Prostitute users face clampdown
is the BBC News headline.
But is that the right approach? In August an iPM listener wrote this on the blog:
"What prompts me is the reported double standard between the perceived acceptability of paying for sex and having a female relative who is a sex worker. I'd like to hear that unpicked a little bit. Is there a parallel with the perception of violence against women (in which case, it's a question of respect not sexwork). Surely these women are women, just like any other; do we think that they are not so, and maybe even that sex taints women..."
iPM wants to know about your experience of prostitution. If you can help, please click HERE, where you can read that blog post in full, as well as other information on the story.
Listen to PM
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
"iPM wants to know about your experience of prostitution."
Fortunately, I have none - but I do have a view on female prostitution based upon the way, many years ago, I was treated as a woman by other men (think sexual attacks and you'll be along the right lines).
I detest the way some men view women as commodities, and sex as something to which they have a right, and to hell with what women think of the matter ..... and that is why I am personally against the exploitation of women in any shape or form, including prostitution.
I happen to think the same applies to male prostitution.
As to women who protest that they're happy to be prostitutes - it's hard to argue against that other than to point out to them that many, if not the majority of prostitutes don't have a real choice in the matter, either because they are coerced into that lifestyle or because they are drug addicts and believe prostitution to be the only way they can fund it, or are drawn into prostitution by other desperate circumstances. But, whatever their reason, I would ask all prostitutes to think about the effect that their trade has upon the way some men view women and how this makes non-prostitutes feel.
I make no apologies for my passion over this subject.
Complain about this comment
Personally I'd like to see the situation here reflect that of the Netherlands.
I see several prostitutes every day, literally a stones throw from where I live. The average girls look in an awful state and I know most of them are drug addicts.
What does annoy me is that the police regularly set up surveillance vehicles either in unmarked vehicles or in locations where they can't be spotted.
Then, rather than moving the girls on, they wait for the kerb crawler to come along and then pounce when they get in the car.
Ironically there is a nearby 'massage parlour' next to a Newsagents which I've been told is basically a brothel - however it seems to survive and I often see men going in and out. I can only presume it escapes some loophole?
I'm sure every town has them - perhaps someone can explain how they are allowed to operate?
Complain about this comment
I`ve worked with drug addicts, that brought me into contact with women that worked as street prostitutes and also women that were`t drug addicts that worked as independent `escorts`. There needs to be clearer thinking that differentiates between the women trafficked into this country and exploited, drug addicts that will constantly be in debt to dealers in order to support a drug habit and other sex workers that freely choose this work and operate safely and hygienically, essentially as independent business people.
Under the proposed law the police would have to prove that a woman is being exploited by a trafficker, drug dealer etc in order to get a conviction against a man accused of `knowingly having sex with a trafficked woman`. (If the police have other evidence then they should prosecute those traffickers/pimps etc.) The only way to achieve that in court is for the woman involved to testify that she is being exploited by a third party; that is very unlikely to happen (she has nothing to gain), if a witness doesn`t show up in court the case is thrown out. I don`t see anything here that helps the woman relocate to another city, get into rehab or gain a drug free lifestyle (difficult enough); assuming she wants to at that time; nor do I see a witness protection scheme or any financial support to help trafficked women start a new, secure, life. There is no incentive for them to testify.
Drug dealers do sell some women (essentially the debt is bought so the woman then owes that person plus interest), it is without doubt a form of slavery. But the woman involved is also dependent on dealers for drugs, so is highly unlikely to testify against them.
Ms Smith said on Today this morning that she did not think women should have to work as prostitutes in today`s UK, ignoring the growing number of drug addicts in this country. Unless the drug problem is tackled meaningfully there will always be prostitutes willing to risk working the streets, with all the dangers that entails. Cracking down on red light districts in the past has simply resulted in the women attempting to relocate to another area or operating from flats, with clients brought to them by the pimps; it doesn`t stop exploitation or make the women any safer.
Other women, however, choose to work as escorts for the money, how can that possibly be stopped given people can meet via the Internet, in pubs and clubs or licensed massage parlors? The issue of whether sex can be treated as commercial transaction is a moral one. I can?t find a reason to object to it if it is mutually consensual, non exploitative safe and hygienic. Perhaps it is this form that should be encouraged.
