Prostitution.
Harriet Harman wants a debate - feel free to add your comment here.
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Please Please get these people a job, we will be locked up soon everything will be banned.
Fix the infrastructure and all the other crap in this country.
WE still have people living in caravans in Hull after flooding six months ago.
I think it is ridiculous that Harriet Harman wishes to criminalise consensual sex between adults. I think there is a place to restrict men who are causing a public nuisance by curb crawling, to criminalise those who are exploiting or trafficking women or men for prostitution and to arrest those who physically assault sex workers. However women and men should be able to sell sex and buy sex and should be able to do it safely. We are adults for god sake. International and domestic bodies representing sex workers do not support criminalisation. What use is it criminalising men just for seeking sex, presumably you will cause much social harm to them and their families and they will be put on sex registers. You don't stop people selling or buying sex you just drive it all underground where it is easier for the unscrupulous to exploit others.
Once again the prostitution debate rages. The main claim of all protagonists is to safeguard the welfare of women. This is a good thing but they are less keen to discuss their alternate motives namely that one side wants to ban something because they disagree with it and the other wants it legal because it is lucrative.
Banning things never stops them it just makes it more lucrative and attractive to the criminal element. Surly legal policed brothels would not be able to feature trafficked girls and would reduce the demand for them elsewhere?
Allow legal controlled brothels on trading estates away from public areas and stamp it out on public streets. Result no curb crawlers, less trafficked women and happy home owners. Don't forget the service that these girls can offer. I always remember seeing two young disabled guys in wheelchairs visiting Amsterdam in order to get the sex that proved so hard to find in their normal lives.
Middle class ladies in government should refrain from making value judgements affecting their more vulnerable sisters a few miles further down the food chain.They will be considerably more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse if the oldest profession is conveniently 'banned' and of course simply goes underground. A charter for insipient Jack the Rippers I would have thought.
Have we not yet learnt that prohibition is the quickest way to make things we don't like a honey-pot for criminals? It happened with alcohol in America, drugs in this country (and elsewhere), and prostitution all over the world.
If we want to control people-trafficking, that's what we should focus on. Making prostitution illegal is just a foolish way of avoiding the problem.
Sid
To curb the demand for this evil, the person who pays for sex should face a more severe punishment that the person paid. Pimps should be treated as drug dealers. Both they and the people who pay prostitutes/visit them/kerb crawl should face a minimum of 10 years in prison. The sentence should start at 10 years regardless of the circumstances. Then watch prostitution disappear into the history books. This has been called the 'oldest profession' because the law has always looked more favourably on the people who demand services of prostitutes, than the prostitutes themselves.
I get fed up hearing that prostitutes are exploited weak people who are taken advantage of.
All the ones I have met are strong, know what they want from life. They work the hours they want at the price they want. I know some from a business relationship and friendship (not sex).
The Belle De Jour story on TV in many ways is not far from the truth of those I have met.
There is abuse in the industry, like there is in the agricultural fields of lincolnshire with gang masters. Laws should be in place to help the abused women who do not want to work in the industry. So we should prosecute those who abuse. I am all for prosecuting men who buy sex from trafficked women. I also would like to see damaging street prostitution stopped.
I would like to see legalised brothels to help those women who work that way to be safer. Working in a shared environment is more secure and those working in that environment are 10 times less likely to be hurt.
Legalising brothels also removes the damaging hold that brothel owners can have over their workers. It will help to bring 'good' operators into the business.
Prohibition of drinking in the states was the prime time for the mobsters. Prohibition of prostitution will only draw in more criminals. The nice brothels will close.
i cant understand why it should be illigal, as a user of prostitutes, i am not interested in the women that are forced to work in the sex industry, i only see women that are in the industry because they want to be.
as a man, i am fed up with masterbating all of the time, and enjoy the company of an escort.
this transaction is one of the most honest i have ever had.
i would prefer for the sake of womens safty that women who want to be prostitutes should be licenced, after all they pay tax's just like the rest of us.
Prostitution brutalises men, objectifies women and debases sex itself.
Zero tolerance must be pursued. It won't eliminate it, but it will become so socially unacceptable that most men would not be able to go this route.
Changing the law is political grandstanding. There are already plenty of laws. What is lacking are police resources.
