be a poor junkie whores, that’s a fact that will remain as long as there are drugs and poverty.
But for those who actually 'whore' professionally it could improve things no end, proper health plans, a union, real contracts and pensions, hell turning it into a real job means that it is a real job.
I guess junkies will still screw junkie whores – think of it as a sort of sexual gentrification if you will – Thanks New Labour !
[ 17.01.2006, 09:09: Message edited by: Darryn.R ]
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I've mentioned it before, but I heartily recommend a look at *PunterNet - a site dedicated to those who regularly visit prostitutes. The best bit has to be the field reports which are epinions-like reviews of the girls and their abilities:
quote:Description: Blonde, early 20's, Latvian; good figure, ample bust but not curvaceous. Girl-next-door looks, not a stunner by any chalk of the imagination but extremely pleasant with good English.
Comments: This would have been an extremely good GFE, if only she were my girlfriend (but of course she's not). Enthusistic, lots of attention and nice subtle touches, clearly engaged with her work and no clock watching at all. Oral with, reverse which she genuinely seemed to enjoy before momentarily blacking out and mumbling vague nothings in Latvian, mish, lots of little pecks and nibbles.
This was a good punt, entirely enjoyable and extremely refreshing after 90 mins up the M4 on the way back from Cardiff. Lana is an extremely nice girl and it is impossible to fault her.
Maybe I should fault me, however - whether I am just getting too old, or maybe it's the weather or the state of the tides, but, I don't know, I find it hard to get excited about this one and I won't be back to see Lana again. She is a fine girl, and streets better than other girls who work here (who are generally of a consistently good standard) but something just didn't click for me.
When I visited this site, I was surprised by how many prostitutes were operating in my home town. Especially the knocking shop which is located just opposite this picturesque church:
Personally I hope I would never need to visit a prostitute, but I don't have any moral objections to other people doing so, provided that all parties are consenting adults and necessary precautions are taken.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
sex with a trafficked or drug addicted 'sex worker' (slave) is pretty much rape. i don't give a shit about the higher end of the industry - escorts, call-outs - but fail to see how making the great bulk of prostitution in 21st century social democratic britain (ha!) more 'open' is (a) 'liberal' (b) a good thing.
quote: Oral with, reverse which she genuinely seemed to enjoy before momentarily blacking out and mumbling vague nothings in Latvian, mish, lots of little pecks and nibbles.
'oral with reverse'???
and blacking out???
I think I have lived a shelterd life....
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abby: 'oral with reverse'???
Ask Kira.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
gfe = girlfriend experience. reverse oral = (i think) cunnilingus. blacking out meant she orgasmed.
gawd abby, what is wrong with you duh!
who will be teh first to claim that prositution is good for society cuz frustrated men have a sexual outlet so won't need to rape non-whores better than working in a factory only seen as wrong because of those silly hypocritical victorians empowering lol a career option you'd be happy for anyone you love (or vaguely give a shit about) to pursue
[ 17.01.2006, 10:14: Message edited by: vikram ]
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
Hands up who thinks vikram's a rapist.
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
He's talking as if rape is always wrong.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I don't think prostitution is 'good for society', but attacking it is kind of like shooting the messenger - it exists because people in their tens of thousands want it to exist. Given its ubiquity down the ages it seems as though eradicating it is nigh on impossible. In the meantime it seems better for the men and women involved for society to at least try and develop a situation where it can be policed and practiced in safety, which I understand is the intention of these new laws.
Posted by Kira (Member # 826) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben:
quote:Originally posted by Abby: 'oral with reverse'???
Ask Kira.
Oh Ben Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
I think that prostitutes should be allowed to get on with it, but the pimps should be killed.
ETA: If you aren't going to be the one doing the nasty stuff, you don't deserve the money.
[ 17.01.2006, 11:43: Message edited by: Roy ]
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
Many people have consensual non-consensual sex. ConNonCon. Less sickly than Rom Com and less scarey than NonCon Sub-Dom. Its exactly Vik's kind of fundamentalist thinking that has caused all the problems.