Complain about this comment
I missed the interview on Womans hour with Jacqui Smith - but caught the very end of the programme when Jeni confirmed a listeners question as to whether the law was the same for male prostitutes.
Although not kerb crawling, I'm told by gay friends that many 'rent boys' advertise their services on the web - including gaydar. Is this not tantamount to similar exploitation then?
Seems to be a lot of fine lines running in parallel directions.
Complain about this comment
I'm just remembering a programme I saw some years ago (can't remember much of the detail), Jonnie, which involved an interview with a young lad who'd run away from home and, through financial need combined with drug addiction, been lured into male prostitution. I've never forgotten his evident distress and the sense that this vulnerable young man was very badly abused and deeply unhappy.
Complain about this comment
Jacqui Smith's argument for this last piece of government legislation is both irrelevant and wasteful. Prostitution and sex has always been with us even before God was a little boy, many governments over the years have tried to curb or force some control over this trade or profession, but to no avail. The majority of workers in this business it seems do it as a personal choice due to circumstances or needs, so surely the time has come to properly legalize Prostitution -within its own set of laws and conditions to give a safe and healthy enviroment in which to carry out this business.
But if this is a Government plan to try and curb the importation of Sex Slaves into the country [which I expect it is ] the Government has once more shown its ineptitude in its decision making. The importation of young women and girls into this country could and should be stopped by a concerted effort of policing our borders properly and efficiently.
As usual this government has shown poor leadership and tried to shift the blame to the users of these services and away from their own ineptitude.
Complain about this comment
P.S. This law is just so poorly drafted it allows petty civil servants countless opportunities to interpret it wrongly - one more poor government decision.
Complain about this comment
Re; BigSis - as you'll see for some bizarre reason my point was moderated - no doubt as I referred to a website.
In my days on overnight radio in the 90's we used to have many rent boys and prostitutes ring in and tell us of their experiences in London. Many of them abused by pimps and literally raped by clients.
I'm glad that the law reflects both sexes.
an example can be found by typing 'short stories clive bull' into 'youtube search box.
You can even see me smoking my pipe ;-)
Complain about this comment
I agree with jackhigh2747.
Legalisation is the only way to deal with it.
I would anticipate that many men are afraid to buy sex and resort to the casual soliciting route.
I'd envisage now - there is a risk of all this moving even more underground.
Complain about this comment
I think that prostitution should be legalised in this country and that all prostitutes both male and female should ba able to work in licensed brothels. this way the authorites could ensure that they are able to have regular health checks, that they are not being coerced by pimps and have a safe place to work.
Prostitutes will always be with us and if that is the way a person wants to earn a living, and I repeat the word wants, then it should be respected.
What is wrong is the trafficing of woman and young girls into this country for prostitution. I agree with jackhigh (6) that our borders need better control. Something that constantly seems to be ignored by our government.
And one last point, if a man wants to go to a prostitute for sex, for what ever reason, why shouldn't he? Surely that is a far better option than casual sex or in a worst possible case rape.
Complain about this comment
Jay (3) has expressed exactly the concern that crossed my mind during the Woman's Hour interview with Jaqui Smith: how the heck do you prove a particular woman has been 'trafficked' so as to make the prosecution stick?
It's another case of 'being seen to be doing something' rather than 'thinking through what might actually work'.
Complain about this comment
I generally agree with thenicecatlady and jonnie on this. As with the drugs trade, every time more proscriptive laws are passed, we see the traffic being driven further underground, exposing those involved to greater and greater risk. The idea of protecting those coerced or forced into the sex trade is noble. However, what the government are proposing will not work. I doubt that any of the men involved will be able to make a determination if the woman they are picking up from the street or visiting in a "massage parlour" was trafficked or not. Plus the women, if they're being coerced or have been trafficked may be under orders to answer "no" or else they're subjected to violence or withdrawl of drugs. So, a man could be prosecuted under these proposed laws even if he's made as much of an effort as possible to comply.
I realise that we would all like prostitution off the streets, both to protect the women and for the protection of society. Instead of just taking the route of harser and harsher laws, we need a structure that can help the women out of the sex trade where they are coerced/trafficked, protects those still in the sex trade by offering legal means to work in safer environments, and penalises the traffickers and pimps.