By all accounts the money for traffickers is based on putting girls in brothels. Running street girls is not very profitable, and too high profile, so risky. Grant that traffickers are basically businessmen, and will be economically rational.
Brothels however take time and money to set up.
Most punters also use brothels, because they are considered safe.
So to cripple the traffickers the solution is obvious - hammer the brothels.
Brothels are not hard to find, in fact I would imagine that at any one time the police know the addresses of most of them.
Give the police what they need, (this might mean easing warrant requirements - the aim is as much disruption as obtaining convictions), and make them understand that it's considered politically important that they hammer the brothels, and hammer them again and again until the traffickers realise that their ain't no money in it.
I'd also like to see this run with a legalisation process so that there can be legit, safe, brothels as well but our politicians are no way brave enough for that.
Prostitution - this is a difficult subject to have a reasoned debate about.
However, I have observed "working girls" in a number of countries and I get the impression that elsewhere there is a more open view of "paying for sex". As one girl in the Far East put it "if the guy didn't buy me dinner, and he wants to sleep with me - then I think it's fair he pays".
Also, I notice that in countries were prostitution is openly advertised - a commonly included caption is "handicapped clients welcome"
Or as Sienfeld portrayed the dilemma when he ended up sleeping with his maid when she was supposed to be cleaning - but she still took her pay!
The demand for prostitution is so high in the UK that making it illegal may actually increase the demand for illegally trafficked women. It would seem to me more realistic to follow the German model of regulation and licensing of prostitutes.
One of PM's interviewees dismissed the suggestion from the Prostitutes' Collective that the UK look at New Zealand experience by saying that in a small country where everyone knows each other, mens' behaviour can be monitored more closely. It's quite sweet really that your contributor's image of Britain-sized New Zealand seems to be some peculiar blend of Emmerdale and Cheers ("where everyone knows your name"), but if her image of conditions for sex workers is as wildly inaccurate and romantic as her image of life in New Zealand then we really do have cause to worry about the policies likely to emerge from this particular consultation.
I don't think ladies of the night is where we should start in cleaning up Britain.
Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 600 employees and has the following statistics?
29 have been accused of spouse abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad cheques
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
4 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year
Which organization is this? It's the 635 members of the House of Commons, the same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
Prostitution is not totally confined to the bottom of the food chain though it does appeal to those who are hard up.
I expect we will have new trumped up accusations: He offered to buy me a drink/theatre ticket/holiday/coat/rent/ring for flat/car/clothes fro my kids - therefore he was trying to buy sex; or, she asked me to buy me a drink/theatre ticket/holiday/coat/rent for flat/car/clothes fro my kids/jewellery. (and any other combination of sexes/sexuality)
Regulate it for safety and tax it but make it legal and allow brothels too. It is not compulsory and it should not be a compulsory occupation for jobsearch.
Whilst there is a demand there will be a supplier - at a price!!! As for what will happen. The Treasury will stamp on it and it will not get off the ground. The cost of getting the prostitutes trained up and clear of drugs would be enormous - out of all proportion to what society would gain. Previous posters have hit the nail on the head - it's a bunch of middle class women who have no idea how society outside the charmed circle of the Westminster village actually works . Besides it's just Harman trying to hide her misdemeanours behind a smokescreen provided by her political allies.
On your program today the speaker from newZealand on how they have addressed the issue of prostitution was the only one that actually came up with a working practical solution, yet she was spoke over and dismissed by this government spokesperson, who is charged with finding a solution. The conversation lead me to believe a solution has either been reached and this so called conversation is once more only cosmetic, or, these people want a free trip around the different countries at the tax payers expense. We have had no success in stopping prostitution throughout the history of civilization what makes this inept government that have destroyed working institutions think they can find a resolution. This administration is the worst of all governments to have shown little or no respect for women or mothers, they lock them up, they force them away from their children to work threatening to stop financial support, fail to obtain child support from spouse and only today the women that stayed at home and raised their children supporting their men, creating a better society over all, are thrown into poverty because it will cost to much to allow them to top up pensions. Respect starts at home.
I *think*, though I might be wrong, that it's illegal to 'live off immoral earnings' already. Would it not be possible to prosecute under the laws we have already, the 'people-trafficers' and pimps who compel women of any sort to have sex with strangers for money? I assume that they have a financial reason for their behaviour, so that ought to do it. It's existing legislation, so it won't make nulabor happy because it isn't a shiny new ill-drafted law, but it ought to be a way of dealing with people who force women to live in this way, and it needs no further debate at all, just enforcement.