Clearly the man's a poltroon and a vagabond. Roy mentioned his beating at the hands of robo-cop just the other day. Its clearly a source of frottage to him and we all know that when he said 'girlfriend' he meant '$10 whore with a uniform specialisation'. Whether he's into Kinky Stinky or Back-Door Flush, I don't wish to stick my nose in his sex, I wonder why you do.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
What?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by Roy: I think that prostitutes should be allowed to get on with it, but the pimps should be killed.
So they get to keep the money they're earning, while the people who have formally exploited them and kept the lion's share of the profits get put to death? Fuck that - why should prostitutes have it so much better than everyone else?
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
I would like to see a pimp episode of 'Back To The Floor'
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Given its ubiquity down the ages it seems as though eradicating it is nigh on impossible.
Tuberculosis, bloodsports, asylums as a form of light entertainment, wife beating and child soldiers are all things that have been ubiquitous 'down the ages'. Of course, all these can and have been radically curtailed - if not actually eradicated - where the public concern and political will has existed.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
Well, unless we can either fix the economy, nationalise all female bodies, or invent a cure for sex, I don't see how it can be stopped. I would also cast doubt on your wife beating figures there. I bet it still goes on loads. Perhaps the best thing would be if more sluts were willing to fuck for free. There would be no point in any kind of sex trade if dudes could get it for free from sluts.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
basically, if you don't put out, then you're pretty much lighting a baby's first crack pipe.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
So free crack is the answer?
[ 17.01.2006, 12:13: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben:
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Given its ubiquity down the ages it seems as though eradicating it is nigh on impossible.
Tuberculosis, bloodsports, asylums as a form of light entertainment, wife beating and child soldiers are all things that have been ubiquitous 'down the ages'. Of course, all these can and have been radically curtailed - if not actually eradicated - where the public concern and political will has existed.
Tuberculosis is a completely spurious example; bloodsports - you actually argued for the continuation of. The use of child soldiers is completely within the control of the Government as it's down to them who they recruit to the army. With asylums it's relatively simple to stop people touring them because they're legitimate and therefore subject to state control. Wife beating - isn't domestic violence on the increase at the moment? Either way, it's a different situation because the victim in a wife beating doesn't actually become a criminal by being beaten.
None of your examples - especially the tuberculosis one, ffs - really work as comparison points. Actually the asylums one works best insofar as it at least gives an example of the manner in which exploitation can be minimised if an institution is legal.
In making brothels legal it affords people protection from the law and rights to a certain level of safe practices. What's more, legal brothels reduce the demand for kidnapped sex workers co-erced into the industry. I can't think of a single country, anywhere, that has managed to wipe out prostitution, anymore than they wipe out drug use. So the alternative is to provide the safest possible environment for those involved.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: Perhaps the best thing would be if more sluts were willing to fuck for free. There would be no point in any kind of sex trade if dudes could get it for free from sluts.
You've obviously never been clubbing in Reading on a Friday night.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
only for babies and sluts.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
You've been clubbing for babies and sluts?
That's some sick shit, Benway. Especially in Reading.
[ 17.01.2006, 12:18: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by sabian (Member # 6) on :
After doing a 'web presence' for an escort (very lucrative), I can tell you that atleast on the 'top end' of the scale as in escorts and not the 15 year old fresh from the container ship, they are just making money doing a job... Nothing more, nothing less.
She had an 8 year old kid who she had in a private (or state school... I get confused... The one where you pay for them to attend like Eaton), own her house, well groomed, etc etc.... And talking to her 'outside' the confines of her job, she viewed it like any other person would do their 9-5 job. Which I'll admit made me feel a bit weird, but hey, she was paying me good money so fuck it, yeah?
After doing some research into the market so that I could do the job she asked me to do, you'd be surprised at just how extensive the online market is for escorts... Before I took on this job, I was naive enough to think if you wanted to blow your load for £20, you had to go to Kings Cross at night or to a 'massage parlour'... But no! The oldest career in history has embrassed the newest technology to make an ultimate pair.
But, that said... You can put a gloss on it all you want, and the girl (or, indeed, guy) could be as clean cut as you can come.... But, it's still a rough business and to only be demostrated by the fact that this girl I was working with has literally dropped off the face of the earth. No contact in over 8 months and none of the ten (10) phone numbers she gave me as contacts work. So... Let that be a lesson to you!
(as an aside, Wayne and Rick... I got your emails mate but shit is very very hectic right now, I'll reply asap)
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
You'll probably need to go to Announce for the last part of your post, Sab. I mean, there's no way Rick would sully his spotless soul by reading a post called YOU FUCKING WHORES
[ 17.01.2006, 17:23: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: None of your examples - especially the tuberculosis one, ffs - really work as comparison points. Actually the asylums one works best insofar as it at least gives an example of the manner in which exploitation can be minimised if an institution is legal.
None of those examples was intended to be taken as closely analogous to prostitution - had that been the intention, I'd hardly have mentioned fox hunting, ffs - they were more about addressing your apparent point that age-old longevity of a social ill makes any concerted attempt to combat that ill completely futile.
Up until about a century ago you might have been able to say that, since women had always been regarded as men's property to some degree this would ever be the case - and that trying to change men's attitude, and end the compliance in this arrangement of the majority of women, you would be working hopelessly against the grain.
Clearly, in the case of women's rights - to which the whole issue of prostitution is of course more closely related - sustained political will from a number of directions effected massive transformative change... and in only a handful of generations.
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: In making brothels legal it affords people protection from the law and rights to a certain level of safe practices.
I hate using the n-word, but this really strikes me as astoundingly naive. For a start, what's been proposed is toleration of two-woman mutually-supportive partnerships - not full-scale brothels a la Channel Five's Cathouse. Do you seriously think it's beyond the wit of Balkan pimps to set up their girls two-by-two under the threat of savage retaliation if a word is said to the authorities about the true nature of their business arrangement.
Exploitation rarely announces itself as such - it usually operates under labels like 'protection' and one person 'taking care' of another; the proposed scheme strikes me as fraught with the possibility of commercial sex abuse becoming effectively state-sanctioned.
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: What's more, legal brothels reduce the demand for kidnapped sex workers co-erced into the industry.
Fact or assertion? It seems to me that the advent of legalised - or, at least, tolerated - prostitution will stimulate demand among men who previously might have been too afraid of the possible consquences to themselves of paying for sex (getting nabbed by the cops, beaten and robbed by pimps etc). Naturally, an increase in demand will be satisfied by the existing supply channels.
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I can't think of a single country, anywhere, that has managed to wipe out prostitution, anymore than they wipe out drug use. So the alternative is to provide the safest possible environment for those involved.
I can't think of a single country, anywhere, that's managed to eradicate drink-driving, but surely the experience of this country demonstrates that a combination of government-sponsored advertising, increased social stigma and vigorous law enforcement can make a huge impact on an prioritised problem.
Turning your question back on you, can you think of a single country anywhere that has succeeded - through providing the 'safest possible environment' - in breaking the inevitable links between whoring and drug addiction, exploitation, rape, abduction, disease and murder by truck drivers?
[ 18.01.2006, 03:38: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Turning your question back on you, can you think of a single country anywhere that has succeeded - through providing the 'safest possible environment' - in breaking the inevitable links between whoring and drug addiction, exploitation, rape, abduction, disease and murder by truck drivers?
Yeah - those links have been radically curtailed in Holland and Australia through a more tolerant approach. I believe those are the precedents for the new laws.
Also, the new strategy involves helping women get out of the sex trade and get help for drug addiction, rather than just fining them and tossing them back on the street.
It's all very well stamping your foot and shouting that you think prostitution is WRONG, but that clearly hasn't helped in terms of keeping workers safe. It really does seem worth trying a new strategy, and in this instance I think the approach is worthwhile - geared towards helping victims rather than punishing them.
Posted by not... (Member # 25) on :
[steviex]oral with, = Blowjob with a condom on. reverse = cunnilingus (I think, could be reverse cowgirl...:confused[/steviex}
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: I hate using the n-word, but this really strikes me as astoundingly naive. For a start, what's been proposed is toleration of two-woman mutually-supportive partnerships - not full-scale brothels a la Channel Five's Cathouse. Do you seriously think it's beyond the wit of Balkan pimps to set up their girls two-by-two under the threat of savage retaliation if a word is said to the authorities about the true nature of their business arrangement.
Exploitation rarely announces itself as such - it usually operates under labels like 'protection' and one person 'taking care' of another; the proposed scheme strikes me as fraught with the possibility of commercial sex abuse becoming effectively state-sanctioned.
It isn't naive. The 'two women operating from home' part of the bill has been introduced because evidence from sex workers suggested allowing them to work in pairs off the street increased their personal safety:BBC article here. Yes, there is the possibility of and potential for exploitation, but that exists at all points in sex industry. Surely if this measure reduces the number of women working alone on the streets - with all the danger this implies - then even with the potential for abuse it's a good thing.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Yeah - those links have been radically curtailed in Holland and Australia through a more tolerant approach. I believe those are the precedents for the new laws.
Hmm. The BBC website has a useful round-up of what policies have had what results internationally and the entry for 'licensed brothels' is a lot less clear cut than you imply:
quote:But what are the drawbacks? Many brothels in Australia appear to be in the hands of the same criminals who would otherwise control street prostitutes.
In the Netherlands, a commission found organised crime's control of prostitution increased following licensing.
There is little evidence that illegal street prostitution has decreased in these countries.
The UK also fears brothels would not help tackle the serious problem of the trafficking of women into the sex trade from abroad.
Other research suggests there have been few health benefits - The Australian state of New South Wales says the prevalence of some sexually transmitted diseases has worsened.
If we were talking about individuals making informed choices about how they wanted to make or supplement a living, I'd probably be more inclined towards your attitude - but the truth is that varying degrees of desperation, coercion, addiction and exploitation are firmly entwined with prostitution... and a solution that seems to have entrenched the involvement of organised crime in the trade strikes me as a pretty fucking flawed solution.
Call this 'stamping my foot' if you like - I'm making what I think are fairly reasonable objections to a major change in the law; if you have to resort to caricature at this early stage, I think that says more about the weakness of your position than mine.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
O look we're playing BBC tennis.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: It isn't naive. The 'two women operating from home' part of the bill has been introduced because evidence from sex workers suggested allowing them to work in pairs off the street increased their personal safety
Has it not occurred to you that there'll be an awful lot of 'sex workers' who aren't in any position to provide (or be approached for) their opinions on what constitute their preferred working conditions?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Call this 'stamping my foot' if you like - I'm making what I think are fairly reasonable objections to a major change in the law; if you have to resort to caricature at this early stage, I think that says more about the weakness of your position than mine.
You've literally completely ignored half the information in that BBC articles, because each country's approach has a pros and cons section. That you simply turn a blind eye to any benefits - refusing to acknowledge them even when they're right in front of your face in the same article you're taking your evidence from, doesn't say alot for the strength of your position.
The changes in the law don't represent a wholesale lifting of any one of those examples - instead it's a combination of many approaches, along with measures to counteract the drawbacks experienced in those cities alongside taking on board what the prostitutes themselves have declared to be a step in the right direction for saftey.
So the new scheme takes on board elements of Swedish legislation in treating the prostitute as a victim, as well as the emphasis on an out-reach programme to help people out of the sex trade. It takes on the licensing of brothels from the Netherlands which allows health services to improve contact with prostitutes, but steps up the emphasis on tackling sex trafficking.
Given that the current system obviously wasn't working, I think the approach taken here is forward thinking and rational.
I see you've started ridiculing the use of the BBC site as a resource where it provides a point of view opposed to your own, but if you can stomach another look at the page Louche looked at, you'll see that a lot of people opposed to the scheme still acknowledge many of the benefits.
[ 18.01.2006, 05:08: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Has it not occurred to you that there'll be an awful lot of 'sex workers' who aren't in any position to provide (or be approached for) their opinions on what constitute their preferred working conditions?
Of course it hasn't, Ben. Of course, I'm naive enough to think that the government did a survey of all prostitutes and all the women surveyed filled the form in completely and in detail and the new strategy is totally based on their needs and wishes.
Jesus, Ben.
But there are women working in the sex industry who are able to get their views known, through varied means, whether that's as part of the pressure groups which campaign in favour of legalisation or through social services of via the police. Or through the community workers who monitor the streets and try to help and protect those on them. Surely it's better to base legislation on those views that can be accessed than it is to just devise policy without any consultation?
