Thread: Sex workers Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030071
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
There was a time when I would have considered sex work to be something incompatible with Christianity. Along with assassin and thief and other such work. It is not the illegality of sex work that was, for me the problem, but rather the selling of ones body for sex that seemed to be incompatible.

However, in recent years, I have become less certain about this, at least in some cases. Now, I do think those who are forced into it as the only way to make money should be helped out, and I do think that the less well regulated parts are not only degrading, but dangerous.

However there are a number of people - women largely, of course - who do this out of choice. As Belle de Jour (Secret Diary of a Call Girl) said "I like sex and I like making money". I am not convinced that in these cases, it is fundamentally wrong.

So what do others think? Is it morally wrong, or is it a valid choice for some people? Is it a role that is inconsistent with being a Christian?
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
As Belle de Jour (Secret Diary of a Call Girl) said "I like sex and I like making money". I am not convinced that in these cases, it is fundamentally wrong.
And Clyde Barrow might have said, "I like robbing banks and I like making money." Would you then doubt that robbing banks is fundamentally wrong?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
My question would be 'where is the hurt/harm?' Any activity which hurts nobody and harms nothing/no-one is fine, is it not?
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My question would be 'where is the hurt/harm?' Any activity which hurts nobody and harms nothing/no-one is fine, is it not?
So, agreeing to work for a penny an hour should be legal, then?

(I'm generally pro-legalization of sex work, both for buyers and sellers, but I do think that the argument from individualism is somewhat problematic, given that most people besides far-right libertarians think that economic choices can and should be limited by the state.)
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My question would be 'where is the hurt/harm?' Any activity which hurts nobody and harms nothing/no-one is fine, is it not?
So, agreeing to work for a penny an hour should be legal, then?
No - it is harmful to pay poor wages.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My question would be 'where is the hurt/harm?' Any activity which hurts nobody and harms nothing/no-one is fine, is it not?
So, agreeing to work for a penny an hour should be legal, then?
No - it is harmful to pay poor wages.
Then why do people agree to work for them?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Because they are desperate. Which brings you around to the probably-not-wrong prostitution: survival sex, when it's a choice between prostitution or starvation.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Then why do people agree to work for them?
Because they have no alternative.


Going back to the original question, though, at the core of what is euphemistically called 'sex-work' is committing either fornication or adultery. Both are sinful whether done for money, pleasure or even both.

One can weep with those who are forced into this by horrible life circumstances. It is not though a lifestyle that is a valid choice for anyone who has that freedom of choice, particularly not for anyone who spite's to be a Christian.

Amanda B. Reckondwythe has hit the nail firmly and squarely on the head. Beyond that, I don't see any wriggle room for discussion.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
As Belle de Jour (Secret Diary of a Call Girl) said "I like sex and I like making money". I am not convinced that in these cases, it is fundamentally wrong.
And Clyde Barrow might have said, "I like robbing banks and I like making money." Would you then doubt that robbing banks is fundamentally wrong?
But robbing banks is hurting me, depriving me, without my consent. Sex is with my consent. It is very different.

The only reason for the quote is that in her case, is was an explicit choice, because it was something she was good at.

You may consider it immoral, but then I consider making your money working in the finance area, or as a politician is also morally compromising role too. Many jobs I have had in my time have moral challenges involved. That doesn't mean they are wrong.

As Boogie said, who is being hurt? I don't see anyone being hurt (necessarily), even if you may not agree with it.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My question would be 'where is the hurt/harm?' Any activity which hurts nobody and harms nothing/no-one is fine, is it not?
I'd go along with that, can't see the bank robbery analogy working myself.

Because sex work is, in the main carried out by females, and because several Millennia of patriarchy has seen females disadvantaged, it somehow seems to follow that we feel compelled to view the selling of intimate activity by females as wrong.

What's the difference between having a massage and paying for it or having sex and paying for it?
Clearly prostitution can be problematic, but as with anything bordering on prohibition it's the seedy, underground culture attracted to it that is cause of many of those problems.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
You may consider it immoral, but then I consider making your money working in the finance area, or as a politician is also morally compromising role too. Many jobs I have had in my time have moral challenges involved. That doesn't mean they are wrong.
On the contrary. That's what "immoral" means. Wrong.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
If only life were so simple.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Hmmmm. So the alternatives are Bronze Age, conservative, pious condemnation or if it feels good do it?
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
There are questions which feed into this:

Is sex outside of relationship healthy?

Is it OK to allow someone to abuse our bodies as long as cash compensation is paid? (this has wider implications, eg we might consider boxing, wrestling etc too, except that the abuse is far less intimate)

I think that both male and female prostitution, and use of prostitutes, are inconsistent with living out the life of a Christian disciple, because love and respect between human beings is not the message being conveyed.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Setting aside the absolute labels "moral" and "immoral" for a moment . . .

I can choose to have sex with someone because I find the person attractive and would like to experience the thrill of having him stimulate me in that way, or . . .

I can choose to have sex with someone because, even though I find him unattractive, even repulsive, he's going to pay me money for it.

Now, which is moral and which is immoral?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
It appears that research about prostitution coincides with Christian morality.

Article: The real harms of prostitution. By psychologist Melissa Farley PhD.

quote:

There is no evidence for the theory that legalisation somehow - how is never specified - decreases the harm of prostitution....

In fact, legalisation increases trafficking, increases prostitution of children, and increases sex buyers’ demands for cheaper or "unrestricted" sex acts ... Whether prostitution is legal or illegal, research shows that the poorer she is, and the longer she’s been in prostitution, the more likely she is to experience violence. The emotional consequences of prostitution are the same whether prostitution is legal or illegal...
More than 90 per cent of those in it tell us that they want escape from prostitution.
The article goes on to discuss that harms have not decreased with legalisation in terms of violence, and that 68% of people who are prostitutes have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
However there are a number of people - women largely, of course - who do this out of choice.
When so many people have so few options or mostly bad options, yeah, this is going to happen. I'm far more concerned with the inequalities of a society in which prostitution is for some people their best career choice, and still more concerned about the many, many sex workers who in fact don't really have a choice.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Setting aside the absolute labels "moral" and "immoral" for a moment . . .

I can choose to have sex with someone because I find the person attractive and would like to experience the thrill of having him stimulate me in that way, or . . .

I can choose to have sex with someone because, even though I find him unattractive, even repulsive, he's going to pay me money for it.

Now, which is moral and which is immoral?
The OP's example was of a woman who both chose to have sex because she enjoyed it and got paid for it.

So she got paid for her favourite activity which she was good at.

Given that she doesn't especially need the money, is it immoral?

I still do a little work (teaching!) I don't need the money, I just enjoy the work and spending time chatting with teachers in the staffroom at lunch time a couple of days a week. The OP's example sounds rather like me - but in a very different profession!

<edited because, teacher or not, I still can't spell!>

[ 19. March 2016, 19:33: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
By psychologist Melissa Farley PhD.
This is Wikipedia on Dr Farley. She seems to be a highly controversial figure.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is it OK to allow someone to abuse our bodies as long as cash compensation is paid?
Many sex workers would argue that sex isn't abuse, it's simply a service.

Schroedinger's cat, I found this forum for sex workers fascinating.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
The juxtaposition of Christianity and prostitution made me think of the godly Sonya/Sonechka in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Many sex workers would argue that sex isn't abuse, it's simply a service.
Precisely. It's a commodity that's been in demand for thousands of years. If the person giving the service has voluntarily agreed to be available for that purpose why shouldn't they be recompensed for their time and effort?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
... and if a person has voluntarily agreed to be eaten by a cannibal and signed a legal paper and everything, why shouldn't these two consenting adults get on with it?

The argument works for both situations.

The Christian argument would be "you do not own yourself and you do not have permission to do something harmful to your self" (with further exploration of how prostitution harms people emotionally, physically, etc. etc.)

The state argument would be "even if it works for you in your very unusual one-of-a-kind situation, the example you are setting is encouraging others to carry on in ways that very much resemble yours but are in addition clearly harmful. We have an interest in stopping such things, and thus we have an interest in curtailing such examples."
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
It's a commodity that's been in demand for thousands of years. If the person giving the service has voluntarily agreed to be available for that purpose why shouldn't they be recompensed for their time and effort?
Exactly. Talk of inequality and abuse confuses the issue. These are the things that are immoral not the exchange of a bodily need/function for money.