There are thousands of respectable men who can't get sex in any other way than paying for it. I agree the trafficking of innocent girls for sex against their will has to be a top priority to stamp out but criminalising men indiscriminately for buying for sex from consenting adults will produce other significant social problems. Target the real issue.
Implementing legislation in order to reduce the supply and demand in the sex industry is probably one of the least effective methods of controlling the trafficking problem. There already is a plethora of legislation covering virtually all aspects of the market, hence the reason that curb crawlers are regularly picked up in well troden areas.
If the goverment is seriously interested in reducing the exploitation of women then dealing with the root cause of why the majority of these vulnerable members of our society are in the industry in the first place is probably the best method. An analysis of why there is the volume of supply empowers you to limit that supply which is the first step in controlling the market.
I propose that drug dependancy is a significant cause of prostitution (it certainly was in the case of the 5 Ipswich prostitutes) which in turn is due to the fact that a black market in drugs inflates the cost of a habit to such a degree that it forces women onto the streets. In the short term you can't change the demand for drugs, addicts are exactly that - addicts. However solve the financial imperative that drives the supply side of the sex industry and you start to solve the the whole of the problem. Ensure that people who want heroin can get a clean, cheap supply and you will cut the crime associated with funding their habit including prostitution. (With the added benefit that you start to trade, one of the best ways of developing close relationships, with the Afghan farmers that it is so imperative that we develope strong bonds with in Helmand.)
If the argument for any proposed legislation is to reduce the incidence of sex slavery, and let's call it that as people trafficking isn't a sufficient term, then criminalising the men looking for sex is an odd way of dealing with it. It's a great way of trying to spin your way through social problems, but unfortunately such Presbyterianist moralising offers no solution. The only effective way of deling with these modern slave traders is increased police presence, increased conviction rates and increased penalties. Hopefully that will go hand in hand with increased support for the women.
One detail that has not been mentioned yet, but is something of concern to me (living in a block of flats).
I believe that it has become legal for two prostitutes, or one prostitute and a maid (M or F), to set up as a business in a flat or house. This same government set up this system, and it in complete contradiction of what was being proposed today.
I don't really care why men use prostitutes. I do care about women and children being trafficked and being sold into prostitution. If there was evidence that prostitution did no harm to either sex worker, client or broader society. I would say legalise it. I am unconvinced. What's wrong with these 'respectable' men anyway who say they need to buy sex? Have they got some basic flaw that prevents them from forming normal relationships with women? Amongst the single women out there is there no one to have consensual sex with apart from prostitutes? Perhaps they would be better investing in some sort of counselling to get over their relationship hang ups before resorting to prostitutes.
So, making paying for sex illegal is going to stop it? What! Just like "classifying" drugs stops the trade? Hunting? Badger baiting? Using mobile phones in cars? Making anonymous donations to political parties??.......
And the public gets what the public wants
But I want nothing this society's got -
I'm going underground, (going underground)
Well the brass bands play and feet start to pound
Going underground, (going underground)
Well let the boys all sing and the boys all shout for tomorrow
It's no surprise Harriet Harman is behind this proposition. It's a dangerous ideologically-driven proposal which is so riddled with contradictions it's almost too easy to list them. But here are a few:
It completely ignores the opinions of the people it claims to protect, let alone the wishes of the majority.
It proposes to create a situation in which incitement to commit and active assistance in a crime is not criminal. A clear breach of natural justice.
It overlooks the the fact that the most serious problems associated with prostitution already have laws under which offenders can be prosecuted. Kerbcrawling, trafficking, pimping, assault, false imprisonment etc are already illegal. But despite the fact that some of these are extremely easy to detect the forces of the state have signally failed to eradicate them. Why should this law, which would surely be harder to enforce, be any more successful.
The only CERTAIN effect of the proposed law is that EVERY client of a sex worker would become, at least in theory, a criminal. Has it not occurred to Ms Harman that this will leave them to compete for custom from a reduced and INEVITABLY more dangerous client base - ie those who are willing to break the law.