Complain about this comment
Importing sex slaves and funding the drugs industry are two valid reasons for taking severe action at the present time. However, not this action.
This is akin to banning all small yachts entering or leaving port because they are the major method to transport drugs/people. Just because one valid use is corrupted by others, does not give them the excuse to criminalize it. I have sadly too much experience of small ship smuggling.
What about live organ donation. Say this was being targeted by the criminal elements in this country. Say people were trafficked into the country and their kidney removed and then they were paid off. Would we think to criminalize ALL transplant recipients! It is the same situation, and exists already in this world.
Say there was a criminal takeover of martial arts. They set up competitions that used trafficked people, and payments to fuel drug habits in exchange for fodder in exhibition fights. Of course they would make it more exciting and dangerous. There would be the valid organizations AND the underground "fight club" types. So the normal government answer would be criminalize every spectator that attends any martial arts competition. Would that be a valid response?
This government, and past governments, are only too willing to punish other valid activities when they fail to stop the real criminals? Fighting the drug and people trafficking directly would take far more leadership and a fundamental change than these weak tinkering politicians can even imagine.
Complain about this comment
Personally I think this is a mistake.
At the one end of the spectrum, you have lapdancing clubs, which are outside the scope of legislation, due to a 'laissez-faire' approach to regulation, whereby they can be opened on the 'martini' principle.
Anytime. Anyplace. Anywhere.
At the other, there is again no 'regulation' as by criminalising the act, sex workers are operating in the shadows with no legal protection. Thus putting them in yet more danger.
If this were going to deter men from seeking out prostitutes, and prevent women from being trafficked, and put the pimps out of business, it might have my support.
But that is not, in my view, likely to be the outcome of the legislation. I'm not saying full scale legalisation is the right response. But some decriminalisation and the option for women to operate in a regulated environment or premises by law might be required if they are going to be kept safe and away from drugs and criminal gangs.
But I cannot see the politicians biting the bullet. Of course, full legalisation may cause more problems that it solves - but if we don't try something different we will still have the same old problem.
Complain about this comment
Someone who was once 'of this parish' has a thought-provoking, and fairly recent, article on this topic.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5100257.ece
Complain about this comment
Why has the Home office withdrawn the funding from Police "Human trafficking unit?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7719662.stm
Is the new law seen as "doing something" perhaps?
Complain about this comment
Great to do all we can to help the traffiked victims of the sex trade. If it is possible to prosecute someone who uses a traffiked prostitute, surely it must be possible to rescue the traffiked person and prosecute the traffiker - much more productive, helpful and life changing for the victim.
Complain about this comment
Well, I seem to be in agreement with most people here. To put it in simple terms: trafficking is a dreadful thing, however what two consenting adults choose to do is their business. I must place the emphasis on "consenting" - I don't mind what adults do with each other as long as no-one is hurt and no-one is forced to do something they don't want to.
I have long been of the opinion that we should have legalised brothels. These should have minimum standards for hygiene, proper legal protection for the sex workers, and regular, random, unannounced inspections with harsh penalties for non-compliance. And mandatory use of condoms too. In fact, they could tax it, I'm sure it would prove to be a rich new source of revenue for HM Treasury.
This is simply bad lawmaking. It does nothing to solve the problem, gives no support to victims of what this law professes to be against, and will be impossible to implement in practice. What a waste of time and money, and a missed opportunity to really do something about the real problem - trafficking and drugs.
Complain about this comment
Wonko @ 18, making bad laws (ones that don't address a problem, or that have wording that makes them unworkable, or are simply so piffling as to be left unenforced) is a speciality of governments when they can't think what else to do, I suspect. It's as though they feel collectively that *saying* 'I want this not to happen any more!' is enough to make whatever-it-is stop.
(Dog bites child? Make law against dangerous dogs. Job done. That sort of thing. That there is already a law intended to prevent dogs biting children is not important: it's the making of a law that is the 'magic', not the enforcing.)
The thing I occasionally worry about is that it seems comparatively easy to make (or more likely to say they intend to make) a new law that doesn't do the job properly, but rather difficult to drop it again when it turns out to be futile, or pointless, or otherwise not what was intended.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS