What's wrong with paying for it?

[Sacco]

What's wrong with paying for it?

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article431.html

Senior government ministers are arguing for a change in the law to prosecute men who pay for sex, according to press reports.

In this series of articles, most of which are published here for the first time, the Red Pepper website canvasses a range of opinions. You can add your own views in our forum discussion.

A woman’s choice
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article432.html
‘I’m a woman and I have paid for sex. My decision, my choice.’ Kirsty Travers explains why she sees nothing wrong in hiring a prostitute

Family allowance
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article433.html
Norman White explains why he pays for his son to see prostitutes

Your money, my body
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article434.html
Following a series of murders of sex workers in Ipswich in December 2006, Red Pepper asked whether finally it was time to decriminalise prostitution. Juliet, a sex workers’ rights activist, said it was. The anti-prostitution campaigners, Assumpta Sabuco Cantó and Charo Luque Gálvez, said it wasn’t

Dogmatic and deeply flawed
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article435.html
Sociologist Tim Davies argues against the radical feminist position on prostitution

No compromise over commercial sex
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article436.html
Gemma Novis says paying for sex can never be right

[hinoeuma]

Reading this debate got me thinking we’ve a funny attitude to sex-on one hand it’s supposedly the ultimate intimacy and the other it’s meaningless. But surely it’s always subjective? Often the biggest ‘but’ concerning legalising is that, even without trafficking and abuse and where a woman makes an informed choice, it’s still emotionally harmful and dehumanising. Why?

Sex is foremost purely physical- an ‘object’ or a ‘thing’ between the self and the other. It only becomes less concrete, more intangible after we add our own values- our price. Before that it’s like any object we desire waiting to be bought with cash or emotional investment.

A buyer of a prostitute’s services are not buying her-just an act. Claiming exclusive rights over another in a relationship, and in varying degrees, of their thoughts, feelings and actions seems far more about buying and ownership than simply paying for sex.

[Neruda]

Sex is foremost purely physical- an ‘object’ or a ‘thing’ between the self and the other. It only becomes less concrete, more intangible after we add our own values- our price. Before that it’s like any object we desire waiting to be bought with cash or emotional investment.

I agree, it's all the language of the marketplace whether paying for it or not.

We speak of giving ourselves "freely", of "investing" in the other, of "commitment", we tie it up in monogamy, partnerships, legal contracts. To safeguard the exclusivity, to protect our intimate revealings, to make it more special, we bind with disclaimers and terms and conditions.

Maybe paying for it is just a more honest, straightforward transaction?

[saeeda]

"Prostitution is caused, not by female depravity and male licentiousness, but simply by underpaying, undervaluing, and overworking women so shamefuly that the poorest of them are forced to resort to prostitution to keep body and soul together." George Bernard Shaw

[Fanya]

I'm amazed that any woman can beleive there is nothing wrong with paying for sex. As Gemma Novis
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article436.html states there should be no compromise over this issue-you either value a human life or don't.

[Fiona]

"Prostitution is caused, not by female depravity and male licentiousness, but simply by underpaying, undervaluing, and overworking women so shamefuly that the poorest of them are forced to resort to prostitution to keep body and soul together." George Bernard Shaw

'underpaying, undervaluing, and overworking women'

Oh yes, I know all about that...

[Paranoid Eyes]

I'm amazed that any woman can beleive there is nothing wrong with paying for sex. As Gemma Novis
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article436.html states there should be no compromise over this issue-you either value a human life or don't.

Why not, legalisation will do much to rid the trade of exploitation and abuse and surely prochoice feminism means surpporting a woman's right to choose and have control over their body, applies not just on abortion.  As for a woman believing there is nothing wrong with paying for sex-why shouldn't she?

[xw5]

It's important that readers know that it's legal to buy and sell sexual services in the UK.