Many people claim they enjoy their jobs, even some soldiers who are required to kill other human beings. He who is moral cast the first stone?

Magdalene was cast as a prostitute yet she was the first to witness the Risen Christ. Furthermore Christianity has, over the Centuries, had such a befuddled and difficult relationship with sex I don,t see how, as a yardstick , it can ever be used to measure right from wrong where the voluntary selling of it is concerned.

[ 19. March 2016, 22:17: Message edited by: rolyn ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
People who sell sex tend to have a much higher likelihood than others of having already been abused, and a massively higher risk of future abuse. Then there is the slavery, violence, rape and child abuse associated with the trade.

Some argue this is a product of the prohibition itself - but I seriously doubt that. I think it is a result of a person being treated as a commodity.

Why shouldn't such and such a one in a thousand exception be free to do what he she likes ? Because the associated consequence is the exploitation of the 999 people entering the trade in a far more common situation.

I notice Belle de jour has now chosen to do something else, and use a differnt name to distance herself from her former profession, I wonder why that is ?

[ 19. March 2016, 22:52: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Many sex workers would argue that sex isn't abuse, it's simply a service.
Precisely. It's a commodity that's been in demand for thousands of years. If the person giving the service has voluntarily agreed to be available for that purpose why shouldn't they be recompensed for their time and effort?
Treating human beings as a commodity seems wrong somehow.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
And is sex work the only profession where people are treated as commodities? I don't think that's the case.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
And is sex work the only profession where people are treated as commodities? I don't think that's the case.
Of course not. And it's wrong that people are treated as commodities everywhere it happens.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
But we do not say automatically that all those other instances should be illegal.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
And I'm not sure it helps much to make prostitution illegal. Pimping and trafficking, yes, those should be illegal. But I'd rather we made our society equitable and then see if people really want to prostitute themselves.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
I'll agree with you on that, but I suspect that as long as there is a market there will be those willing to do it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
But we do not say automatically that all those other instances should be illegal.
I didn't say ANYTHING about legality. Not. One. Word.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
And is sex work the only profession where people are treated as commodities? I don't think that's the case.
I think every profession or job is subject to that, isn't it? Certainly those that focus on externals: modeling, acting. People serving in menial jobs are often treated as mere commodities-- a food-dispensing machine or a cleaning machine-- rather than as real people with real feelings and real stories. Heck, sometimes even as a pastor I feel that way-- that I am a role to some people, that they forget I have a real life and real feelings/story (e.g. when they forgot to care for me the way they care for each other when my mom died). I think we are all prone to treating one another as commodities, maybe even more so in a capitalist/consumerist society. It takes effort to remember to treat one another as a child of God. It shouldn't, but it does-- at least for me.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
There are a lot of well-known problems with the sex industry: (mostly) women being trafficked, exploited, raped, abused by pimps, forced into prostitution as the only available source of income and so on. It's clear that nobody in that kind of situation is making free choices, and what we're looking at are victims rather than sinners.

There are arguments that in order to protect these people (the large majority of those involved in prostitution) we should act against all prostitution. There's a lot to be said for those arguments.

But putting that aside, SC's question assumed a willing prostitute. Someone who has options, could have a career doing something else, but prefers to have sex for money.

The question is not "should this be illegal" but "is this immoral". These are different questions.
For me, there's no question. If you believe that sex is more than a pleasant recreation, and I do, then it's fundamentally immoral to make it a commodity subject to sale.

If you don't think there's a difference between sex and a massage, or a haircut, then I'd expect you to draw a different conclusion.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There are a lot of well-known problems with the sex industry: (mostly) women being trafficked, exploited, raped, abused by pimps, forced into prostitution as the only available source of income and so on. It's clear that nobody in that kind of situation is making free choices, and what we're looking at are victims rather than sinners.
As someone who knows a whole bunch of prostitutes and people who are at least accused of being pimps, I disagree.

While your allegations may certainly be the case, I'm certain they are not always the case, and increasingly suspicious that they represent a media-fuelled gloss on something much more complex.

After asking a lot of people questions in multiple countries over several years, I think that contrary to the narrative believed with almost religious faith (often on little or no evidence from what I can make out) by the courts here, many of the girls appear to know precisely what they are getting into and see the work as a way of getting into Europe to earn a living and thus provide for their families back in their home country.

What the courts rule as pimping can be nothing more than providing accommodation for a few months for a compatriot or relative against a small amount for rent.

Many of the girls (and the accused pimps) I know self-identify as wholehearted evangelical Christians who know their Bibles and attend church assiduously.

For an interesting Bible take on this subject, consider that biblical heroine Esther, someone who was basically pimped by that biblical hero Mordecai to further the cause of her people.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I notice Belle de jour has now chosen to do something else, and use a differnt name to distance herself from her former profession, I wonder why that is ?
I don't think she's chosen to do something else. She's always been a scientist - she just did sex work as well for a time. You could say the same about a student doing bar work.

Most escorts use pseudo-names because society shames prostitutes. That says nothing about whether or not sex work itself is damaging or immoral.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
But we do not say automatically that all those other instances should be illegal.
I didn't say ANYTHING about legality. Not. One. Word.
No one said that you did.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I suppose I should clarify that those who are forced into any form of work I do have sympathy with, and would help them get out of it if I could.

Several years ago, my son took a short-term, zero hours contract with Amazon. For some of those, this was a desperately needed work, and it was damaging and abusive (not least when they stopped them early). Those who are forced into taking these roles, are being comoditised, abused by the system, and for them, this is wrong.

However for my son, this was perfect. It was some work, paid some money, and he didn't mind the night shifts.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'd just like to say that one has to be very careful when suggesting sex work is incompatible with Christianity.

In my opinion, it is highly likely that those most vocal about the sinfulness of prostitution are themselves regular users of porn and/or prostitutes. It almost seems to be the rule of these things: there is a form of self-flagulation of the very thing you can't escape from so the way to deflect is to pass the blame onto someone else.

Sex work is mind-numbing in the most literal of ways; very regular sexual activity numbs the mind and body. In fact, I believe that porn actors and other sex workers encourage this kind of detachment to get themselves through the experience.

It is also risky and very likely shortens life and has life-altering physical effects. It is also associated with other damaging effects such as drug or alcohol additions.

But describing particular activities as being spiritually corrosive is a very tricky concept, in my opinion. I think there is a long history of an association between Christianity and Prostitution - and no specific indication that prostitutes always left the profession.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Belle du Jour wrote a book debunking the myths around sex, called The Sex Myth: Why Everything we are told is wrong - Guardian/Observer review or Independent Review

She challenges the figures on how many people are trafficked for sex (around 1,000), rather than much higher numbers of illegal immigrant men involved in cockle collection or other food production.

She also suggests that
quote:
Myths about sex propagate in the western world because so many (older) people have very limited direct experience. Repressive "moral" policies achieve greater publicity and support at times of economic crisis – as currently illustrated in the US.
from the Guardian review.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There was also a very negative review in the Daily Telegraph
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd just like to say that one has to be very careful when suggesting sex work is incompatible with Christianity.

In my opinion, it is highly likely that those most vocal about the sinfulness of prostitution are themselves regular users of porn and/or prostitutes.
The idea that prostitutes are somehow more sinful than customers of prostitutes is completely absurd. If the act of prostitution is sinful, then both parties are equally sinners.

If one takes a step back and tries to assign blame, then it's likely that in almost all cases, the customers of prostitutes have rather more agency than the prostitutes themselves.

To suggest that prostitutes are somehow worse than their customers is exactly the same patriarchal virginity-cult bullshit that applies different sexual standards to men and women, and there's absolutely no reasonable basis for it.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I suppose there is one part of me that suspects the problem with sex workers* is a) that they are females earning some money and b) that they are engaged in sex. It seems that the churches problems with both women and sex might be what drives a lot of this.

As I think the church is very wrong on both of these (historically), I have to question whether they are wrong on sex workers.

*I use this term, as I believe it is the one those engaged in it favour. It has less immediately negative connotations than the alternatives.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There are a lot of well-known problems with the sex industry: (mostly) women being trafficked, exploited, raped, abused by pimps, forced into prostitution as the only available source of income and so on. It's clear that nobody in that kind of situation is making free choices, and what we're looking at are victims rather than sinners.
As someone who knows a whole bunch of prostitutes and people who are at least accused of being pimps, I disagree.

While your allegations may certainly be the case, I'm certain they are not always the case, and increasingly suspicious that they represent a media-fuelled gloss on something much more complex.

After asking a lot of people questions in multiple countries over several years, I think that contrary to the narrative believed with almost religious faith (often on little or no evidence from what I can make out) by the courts here, many of the girls appear to know precisely what they are getting into and see the work as a way of getting into Europe to earn a living and thus provide for their families back in their home country.

What the courts rule as pimping can be nothing more than providing accommodation for a few months for a compatriot or relative against a small amount for rent.

Many of the girls (and the accused pimps) I know self-identify as wholehearted evangelical Christians who know their Bibles and attend church assiduously.

For an interesting Bible take on this subject, consider that biblical heroine Esther, someone who was basically pimped by that biblical hero Mordecai to further the cause of her people.
This is a very interesting post, as I think there are lots of narratives about sex work, and I've always wondered how many are backed up empirically, and how many simply sustain somebody's prejudices.

I can't contribute in terms of empirical knowledge, since I've rarely worked with sex workers. But I question the idea that paid for sex erodes one's self-worth and personality. I don't know if that's true.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The correct Christian response.

[ 20. March 2016, 14:29: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I suppose there is one part of me that suspects the problem with sex workers* is a) that they are females earning some money and b) that they are engaged in sex. It seems that the churches problems with both women and sex might be what drives a lot of this.
I've sometimes wondered whether it hasn't been based on jealousy. In previous centuries, a man married to a woman he didn't particularly get on with or find particularly attractive might well have preferred a woman who made herself deliberately enticing, flattered him, was good for his ego, and better in bed than his wife, who was probably struggling with the Christian notion that the whole thing was sinful and disgusting anyway. She would bitterly have resented not just the infidelity but also, in some ways, the freedom such a woman would have had; being outside the rules she could wear what she pleased, have fine clothes and jewellery, and would also get quite a lot more male attention. Some of the more famous courtesans of history were quite popular. Some also made the effort to be well educated and up on the current political situation.

It is somewhat removed from the average streetwalker who was doing it basically to pay the rent and feed the children, of course. But there is a sense in which some courtesans had a freedom the average woman of the era probably didn't have.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The girl I drove past late one swirling winter's night in Northampton, in fur jacket and micro-skirt, waiting for a truck driver to detour off the M1, was no courtesan.

A princess of God yes.

Like the scarred young Scouse girl and her boy pimp who accosted me in Liverpool by the cathedral, I bought McDonalds finest for. She smiled and said "You're married aren't you?".
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The Naomi-and-Ruth thing could also be assessed quite coldly. Did Boaz stand a chance against the two of them?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I suppose there is one part of me that suspects the problem with sex workers* ........
*I use this term, as I believe it is the one those engaged in it favour. It has less immediately negative connotations than the alternatives.
You are right there.
As we all know from current difficulties, the church has unfortunately lost much of it's credibility in matters pertaining to sex. A lot of this is of course down to the post -contraception/antibiotic/abortions off the shelf revolution, something that could not have been foreseen when Christian doctrine was first conceived .

But on the very specific matter of prostitution the Church has been exposed as peddling something of a myth over Mary Magdelene being a reformed prostitute, and in doing so has shamed the oldest profession for last 2000 years. All that we can really gleen from the Gospels on Magdelene is that she had a problematic past, possibly got caught in adultery but quite definitely fell for Jesus.

Apart from negative conatation, the other problem with female sex work, (leaving aside for a moment the fact that many disadvantaged and vulnerable people get caught up in it), is that it is usually examined through the patriarchal lens. Therefore the common perception, by both male and female, is one of romanticism and disgust in almost equal measure.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
How to put this? Once again, we're all making the mistake, we're revealing, that we don't understand incarnation. So, if something is imperfect, we have to try to find ways round recognising that it is, but that some people - including perhaps us, though I suspect not in this particular case - are stuck in it. The answer to imperfection isn't denial, it's redemption.

Meanwhile, though, I also can't help being reminded of this. I'm surprised nobody has already referred to it on this thread.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

While your allegations may certainly be the case, I'm certain they are not always the case, and increasingly suspicious that they represent a media-fuelled gloss on something much more complex.
I too am fairly suspicious of such figures for much the same reasons, whilst some of these allegations may be the case, a quick post mortem on some of the big raids that are high-lighted in the media is a good corrective. Generally the actual convictions centre around running a disorderly house - the actual number of trafficking offenses is miniscule.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Enoch, I was going to post that, but you beat me to it.

Moo
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
No mistake.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
The ruined maid or spoilt goods?
The patriarchal perspective.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I suppose there is one part of me that suspects the problem with sex workers* is a) that they are females earning some money and b) that they are engaged in sex. It seems that the churches problems with both women and sex might be what drives a lot of this.
I've sometimes wondered whether it hasn't been based on jealousy. In previous centuries, a man married to a woman he didn't particularly get on with or find particularly attractive might well have preferred a woman who made herself deliberately enticing, flattered him, was good for his ego, and better in bed than his wife, who was probably struggling with the Christian notion that the whole thing was sinful and disgusting anyway. She would bitterly have resented not just the infidelity but also, in some ways, the freedom such a woman would have had; being outside the rules she could wear what she pleased, have fine clothes and jewellery, and would also get quite a lot more male attention. Some of the more famous courtesans of history were quite popular. Some also made the effort to be well educated and up on the current political situation.

It is somewhat removed from the average streetwalker who was doing it basically to pay the rent and feed the children, of course. But there is a sense in which some courtesans had a freedom the average woman of the era probably didn't have.
I think that's a very romanticised version of historical sex work. For most sex workers it would have been a very dangerous and precarious lifestyle. Life-threatening STIs, backyard abortions, physical violence and ostracism from wider society would have been the lot of 99% of sex workers. To equate a courtesan with the average sex worker is to equate the life of a fishwife with that of a minor royal. Even so, I imagine that courtesans may well have envied the security and social acceptance of the respectable wives of their clients as much as the wives may have resented courtesans (although being spared frequent child bearing or their husband's bizarre predilections may have been desirable for some wives).
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
What Enoch and Evangeline have said.

I'm pretty sure that He would be more merciful to the young ones dragged into prostitution than to the clients*. No doubt that there are some workers who do so from pleasure, or at least quasi-pleasure, at least until they realise the lives they been leading. There would be many more who over the millennia have done so from economic need. Not much romanticism in The Woman of Rome.

*Accepting that there are some clients who for various reasons, usually medical, resort to prostitutes.

[ 21. March 2016, 05:08: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
So He'll have degrees of mercy for having been offended less by the decisions of children than their abusers then?
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:
I think that's a very romanticised version of historical sex work. For most sex workers it would have been a very dangerous and precarious lifestyle.
A police report in 1898 estimated the life expectancy of a street prostitute in Aberdeen at four years.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'd also want to say that this whole concept of doing something because you really like it is in-and-of-itself problematic.

Pleasure is, in my opinion, a fleeting state. Bodily pleasure experienced from the sun's rays on a beach or the rush from climbing freehand up a cliff or whatever are real and addictive things. But it seems to me that these things are damaging if they become so addictive that you're basing your whole life around experiencing them - pushing yourself harder and harder because the endorphines (or whatever they're called) are only released with more and more effort.

That's not to disparage free climbing or sitting on a beach - but, I think, it is to say that pleasure-seeking for its own sake is destructive. The pursuit of pleasure leads to a shallow life.

I find it very hard to understand how someone who is having a lot of sex on a regular work-a-day basis truly and honestly because they crave the sensation are anything other than shallow and have lost something of their humanity.

But then I think the same thing about a lot of things in our contemporary society, which in my opinion seems to crave shallowness and lift up lives of mediocrity as exemplars to follow. It seems to me that it must also be very very hard to be a top sportsperson, a top music star, businessperson, politician etc and so on without also losing something of one's humanity in the single-minded pursuit of pleasure.
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
In my experience of working with women who have been involved in sex work I have never met a single one who ever for one moment went into because they enjoyed it.

Every single one has an awful history of childhood neglect, exploitation, drug abuse and subsequently addiction after which they were forced to work for drugs by pimps and dealers.

At least in this country it is now legal (to work from a brothel not strictly to street sex work) so the women have some recourse to legal and police protection.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
On top of all the other disadvantages and unpleasantness of the work, there are a few serial killers who specialize in prostitutes.

Moo
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
...At least in this country it is now legal (to work from a brothel not strictly to street sex work) so the women have some recourse to legal and police protection.
Yes, they do in UK but then you hear how the police in general [individual officers excepted] and other people who should know better talk about them and you wonder what the point is!
 
Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :
 
Unlike for a lot of morality issues discussed on the internet, we have a direct quote straight from the lips of Our Lord to guide us in this debate.

It may come as a surprise.

"Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you" (Matt 21:31)

Read the whole chapter to get context of this statement.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
Unlike for a lot of morality issues discussed on the internet, we have a direct quote straight from the lips of Our Lord to guide us in this debate.

It may come as a surprise.

"Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you" (Matt 21:31)

Read the whole chapter to get context of this statement.
The thing is, they were - at Jesus time - the most despised of people. That is the danger of taking a word directly from the Bible and assuming that we can apply directly.

Today you might use bankers and politicians. Not because they are any worse than others, but because they are considered - to those listening - as the most unholy and morally degenerate.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I walk every day in green spaces because I really like it. My Stendhal's kicks in if I'm lucky, overwhelmed by a big often incredibly sensual tree or tiny flowers on a shrub I've assumed to be holly for years from 10m away and it's NOT! Having only discovered holly flowers in January. Living in those moments. How is that problematic?
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My question would be 'where is the hurt/harm?' Any activity which hurts nobody and harms nothing/no-one is fine, is it not?
Depends on your definition of "harm" and "hurt," I guess.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
On top of all the other disadvantages and unpleasantness of the work, there are a few serial killers who specialize in prostitutes.
Like coal mining or Trench warfare, there is no doubt sex work is dangerous, demeaning and dirty. And likewise with these 'professions' those higher up the tree usually had better time of it.

Reading above comments, and generally speaking, ISTM poverty, abuse and trauma are the enemy with sex work being one of it's symptoms.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Every single one has an awful history of childhood neglect, exploitation, drug abuse and subsequently addiction after which they were forced to work for drugs by pimps and dealers.
This is what I'd expect to be true but based on guesswork rather than any experience. However is it possible that the group of sex workers that you meet is a function of your work? So there could be another group out there without such marked problems who don't come into contact with you?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I walk every day in green spaces because I really like it. My Stendhal's kicks in if I'm lucky, overwhelmed by a big often incredibly sensual tree or tiny flowers on a shrub I've assumed to be holly for years from 10m away and it's NOT! Having only discovered holly flowers in January. Living in those moments. How is that problematic?
If you are asking me.. as I made fairly clear before, there is nothing problematic about experiencing moments of pleasure. The issue, as far as I'm concerned, is when one repeatedly seeks to live in those moments. I dare say that if one sought the experience of being in the presence of aromatic trees to the extent that you thought/planned about it all the time, then that also would be pretty damaging. As with almost everything else.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Interestingly New York Magazine has a cover story this issue, Is Prostitution Just Another Job? I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but here's a link I hope works:

Link here
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Oh believe me, I'm very much missing the Euonymous europaeus and Hippophae rhamnoides I missed out on inspecting today. And I'm hugely exercised by the shrub to the left of the brick wall on the left of Barley Lane as you turn on to it from Foston Road here.

There is NOTHING like being obsessive about ones pleasures to a dangerous degree, in the face of mundanity and horror.

[ 22. March 2016, 17:07: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
“...the young man who rings the bell at the brothel is unconsciously looking for God.” The World, The Flesh, and Father Smith by Bruce Marshall (1945) (p. 108)

NOT GKC

The poor woman is looking for the rent.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Does no harm? I guess if the prostitute makes the John promise that he is not married, his wife or girlfriend can't possibly find out and be hurt, they will receive just as much affection as if he hadn't visited the prostitute and the prostitute is 100% sure that she isn't carrying a disease from her encounter an hour ago -- then maybe it won't do him any harm.

For her the immediate harm is in the reinforcement of her belief (common to most prostitutes because of the abuse they suffered as children) that her only value is in her ability to do sex. That plus the already mentioned huge increase of chance for drug addiction or violent death.