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: You've literally completely ignored half the information in that BBC articles, because each country's approach has a pros and cons section.
Don't be a fucking twerp - I was responding to your specific contention that
quote:"Yeah - those links have been radically curtailed in Holland and Australia through a more tolerant approach."
Which implies that you either ignored or didn't know about the evidence that brothel licensing increased or entrenched the involvement of organised crime in prostitution in Australia and the Netherlands.
I quoted the 'drawbacks' chunk, because you didn't seem willing to admit there were any drawbacks. The fact that I talked about the picture presented by the BBC story as being 'less clear cut' is surely sufficient indication that, along with the drawbacks the story also referred to benfits.
'Less than clear cut' is a fuck sight more of an accurate characterisation of the evidence presented by the BBC site than 'those links have been radically curtailed'.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Louche: But there are women working in the sex industry who are able to get their views known, through varied means, whether that's as part of the pressure groups which campaign in favour of legalisation or through social services of via the police. Or through the community workers who monitor the streets and try to help and protect those on them. Surely it's better to base legislation on those views that can be accessed than it is to just devise policy without any consultation?
Surely the law should prioritise the plight and circumstances of the most vulnerable - the drugged, abducted, trafficked and raped - rather than just tailoring policy to the needs of those who already have a comparatively high level of autonomy and wherewithal?
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Actually - ben's right. The current way of doing things is actually working really well, so we should stick with that.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Surely the law should prioritise the plight and circumstances of the most vulnerable - the drugged, abducted, trafficked and raped - rather than just tailoring policy to the needs of those who already have a comparatively high level of autonomy and wherewithal?
It's not a case of just tailoring the policy to those with a high level of autonomy. The drugging, abducting, and the trafficking and raping is - apparently - also being addressed by the new law. The law isn't 'just' about getting two-woman brothels off the ground and then saying "that's that done". Other elements -
- more kerb-crawlers could lose their driving licences
- prostitutes get help over drugs and housing.
- action against those who exploit prostitutes, such as people traffickers.
- police will be encouraged to work more closely with charities running safe houses to help women get out of the sex trade.
- measures to encourage women to get help with drink or drug problems
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
Well done on managing to respond without being needlessly snide, Ben!
quote:Originally posted by ben: Surely the law should prioritise the plight and circumstances of the most vulnerable - the drugged, abducted, trafficked and raped - rather than just tailoring policy to the needs of those who already have a comparatively high level of autonomy and wherewithal?
The new strategy is a package of measures, not simply about legalising two women to work from one home. The measures to ensure that women arrested for soliciting are funnelled onto drug and alcohol programmes is targeting the vulnerable. The measures to reduce kerb crawling are targeting the vulnerable by aiming to reduce dangerous street prostitution. The policy is not tailored to those who already have autonomy, it's aiming to assist those who really need it. Admittedly, more could be done on trafficking and the exploitation related to trafficking, but to say that the strategy isn't attempting to assist the 'hard to reach' is wrong.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
Or, what Thorn said, apparently.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I can't believe that nobody has suggested the thing about sluts.
Posted by turbo (Member # 593) on :
Having lived in a red light district for several years, I have got quite a different view of prostitution than I used to have. On the one hand, I knew that a few of the (mostly African) prostitutes working in 'legal' brothels in my street were drug addicts because they were lured over to Holland with promises of a job as a waitress, had heroin injected into them and, once they were addicted, forced into prostitution to pay for their habit. I really felt for these women. Seeing men going into these brothels made me angry - I wanted to stop them as they were about to go in and tell them about the plight of these women. All so they could have their sexual needs seen to.
Sometimes I saw cars arrive, filled with drunk young men, one of them dressed in a bunny suit or similar, clearly out on a stag night. They would unload the hapless stag, push him into a brothel, pay up front and then drive around for a bit. I told Mr Turbo I would kill his friends if they ever did that - and then I would kill him if he went through with it. That just seemed so pointless.
There was a crack whore, a street walker, who used to sit on the (still warm) bonnet of my car on winter nights and she got an amzing amount of clientele. Many in expensive BMW's, some with child seats in the back. She had barely any teeth, was skin over bone and had the sunken eyes of a corpse and still men wanted to shag her.