Fiona McTaggart is, I'm afraid, once again filling the role of Harriet's dimmer pal. Let's not forget this is the person who came out with the astonishingly stupid claim that all prostitution is a 'form of child abuse'. Now she goes on PM and tells us that the New Zealand system is not worth investigating because it's a country with very different conditions and a much smaller population than the UK. Unlike Sweden, I suppose. Priceless.
This is not strictly about prostitution. it is I believe about a campain being conducted by Hariot Harmon and others.
Because matters involving gender are imotive, to understand what's happening we should look at at other legal (or illegal ) positions involving buying and selling. For example drugs are bought and sold,Would we agree with a proposal for drug dealers to be aloud to sell their drugs and to only prosecute people who bought drugs from them or except the same preposal involving the buying and selling of stolen goods.
To understand better it's important to look at the last legislation involving gender that Hariot Harman brought forward. This was the rape leglislation She based her argumant on the low percentage of convictions not on a better way to convict the guilty and vindicate the innocent and the underlying inferevnce was that to be found innocent did not mean that you were. but that you gotten off with it, She also argued that it was almost impossible for women to prove they didn't give concert especially when they had drink taken and sometimes couldn't remember wheather they did or not. So now men have to prove thet the women did concent which is not hard to do but impossible. It also turns the presumption of innocence into the presumption of guilt.
It was also noticable that your program had two women discussing leglislation which sought to criminilise only men. I can only think of two possible reasons for this, either you didn't want a male perspective or you couldn't find a male in public or political life brave enough to give one
Brendan @ 15
...the last nine words of the first sentence of your comment summarises the situation to absolute PERFECTION...
Congratulations
I am unsure about a 'the only way some men can get sex is by hiring a prostitute' argument in favour of prostitution as being a very good starting-point for a debate on these matters.
Point [a], has anyone considered the possibility of the 'clients' simply not having sex? It isn't a basic human right, or it wasn't last time I looked; it isn't a biological necessity; many men throughout the centuries seem to have been able to get along without getting their end away on a regular basis. Has not having sex ever killed anyone?
Point [b], given that the 'naming and shaming' notion seems to involve getting the clients into trouble with their wives and/or girlfriends, it rather looks as if many of them are already having a relationship with a woman, but just can't 'go without' if the wife or girlfriend is unavailable for some reason, or at least claim that they can't.
Saying this will no doubt call forth a vast set of outraged posts from males pointing out exceptions (sailors on leave, the disabled and so forth, who obviously cannot tell desire from need -- how insulting that is about sailors and the disabled, by the way) but it does seem to be something that ought to be looked at, even if only because 'I want it and I want it now and I can afford the money so that's ok' isn't a very laudible argument for *anything*, and if it were people saying the same thing about sex with a person under the age of sixteen (some men feel that's what they want: who are we to deny them, if sex-how-I-want-it is their right?) we'd all rise up and say it was wrong -- wouldn't we?
If we wouldn't claim that every woman has the 'right' to eat to repletion on whatever she wants whenever she wants it (in order to satisfy her appetite not her need) even if by doing so she is causing a man to be kept in a nasty state by another woman, why is it somehow different to claim that every man has the 'right' to have sex whenever he wants it (in order to satisfy his appetite rather than his need) even if by doing so he is causing a woman to be kept in a nasty state by another man?
Or to put it another way, when and *how* did having sex become viewed as a right rather than merely a desire, if satisfying other bodily appetites is not?
I'm soooooo depressed at the majority of the comments so far. As a woman, it makes me heartily sick that my sex is regarded as a commodity to be bought and sold, and that men are somehow entitled to buy (or grab) sexual favours from women. While there may well be a handful of women who *enjoy* selling their bodies, the vast majority of women engaged in the sex trade are selling their bodies because it is the only way they think they can survive and get no pleasure from the sex acts they are expected to perform.
It is time, is it not?, for us all to think a bit beyond all this and to think about people as people. Can I ask those men who are speaking in support of prostitution to try to put themselves in the position of these women? How would you like to be expected to *perform* on demand and to whoever is prepared to pay you?
And how would you like it if your sisters or daughters (if you have them) were lured into this *profession*?
The number of young women from Eastern Europe and elsewhere who are being enslaved and whose lives are being blighted as a direct result of men's appetite for sexual gratification is dizzying. I cannot imagine how dreadful it can be for them. And that without the poor young women who are trapped by drug addiction into this humiliation.