What's not legal is offering to do so in person on the street ('soliciting' and 'kerb-crawling' - the reasons most people think prostitution is illegal); owning or running a brothel (somewhere more than one person is offering sex, but these are legal to work in or to visit); controlling someone else's prostitution for gain (this means escort agencies as well as 'pimps', and again, these are legal to work for or to use); or paying someone under 18 (even if the sex would otherwise be legal, i.e. they're over 16).

I'm amazed that any woman can beleive there is nothing wrong with paying for sex. As Gemma Novis states there should be no compromise over this issue-you either value a human life or don't.

I'm guessing that Gemma's piece has suffered in the upload as several sections are repeated. Or maybe it hasn't: her version of feminism does have a reputation for repeating the same crap over and over regardless of the evidence.

One of the huge problems in talking about this is that there is such a range of experiences covered by 'prostitution' and some tend to latch onto a small subset and ignore the others. It's as if someone said that snooker should be made illegal because fox hunting is cruel to animals - they're both 'sports', after all.

So there's a street scene where most people working have chaotic lives, often due to drug problems. Because they're the most visible, and are working illegally, they're the most persecuted and the most vulnerable. The answer isn't to further criminalise their clients (all that will do is make the workers' lives harder) it's to have drug laws that, you know, work. Improving their housing and job options would also be great.

There's a brothel scene. Here, we have the incredible sight of the government moaning about criminals being involved in running brothels while simultaneously criminalising anyone who does so.

Police enforcement of this silliness varies. Some forces will arrest someone for sub-letting their 'working flat' on their day off. Others invite the owners of small chains of parlours onto a committee to discuss how best to run the business. Which one do you think works the best in terms of eliminating underage or otherwise illegal workers? Yep, it's the latter. You don't improve conditions in workplaces by making them all illegal.

And there's the escorts, who would laugh at you if you said they were exploited. See Juliet's fabulous piece, because she says this better than I could.

But as we can see, there are still some people insisting that it's not ok. Some ministers who ought to know better are trying to tell other people who they can have sex with: they're now attacking sex workers' clients.

When you hear someone say that it's not ok to hire someone's sexual skills, ask yourself - what do THEY pay for?

Do they pay someone to clean their toilets, for example? Why do they consider it ok for them to pay someone to wipe up their shit (usually for not much money) but not ok for others to pay someone happy to help them have orgasms?

Buying sex is not for everyone. But that doesn't give anyone the right to say that it's not for you.

[rob9443]

Like all these evils prohibition is not the answer. There should be licensed brothels where the girls could be protected, there would be health checks and the business could be taxed. Everytime some fat businessman gets his leg over he'd be contributing to the NHS. At the same time crack down on kerb crawlers.

[xw5]

Like all these evils prohibition is not the answer. There should be licensed brothels where the girls could be protected, there would be health checks and the business could be taxed. Everytime some fat businessman gets his leg over he'd be contributing to the NHS. At the same time crack down on kerb crawlers.

The problem with compulsory health checks is that they are almost inevitably one-sided - the sex workers are seen as the problem, the ones who need to be medicalised, rather than the clients. Infection rates are very low amongst workers, despite the large numbers of partners, because of the very high level of condom use.

If you run a brothel, you're incredibly stupid if you don't pay taxes on the income. HM Customs and Revenue are far more interested in you than the police are in most areas. If you get done for not paying taxes, they'll also throw in the brothel offences and seize as many of your assets as they can say were bought with the proceeds of the crime... and it becomes up to you to prove otherwise. If you look at the news reports, you'll see several owners have been rather shocked at the last bit, but if they hadn't been greedy, they probably wouldn't have been raided in the first place.
 
The problem with 'cracking down' on kerb crawlers is that it makes the lives of the street workers harder. If clients are more worried about being arrested, they're not interested in hanging around long enough for workers to do proper checks. And you'll never, ever, eradicate street work.

The answer is tolerance zones, where street work can be done safely, with support services around. Some cities have tried this, or tried to introduce them. Edinburgh's worked well, but as the area became yuppified, more people complained and it was ended. The street work remains, of course (see above). It's just not as safe for workers or, indeed, the residents who lost the extra police cover.

Similarly, Liverpool had local community support for introducing one, but apparently got told not to do so by the Home Office. That might have made some ministers feel better, but it hasn't helped anyone else.

[rob9443]

Apparently a French minister once demanded that prostitutes be cleared off the streets and the chief of police was not amused. His response was Where am I going to get my information from? Those girls are valuable informants. So in a typical French pragmatic way the girls were requested to disappear while the minister was in town and came back the next day.

I really don't approve of street prostitution, but yes, if it can't be abolished then regulate it - remove it to a specific area and have plenty of foot patrols. Surreptitous coppers, disguised CCTV and mobile phones might make it much harder for another Ripper to operate for long.

[Sue]

I think there is a lot of muddled thinking and patronising attitudes towards women sex workers- as a result of traditional attitudes towards women and sexuality.

There are many forms of prostitution, but the stigma and harassment from public, politicians and some law enforcers is reserved for sex prostitution. And women and homosexuals are singled out for this punishment.

The problems are coercion, its association with crime, drug crime, domestic crime, organised crime and  international crime -  the health hazards they face, violence and personal safety, and poverty of so many women these are what should be being tackled. and we should be helping them not helping those who will, given the chance drive it further into the arms of pimps and more danger.

I went to a meeting at which a representative of the ECP who explained the campaign issues legalisation vs. de-criminalisation and the advantages for the women themsleves of the New Zealand system rather than the various European changes in the law.

www.workshop3.freeuk.com/prostitution.htm

[rob9443]

Thanks for the link. She makes some good points.  Unlike Joan Smith in today's Independent.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/joan_smith/article3035934.ece

While I agree that trafficked women should not be automatically deported the rest of the article is absolutely the wrong approach. Criminalising the men will not stop the trade. It would achieve nothing beyond clogging up the courts. The way to put the sex slavers out of business is to have properly regulated brothels where the consumers can go and where the women are protected.

God help us from authoritarian Puritans, including feminist ones.

[123456789]

I must say that Norman White's contribution to this debate is one of the most disturbing things I've ever read. He and his son are deceiving his son's wife for, according to White, her own benefit (i.e. the security of her marriage). In fact, Norman White's contribution is a distraction in this debate, as any point he is trying to make about the rights and wrongs of commercial sexual services is completely overshadowed by the rights and wrongs of deception. What value is a marriage based on a lie? How can that be worth saving?

Anyway, with that out the way, my views on prostitution are as follows... As a male, unskilled worker with no real economic prospects, the fantasy of being paid for sex (and earning a living through it) is certainly an exciting one. I assume the same must be true of many women. But fantasy is separate from reality. So the first issue to address is the relationship between fantasy, reality and work. Now, most of us on the Left accept that we live in a patriarchal culture - so that probably means that integrating my fantasy of being a male sex worker into reality wouldn't be too traumatic for me. The male sex worker can reflexively rely on the patriarchal culture around us in order to enjoy his work. But that old patriarchal culture certainly IS being erroded (although not nearly quickly enough); thus, we should not be surprised to find a few female sex workers who enjoy their work. This can only be a good thing. However, there is still much work to be done before culture is completely free of patriarchy.

On this point of freeing ourselves from patriarchy, I think there is far too much of a 'deconstructive' approach to the question of legalisation - note how supporters of decriminalization/legalisation will quite frequently say something along the lines of 'well, if you criminalize male customers of prostitutes, you will also have to criminalize female customers - aha! And you thought this was a situation of male baddies and female victims, didn't you?' Whilst on the surface this strategy appears to have the virtue of undermining (or deconstructing) the erroneous assumptions of anti-prostitution campaigners, it simultaneously belongs to an attitude which is very much a part of our postmodern, late-capitalist experience i.e. the undermining of cultural identity by capital in order to create a worldless, non-historical universe in which capital can flow unimpeded.