The police would drive around 24 hours a day, so it was a very safe area to live. When I arrived there, I put a sticker with my name next to the doorbell, in my naivety. In the middle of the night, men were ringing my doorbell, shouting out my name. I took down the sticker in the morning.
I came to live there, thinking prostitutes chose to go in the profession because they were too lazy/stupid to get a real job. It certainly opened my eyes, but I really don't think legalising it makes a change, aside from the health of the prostitutes, which can only be seen as a good thing. Other than that, I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference.
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: I can't believe that nobody has suggested the thing about sluts.
You're years ahead of current political thinking. If its any consolation, they will probably honour you posthumously.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
nice one squeegy, you just killed the debate with your pointless flippancy.
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
(Benway started it!) Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
don't be such a child.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: It's not a case of just tailoring the policy to those with a high level of autonomy. The drugging, abducting, and the trafficking and raping is - apparently - also being addressed by the new law. The law isn't 'just' about getting two-woman brothels off the ground and then saying "that's that done". Other elements -
- more kerb-crawlers could lose their driving licences
- prostitutes get help over drugs and housing.
- action against those who exploit prostitutes, such as people traffickers.
- police will be encouraged to work more closely with charities running safe houses to help women get out of the sex trade.
- measures to encourage women to get help with drink or drug problems
Well, all that sounds great - if somewhat vague. 'Action' against those who exploit prostitutes is impossible to object to, but given that the specific measure we were discussing actually strengthened the hand of the pimps in Australia and the Netherlands I'd need to hear something a bit more concrete and convincing than simply good intentions.
As for the point about kerb-crawlers, while I'm all in favour of abuser/customers being targeted and punished, I find it hard to square that with your previous posts where you advocated a level of tolerance for prostitution as a chronic feature of human society. Is that where you part with the proposed policy or do you agree with an 'asymmetrical' approach to toleration?
This isn't trying to catch you out, I just want to clarify where you stand.
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
shhhhhh, they've started again! Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: As for the point about kerb-crawlers, while I'm all in favour of abuser/customers being targeted and punished, I find it hard to square that with your previous posts where you advocated a level of tolerance for prostitution as a chronic feature of human society. Is that where you part with the proposed policy or do you agree with an 'asymmetrical' approach to toleration?
If by assymetrical you mean not treating the victim as a criminal, and dealing with those who facilitate abuse - yes I agree with that.
Where I stand is, I don't think you're ever going to stamp out prostitution. I can't see that it's something - like wife beating, or stealing - that is ever going to go away. It's not comparable to tuberculosis because there's never been a demand for tuberculosis. There's never been a market for it, and dying slowly and painfully has never been one of man's most potent and primal urges.
So if you can't eradicate the problem, the best you can do is try make things better for the people that it affects.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: If by assymetrical you mean not treating the victim as a criminal, and dealing with those who facilitate abuse - yes I agree with that.
Sorry - I should have been more explicit: I meant the customer rather than facilitator (pimp). You agree that customers/kerb crawlers/johns should be prosecuted?
I'm just trying to figure out whether we're debating a victim/abuser/abuse situation or a worker/trade/customer relationship - at the moment we seem to be flipping between one or the other, which probably isn't of much practical use.
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Where I stand is, I don't think you're ever going to stamp out prostitution. I can't see that it's something - like wife beating, or stealing - that is ever going to go away. It's not comparable to tuberculosis because there's never been a demand for tuberculosis. There's never been a market for it, and dying slowly and painfully has never been one of man's most potent and primal urges.
In fairness, I already explained that tuberculosis, fox hunting etc were given as examples of how particular ills with a long history can be addressed, given sufficient political will - I wasn't trying to draw a detailed analogy between TB and prostitution.
The semi-detailed analogy I do stand by - and which you ignored - related to the subjection of women "since time immemorial", which was a state of affairs that was utterly transformed in a matter of three or four generations after millenia of tradition, convention, etc etc.
[ 18.01.2006, 10:10: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by Doctor Agamemnon When (Member # 189) on :
Perhaps some sort of Trade Association or Registration Scheme is an appropriate answer?
[ 20.01.2006, 08:09: Message edited by: Doctor Agamemnon When ]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)