I'm not sure if Ms Harman's proposition is the best one, but I applaud her willingness to take on this issue head on.
I don鈥檛 know if replies are allowed here Big Sister, but you did ask (message 28) so here goes:
The system we live in, capitalism, operates by transforming everything into a commodity. By all means let鈥檚 overthrow the system, but you might want to ask yourself why you want to exclude sex from this. Of course if you would prefer not to sell your labour power in the form of sexual services it鈥檚 your prerogative to find a more acceptable way for you. But why do you assume everyone shares your preferences? Realistically, most people in the sex trade are not there either through compulsion OR through free choice. They do it because they have to make a living and this job offers what they perceive to be the best balance of pay and rewards. And, yes, I have come into frequent contact with sex workers when I worked in catering. The comparison of 30 minutes providing sexual services against an 8 hour shift in the kitchen is one I heard invoked very often. Most people still choose the eight hours dishwashing but the women (it was always women where I worked, but no doubt there are some men doing the same thing) who chose the other way didn鈥檛 seem to have been compelled any more than the majority. You wouldn鈥檛 be suggesting these women didn鈥檛 know their own minds, would you?
Im not defending prostitution (I鈥檓 just not singling it out for special consideration); but as to how I would like being expected to perform on demand to whoever is prepared to pay, well that鈥檚 the story of my life 鈥 and the same goes for most other service industry workers. I couldn鈥檛 say 鈥淚鈥檓 not serving that table鈥 any more than a nurse would say 鈥淚鈥檓 not changing his sheets鈥.
Can I enlighten you as to trafficked workers (from all over the world)? It was a big problem when I got my first job in catering three decades ago and it鈥檚 still a big problem today. But it鈥檚 the trafficking, the coercion and the appalling living and working conditions that are the principal target for reform. Just as in the sex trade. Do we hear anyone suggesting we round up, say, all the restaurant customers, punish them and tell them to do their own catering or do without because some some catering staff are effectively slaves? I volunteer for duty the day they raid the place where HH is eating.
You, quite honestly say, you don鈥檛 know if Ms Harman鈥檚 solution is the best one. I put it to you that one doesn鈥檛 need to be a defender of prostitution to recognise that a badly conceived 鈥榮olution鈥 is very likely to be far worse than the status quo. I also contest the notion that she鈥檚 tackling this head-on. Both yesterday and in her previous statements she has made it abundantly clear that she was only interested in approaching it from an angle that suited her preconceived notions.
John Francis: There is a clear distinction between selling your body and selling other goods and services, just as there is a clear distinction between buying other goods and services and purchasing a person's body for sexual gratification.
I am not a defender of capitalism, but neither do I think that to portray prostitution in those terms actually advances the argument very far.
Your point about trafficked workers for other industries is a valid one, but poor pay/work conditions are not in the same category as having somebody you do not even like, let alone know, thrust their *manhood* into your body at their will, but against your own.
All trafficked workers are likely to be little better than slaves, but to be subjected to gross physical abuse of this kind is in a somewhat different category. Do not attempt to lump them together, please.
Sorry, Big Sister, you鈥檙e begging the question. The distinction you propose is a matter of opinion only. Factually speaking, the sex worker sells labour power like most workers. Whatever your opinion of the service (s)he sells, the ownership of his/her body is not in question. You are dressing up a moral position as objective truth and, to make things worse, you鈥檙e claiming this truth is self-evident.
As for trafficked workers, I think it's unhelpful to claim to distinguish between one kind of enforced labour and another. People in catering, agriculture and, dare I mention it, cockle-picking are subjected to all sorts of abuse, the severity of which neither you nor I can possibly quantify. The point is that this kind of slavery is always unacceptable; but criminalising the clients of the wider industry in which this takes place is not a way to deal with it.
John Francis - In your capitalist world where the human body is deemed a commodity to be purchased for sexual gratification, would it be equally legitimate to purchase body parts such as a kidney? Or is the exchange of cash for sex deemed a temporary service, like paying a fee for a parking bay for your car for 30 minutes? I'm with Big Sister - why are so many men willing to collude in the sale of the bodies of women and girls?
It is fine by me if Harriet wants to make paying for sex illegal. We men all know that we always do have to pay for sex anyway. The only difference is the payment period. She's upset by the easy, one off payment option, which to me was always the most sensible way!
For myself, I am only really worried about all the extra flights to Bangkok all we frustrated men are going to take just to get the proverbial Northern Rocks off.
Cheerio. Viva Eddie - a star guy!
Sex, of whatever persuasion, is a biological need (for many)
Has anyone, I wonder, investigated how many (if any) "relationships" are formed substantially for the people concerned (be it only one-sided) to obtain ready access to sex?
Maybe, if sex (of whatever nature) were a legally buyable "commodity", there'd be fewer "relationships" and, fewer relationship breakdowns
Only a thought...
I think I'm with Big Sister on this subject, in most ways. Not all 'service' industries are the same, nor should they be treated nor thought of as being entirely equivalent.
OK, here's a line of enquiry that might show why I feel that way, at least to some extent.
If the prostitute in question were a *male* who were forced by circumstances (whether financial, addiction or threats) to allow men who paid for the privilege to bugger him, would that alter the way in which the state of the prostitute were viewed? I think we probably agree that anyone who forces a child to accept sex for payment is behaving in a way that is not right; but given an adult of either sex as the person being paid, how do we feel about someone hiring a female to be a receptacle for his ejaculate, or hiring a male to do so? Is there a difference? Is it that it is 'unnatural' in some way for a man to bugger a strange man, whereas it is 'natural' for a man to copulate with a strange woman? If so, why? And is it OK to pay a woman to be sodomised, but not OK to pay a man for the same 'service'?
I am deliberately using the example of buggery because I do feel, with Big Sister, that the invasion of an individual's body by another individual has to be seen as part of this equation. Allowing some stranger to use one's body for sexual purposes is *not* the same as serving a MacBurger, or sweeping a street, or even risking one's life collecting cockles; to say they are even equivalent seems a strange way of looking at things, to me.
(No, Ed I, I don't regard forcing someone to eat an imported beefburger made of bits of cows from eight or more countries as rape. *grin* Obscene, but not rape.)
In a different part of the argument, possibly closer to the original debate, I feel that anyone who forces another human being to 'sell' his or her body for sex is simply *wrong*, no if buts or maybes, and I don't honestly see any reason to debate anything other than how to catch them and whether the key ought to be thrown away once they have been imprisoned. Someone may or may not have copulated of his or her own volition: that's one thing, and may or may not have a good reason rather than just greed for its having happened; coercing another to copulate ought most certainly to lead to the coercer being punished. Not the prostitutes nor the clients, who can be said to have had a choice in the matter -- that's a different argument. But selling other people is never right, whatever the purpose for which they are sold, and is called 'slaving'; trafficking is selling people, and is slaving under another name; as far as I am concerned traffickers (slavers) should be prosecuted whenever and wherever they are caught.
in fact I regard slaving as being just a fraction more unacceptable than murder, in a civilised society. Killing someone can happen by mistake or for a comprehensible reason; enslaving them can't.
Charlie @ 34, you write 'Sex, of whatever persuasion, is a biological need (for many)'
Is it? What are the consequences if they *don't* have it? This sounds to me like the sort of blackmail young men used to use on young women to try to get them into bed -- 'If you don't let me now that you've got me all excited, it will hurt me and it will be all your fault' and suchlike. oh, really? A need? Essential? Does that explain all the monks exploding over the past couple of thousand years?
In any case, 'sex of whatever persuasion' certainly doesn't mean that sexual intercourse with a prostitute is essential; if it were, how would all those women who don't have men walking the streets at night offering them a quick lay in exchange for their cash manage to quell their biological need -- or do you mean that it's a biological need only for men with money, and the rest have to make do with Mother Thumb and her four daughters, and if so, why can't the men with money do the same?
(My earlier post to this thread, written before I saw what are now numbers 32-34, seems to have vanished, though it may still appear I suppose.)
Makes my blood boil. In a country that already tries to prevent me from taking photos of people or transport matters in public places I wonder whats next - CCTV in the home, Illegal gays again, only missionalry sex, no skirts above the knee. Bah
One of my pet hates are people who try and impose there sometimes misguded morels on others. What CONSENTING adults do behind closed doors I couldnt care less and is nothing to do with the law. What happened to freedom of expression in EU constitution
Pushing it underground will get blood on Harriot Canutes hands. Countries with more liberal laws have always had less sex crime than the UK although traffiicing seems to be a world problem well covered by existing laws. So more rapes, more abuse, more exploitation. Does she not have a concious.
Only way to stop working ladies being exploted or trafficed (which seems to be uniquly a London problem) is to have locally licenced inspected premises which can offer support and advise to working ladies as well as a clamp down on street trade.
The Manchester scene is a model and seems to work well in the esablished places with visits from health vistors and support workers.
And, for the police who recently said they didnt bother to turn out for minor crime (just an old laptop at my club!!) it will be an oppertunity for more stat busting easy cops leaving things that are important like muggings robbies etc as 2nd choice.
perhaps I should move to Moscow
Kev
In the hope of clarifying a few matters:
Message 32: It鈥檚 not my capitalist world, Windmill. If you read carefully you鈥檒l see I鈥檓 an opponent of capitalism. I just don鈥檛 think there鈥檚 any logical reason for making a special case for this particular business. Let鈥檚 get rid of all forms of exploitation. Prostitutes, as I said before, don鈥檛 鈥榮ell their bodies鈥 in the economic sense. It鈥檚 just an idiom 鈥 the body is still intact and wholly owned by the individual at all times. Their bodies are part of the tools of their trade but what is sold is their labour power used in the provision of a service. People of both sexes, including the sex workers themselves, collude in this. There are economic and, probably, physiological reasons why men usually represent the demand side; but you can鈥檛 fail to have noticed that female involvement in the purchase of sexual services is increasing along with women鈥檚 financial independence.
Message 35: It might surprise you to know that I, too, am with Big Sister on this as far as personal preference goes. You might have guessed from my previous post that I鈥檓 with the majority in preferring to do long hours of gruelling kitchen or waiting work rather than even consider selling my sexual services. But when I was working in an environment that included both casual and full-time sex workers I became aware that there was a minority of people who didn鈥檛 share my conditioning. Indeed I had to face the fact that my aversion to this kind of exchange was perhaps more of a conditioned response than their pursuit of it. They claimed that it was a considered choice and they had no reason to lie to me 鈥 I was never going to be their boss or their customer. I therefore had two choices: to believe them or to conclude they didn鈥檛 know their own minds. I chose the former and it informs my opinion to this day.
Note that I don鈥檛 claim all sex workers make this considered choice: some undoubtedly are coerced or act in response to a compelling need such as drug addiction. But a very large proportion of sex-workers are just getting by in the way that suits them best; and I think that, within capitalism, the most constructive thing they can do is organise and campaign for better pay and conditions 鈥 just like most workers. And criminalising all their clients in the name of doing something about slavery is quite simply deranged.
If I may be allowed to re-word a point I made earlier. Imagine Ms Harman鈥檚 proposals have become law. Now: Person A incites person B to do something even though person A knows it is a crime. Person A then assists person B to commit this crime. Person A and person B are both adults but only person B is liable to prosecution. Is this justice?
I actually work with some of the victims in this industry and write to correct some of the subtle misinformation put out in this campaign. I have no knowledge of London's problem but here in Liverpool 'trafficked' eastern Europeans are rare to non existent.
Our local health issue is with intravenous drug abusers selling sex off the streets. This trade is closely linked with criminal activities, petty and otherwise. The City has made a big effort to clear kerb crawlers from the Cathedrals area in advance of "City of Culture 2008" but it remains a problem for us. The health problems of these sex workers would frankly appal most middle class readers here. Like Ipswich, we've had some murders
There is also a traditional 'cottage industry' of ladies working from home or in parlours 'on the Game'. These have a much lower profile and from a health viewpoint are easy to contact via STD clinic outreach workers. I understand that any relationship to wider crime in the City is tenuous.
Liverpool's police quite rightly focus on crime that disturbs its citizens. Government prohibition on Marihuana proved difficult enough to enforce even when the culprit was caught with the stuff in his pocket. Their duty to arrest those indulging in consensual homosexual practices disappeared long ago.
Harman's proposal would seem virtually unenforcable. All a 'couple' has to state in court is that they fancied each other, and that any sex act was consensual and completely incidental to some other 'service'. This assuming that a policeman was observing in the bedroom in the first place!
I really don't know what agenda Harman is rehearsing, but it isn't one of practical public health or crime prevention. Every lesson of history has been that prohibiting something inherent in human society merely drives it underground, fosters organised crime, and makes meaningful outreach by social or health workers difficult.
I have no sense that criminalising this activity will reduce it and am concerned that consequent 'underworld' prostitution would bring us much worse problems than now. My own solution would be to licence, regulate, inspect and tax. An 'above the parapet' industry would reduce demand for illicit trade, and make police detection of trafficking far easier.
So a few massage parlours emply illegal immigrants and Harman wants to outlaw prostitution ? Throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't going to help.
The majority of parlours are prpfessional run, clean from drugs and do not employ illegal workers.
Furthermore, the women who work there are not exploited. They choose to work in this profession and make damn good money doing so.
Local police stations are well aware of these massage parlours and make regular checks that everything is ok.
Two problems are being conflated here by Harman, quite possibly on purpose. The emotive subject of sex workers gets the public all roiled up, where the gross exploitation of fruit-pickers being given thirty quid for a month's work, or even ending up owing money to someone they have never heard of because their labour was sold to him without their knowledge and they now owe him for food and bed, doesn't make anyone much get agitated.
People trafficked for jobs that amount to slavery happen in both cases, though.
Hence my very strong feeling that the clients and prostitutes are not the place to start; the pimps and traffickers are. We already *have* laws for dealing with them, and need no new ones.
Incidentally my bet is that the agitation at government level has precious little to do with morality and a whole lot to do with *tax*. After all, legitimate, known sex workers will pay it; covert ones won't. (Tax payment by prostitutes made the Government a pimp living off immoral earnings, in some minds and at one point. *grin*)
There`s an estimated 1 in 10 men who pay for sex in this country, and with the governments ratings in the polls plummeting like a stone I see this as a brave but totally misguided thing to do. Just point this out to Gordon Brown that these men have votes and you will soon see him back to his dithering self in no time. Unfortunately they will revert back to doing nothing instead of regulating the industry for the safety of everyone involved.
Chris G @ 41
"...Tax payment by prostitutes made the Government a pimp living off immoral earnings, in some minds and at one point. *grin*"
Maybe in some minds Chris but not in the eyes of the UK Courts
There have been a number of legal cases on this matter, but I recall around 1977'ish, a young Lady who made her living servicing the requirements of "Gentlemen" was "caught" (almost, I understand, in the act) and was prosecuted: Prostitution, Soliciting etc etc. You name it, she, apparently, did it. And quite a lot more... Interesting
Anyhow, "she" was found guilty by a Magistrates Court and fined. However, she was later prosecuted by what was then then Inland Revenue for non-payment of a miscellany of taxes on "her earnings" and the Court found her guilty and ordered her to pay.
She appealed (for what it's worth, I understand many members of her legal team found her extremely appealing, but more of that at another time...)
The thrust (no pun) of her appeal was that as she had been found guilty of committing illegal and immoral acts, any monetary payment she might have received there from, should not be taxed. How could the Exchequer benefit from criminal activity..?
Furthermore, to pay the taxes now claimed, she'd have to... well, she'd have to do more of the same...
Basically, the Court of Appeal disassociated (for taxation matters) the Lady's occupation from the income earned. In other words, she'd earned an income - full stop. And now, she had to pay tax on that income.
Sad day for the Legal "Profession". Many of whom, I understand, were her clients. She paid the tax charge and to pay, probably had to raise her "charges". So, you could say, all involved got screwed - at least, by the system...
Inevitable really, when one thinks about it
I am very concerned that this subject is considered a previous story.
I want to achieve a possitive result even if the government dont persue it.
i have contacted the eaves housing project earlier in the year and they run a 24 hr helpline that is designed to assisted trafficked people in need /argent want of assistance. Trafficked sex workers especially. The police have a department dedicated to trafficked peoples crime. i want and see and see a need for these to groups and i suggest the prostituts to encourage a number of pilot schemes to request with techique i originally heared of via womens hour much earlier this spring. By way of punter attactive add/call box cards punters are encouraged by appealing to the compationate natures to encourage @guessed rtaficked sex workers to find a approved way out of thier possibly enforced siutuatuion