Wouldn't the more radical 'middle way' on this question of decriminalization be to make a specific point of decriminalization prostitution for female clients only? In this way, we could work towards a non-patriarchal culture, where women are on equal terms with men BOTH as clients and workers. So we would be challenging some of the very problematic assumptions made by traditional anti-prostitution campaigners. But, at the same time, we would not be merely satisfying the demands of both patriarchal culture and postmodern capitalism.

[bumpy]

I'm a man who pays for sex from time to time, because it's the only way I can find to have sex, given the difficulties of finding a partner if you're of a certain age and not confident enough to approach women, and given the ways in which the economics of our world distort any relationships between people. The prostitutes I see are bright, confident women who obviously haven't been coerced into what they're doing.  However, I've only found these women through trial and error, and after coming across a number of women (working in brothels, not on the street) who are obviously unhappy and scared and not there through choice (to the extent that once or twice I've paid and left without having sex because I couldn't subject the woman to it - I may be inadequate but I don't think I'm a monster). The problem of criminalisation in the sex industry is that it makes it difficult for punters (and they'll always exist) to get information about where to go to find women who aren't being coerced or mistreated.  After all, it's not something you can ask anyone about.

[Gem]

I thought it may be worthwhile uploading my original response to this debate into this forum as the 'official' version that Red Pepper posted on their website was severely cut. In response to the comment made by Fanya (quoted below)- yes, it did suffer in the upload. I'm not sure that I have a 'version of Feminism' as you assume - and if I seem to repeat (over and over) throughout my response that all human beings are inherently and equally worthy and should be valued as such regardless of sex, race, class, gender, ability etc then I don't feel that your comment about it being 'same crap' is entirely valid. It is this 'same crap' that is often overlooked or ignored in public/social decision making and so I feel it incredibly important that it is raised in every debate concerning our own and others lives.

I hope this gives you a little more background to why I have taken the position that I have in this debate.

I'm guessing that Gemma's piece has suffered in the upload as several sections are repeated. Or maybe it hasn't: her version of feminism does have a reputation for repeating the same crap over and over regardless of the evidence.

 
Original Version:

I read with interest the last issue of red pepper where a debate has been initiated around the case for and against decriminalisation of prostitution. With this article I'd like to respond to some of the points raised by Juliet, a sex workers right activist with the International Union of sex workers

I agree to an extent with Juliet's initial comments regarding the involvement of actual sex workers in the debate where she raises that it's very rare for either clients or sex workers to be asked directly for their experience. It is very important that their voices are heard in this debate and I am pleased that Juliet had this opportunity to layout her viewpoints. But saying this, it should be raised that the voice of ex-sex workers has been quite loud in the debate in recent years. Projects working with those struggling to escape from the trade have highlighted their experiences and its not pleasant reading. Such findings actually indicate quite clearly that many workers are suffering from their experience of working in the profession.

Juliet makes a few assertions regarding radical feminism which need to be deconstructed. Firstly she states that "There is a wing of feminism, however, that describes sex work as violence against women" It needs to be stated on the offset that the intrinsic desire 'This wing of feminism', as put, is to see violence stamped out in all its forms. This wing, basically the continuation of the Women's Liberation movement which was established by second wave feminists in the 1970's, has the universal belief that all violence to the 'other' or the 'self' can and should be eradicated and that until this happens equality between men and women will never be achieved. This strand of feminism concentrates on deconstructing the created social structures which have stemmed from the erroneous viewpoint that some people are superior to others.

It should also be noted that many women who position themselves within this strand of feminism of which Juliet speaks worked relentlessly in challenging the news coverage of the 'Suffolk murders' because time and time again we listened to newsreaders/journalists merely dismissing the fact that the 'prostitutes' were actually women. Women with hearts/souls and aspirations! The dehumanisation of those women whose lives were brutally ripped away from them is an example of the widespread objectification of women which permeates society at large and I praise the efforts of these 'radical feminists' who challenged the media portrayal of those women.

This debate is about prostitution so I think it's important to define what the act of prostitution is exactly. Prostitution can be defined as an act where a person coerces another by means of finance into satisfying their sexual wants. The 'client' who uses this method of coercion has in this interaction thought themselves superior (because they have finance) over another that they feel they now have a 'right' to utilise the body of another in any way they please. This is the fundamental truth of what happens in the interaction between a client and supplier in the act of prostitution.

As mentioned earlier, there have been many painful and heart wrenching accounts from those who have experienced this coercion that prove the harm caused. The question therefore that needs to be posed to all 'clients' is what makes you think you have a 'right' for your sexual wants to be gratified? And why, when you know that you are fundamentally causing harm to another, do you continue to make attempts at justifying causing harm to another human being?

So far the justifications for moves towards decriminalisation have concentrated on claiming 'protection' for the prostitute. I believe that this is another form of coercion and this time it's being done by those in power, namely by those working within our government and other public institutions. I am yet to be persuaded that any of these people actually care about the fate of those who work within the sex industry. I think it is incredibly important to state that sex workers who are 'bought off' with a so called 'safe zone' are being manipulated. It is important to ask the question: How can you harm another in a 'safe way'?

Those who 'choose' to work in the sex industry are dehumanised and viewed as an underclass, the point raised by Juliet around the discrimination experienced by sex workers when they list 'professional sex worker' on their CV highlights this point. Society at large does not care about sex workers – sex workers are used by society and then discarded, sex workers are used by 'clients' and then discarded. Where is the humanity in all this? Prostitution may be one of the oldest professions but this does not mean it needs to continue. No person has the right to coerce another into fulfilling their sexual wants and no person has the right to 'own' another persons body even if for only a short time. I really feel that it is this underlying attitude that needs to be challenged with a view to seeing it transformed. Human equality will not happen if we continue to exercise a false perception of superiority in this way. Violence will not be eradicated unless we challenge ourselves every moment into really believing that all people are inherently worthy and therefore deserve the greatest respect.

I'd like to now highlight another angle to the debate. This being that decriminalisation only serves as a way of further protecting the 'client' – if decriminalisation occurred we will probably see the word 'client' eradicated and the word 'customer' introduced. The customer will then be protected by consumer's rights. Under current legislation, the protections offered to the consumer are stronger then those offered the supplier – will the customer then have a right to a refund if unsatisfied with the service received? Or a right to get what they have paid for no matter what harm is caused to the 'supplier'? 

Consumer culture should not include bodies – paying for sex, paying for pornography, paying for a lap dance, paying for a kiss –all of these are on the same scale where the providers are objectified by the 'consumer'. Treated as empty caskets of flesh and blood with no feelings – in fact in those moments where the consumer offers money for the service the 'consumer' will have separated the 'provider' from humanity altogether. This is how people become labelled as just a lap dancer, a porn star, a prostitute – in these interactions the 'provider' is no longer viewed as person with any inherent worth.


It is the demand for the industry that keeps the industry in its place and so this demand needs to be eradicated. The attempt to purchase another's body should be made into a criminal offence – this will then offer the protection that sex workers are looking for – there will be no customers. The Government, the Police and other public services, which are only in place to support and protect all of our lives, must take action based on their initial mission statements of actually caring about citizen's welfare. It is about time that the blame is shifted away from the 'sex workers' and instead that a tough stance is taken against those who feel its ok to purchase another. The slave trade was supposed to have been abolished, remember?


I'd like to close my response by stating that it is perhaps incorrect to say that sex workers devalue themselves – I view this is another falsehood. It's those who offer them money for services, those who are sitting on the fence in this decriminalisation debate and those who still think that the sex industry should remain that are devaluing these people. I agree with Juliet when she states that a 'yes' does in fact mean 'yes' – but ONLY in those instances where no form of physical, emotional or financial coercion is used. Those who still carry around the belief that they 'have a right to buy' or feel are superior to others are erroneous in their views and so they need to be challenged.

In conclusion, from where I am sitting the decriminalisation debate is very black and white – either you believe that human life is worth something or you don't – no compromise.

[Fanya]

In response to the comment made by Fanya (quoted below)- yes, it did suffer in the upload. I'm not sure that I have a 'version of Feminism' as you assume - and if I seem to repeat (over and over) throughout my response that all human beings are inherently and equally worthy and should be valued as such regardless of sex, race, class, gender, ability etc then I don't feel that your comment about it being 'same crap' is entirely valid. It is this 'same crap' that is often overlooked or ignored in public/social decision making and so I feel it incredibly important that it is raised in every debate concerning our own and others lives.

Actually Gemma I didn't say this, I was agreeing with you if you read my post correctly, your attributing this to me when it was a different poster who said it.

 

[123456789]

Thank you for posting the full article, Gemma. I must say, the first published, edited draft was a little disappointing and weak. The full article, on the other hand, is excellent.

That said, however, I really wonder why your perspective on sex work is to be considered "feminist" at all. The arguments you use to criticise sex work - in particular, your points about bodies and power - would seem to be equally applicable to women who pay for sex and men who pay other men for sex. This doesn't invalidate your arguments, but I wonder what rhetorical effect you are aiming for by locating them in the discourse of feminism.

If you want a properly feminist take on things, surely it would be better to admit that (when the working conditions are otherwise comparable and tolerable) male sex workers are less exploited than female sex workers? And if so, we must ask ourselves why is this the case - isn't it because male sex workers can rely reflexively on a patriarchal culture in order to enjoy their work? In the same way, for instance, that a fan of mainstream Hollywood movies can rely reflexively on the hegemony of such entertainment to enjoy their job in the video store much more than a fan of arthouse cinema can (an awkward example, I know, but I hope you take the point.)

This 'feminist' perspective seems to swerve some problems with the root of your objection to sex work i.e. the claim that consumer culture should not include bodies. There is instantly a problem here due to the fact that there are many apparently normal jobs which commodify bodies. For instance, a friend of mine who is a massage therapist (and, no, not THAT type of massage therapist) tells me that many of her clients become emotional during sessions and that even tears are not unusual. Many of her clients (male and female) are middle-aged single people, whose relationship prospects are perhaps quite limited, and they "use" a massage therapist, in part, to experience physical contact with another person. This is not an unusual situation in the massage industry - it is an established and recognised part of the job; and my friend (who is blind and who trained in massage therapy at a specialist college for blind students) tells me that this issue is addressed as part of any serious course in massage. I would be interested to know, Gemma, if you would criminalise "legitimate" massage also. And, if not, why not? Why is it different from other commodifications of the body?

Shouldn't the aim be to create a culture which both men and women (indeed, workers of all sorts in all industries) can rely reflexively in order to enjoy their chosen profession, no matter what that profession is? Isn't this the radical feminism we need?

[rob9443]

Trying to liberate vulnerable prostitutes by terrorising their customers is like trying to put the Colombian drug barons out of business by jailing a generation of drug users.  It achieves nothing. It is like pushing on a piece of string. It drives the whole thing underground. Legalise it and the men would far rather go to proper brothels where the girls have rights.

Also the more men are exposed the more obvious it becomes how many otherwise regular guys are into this sort of thing. It would reduce the stigma once it became apparent that its not just nutters and losers who pay for sex.

Feminist puritanism is as reactionary as any other kind. If you want to protect the weak you need to use intelligent strategy.

[treborc]

And what about the ones which did not leave, thats the problems is it not, in Swansea and local area 100 girls found in a jail type set up all from Poland all being forced, the lads made about £3 million, so not all men paid and left, but worse a few girls were 14 years of age.

But three years ago  brothel opened by me run by a girl known to have HIV it took two years to stop this girl, and guess what the news report stated brothel closed as Police inspectors wife arrested for running brothels.

each time we called the police for fighting or rape or breaking in, the police said the brothel was needed in the community.

Funny that it's needed so long as it's not in your area.