Jesus famously forgave the woman with five husbands and although we don't know for sure if Mary Magdalene was a prostitute we do know she had led a "sinful," life and was also forgiven by him. I'm sure she understood, just as Jesus told the other woman to "go and sin no more," that she was not expected to keep it up. The big story was that Jesus forgave these women and they were exceedingly grateful for that. It amazes me how many people seem to think that the Magdalene story tells us that prostitution is okay.

Like anything Jesus considered sinful, it wasn't because he didn't want us to have any fun, it was because he didn't want us to hurt ourselves.

After the movie, "Pretty Woman," came out the LA police had a big problem with the influx of young women from all over the country who thought the life of a hooker was a short cut to meeting a prince, or Richard Gere, and living happily ever after. It's sad how movies and TV and the new PC term "sex worker," have tried to make stripping, porn and prostitution seem glamourous and free when it's actually depressing, demoralizing and dangerous.

"Breaking Bad's" regular prostitute shows us a typical day in the life: "Windy" Richard Gere nowhere in sight.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Jesus famously forgave the woman with five husbands and although we don't know for sure if Mary Magdalene was a prostitute we do know she had led a "sinful," life and was also forgiven by him. I'm sure she understood, just as Jesus told the other woman to "go and sin no more," that she was not expected to keep it up. The big story was that Jesus forgave these women and they were exceedingly grateful for that. It amazes me how many people seem to think that the Magdalene story tells us that prostitution is okay.
Actually, nobody has argued that there is not a seedy side to the Sex Worker business. There is, and it is dangerous, unpleasant and abusive. Most people who get into that side are exactly who you have described, and they can be freed from it.

Jesus forgave people, and in one case gave the clear injunction to sin no more. But he never specified or identified what their sins were. We make assumptions. I am challenging these assumptions.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
In challenging those assumptions what I remain unclear about is how common the "well adjusted sex worker" is. Are we talking about a few well payed individuals working a particular crowd, or are brothels in countries where sex work is less criminalized a place where this can happen.

It seems to me that a fair number of people who work with sex workers on a regular basis report that very few are well adjusted, and that abuse, mental health problems and marginalization is very much the norm, even when considered brothels in decriminalized settings.

But I don't have direct experience so can't be authoritative.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
VERY well said Twilight. Most.

Judgement without condemnation.

I've never gotten over a friend describing sitting in a rough pub 'South of the Bridges' in Leamington, 40 years ago, where a no longer young, rare black woman sat back drinking alone in a print dress, legs crossed, with a sign on the bottom of her elevated shoe saying '10 bob the lot'. 50p, a dollar.

Comi-TRAGIC.

I very much doubt that she was ever discipled from that. The only deliverance being old age and death.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I think that's a very romanticised version of historical sex work. For most sex workers it would have been a very dangerous and precarious lifestyle. Life-threatening STIs, backyard abortions, physical violence and ostracism from wider society would have been the lot of 99% of sex workers. To equate a courtesan with the average sex worker is to equate the life of a fishwife with that of a minor royal.
Yes, I agree, and should have made it clearer that I was only pointing out the top end of the scale. However there have always been an element that fell on their feet and ended up as mistresses or kept women and who didn't, on the whole, do too badly. That is, as you say, far removed from the image of someone who may even be homeless resorting to selling herself as a way of getting enough money for the night shelter, and I still think that if a woman was visibly seen to be affluent and leading a comfortable lifestyle from this kind of work she would have attracted not just scorn but also some kind of envy.

And of course she would probably have wanted legitimacy and respectability and the all-important ring on the finger.

Incidentally, this thread has so far assumed that sex workers are female, but there are male ones as well.

[ 23. March 2016, 07:20: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Jesus famously forgave the woman with five husbands and although we don't know for sure if Mary Magdalene was a prostitute we do know she had led a "sinful," life and was also forgiven by him. I'm sure she understood, just as Jesus told the other woman to "go and sin no more," that she was not expected to keep it up. The big story was that Jesus forgave these women and they were exceedingly grateful for that. It amazes me how many people seem to think that the Magdalene story tells us that prostitution is okay.

Like anything Jesus considered sinful, it wasn't because he didn't want us to have any fun, it was because he didn't want us to hurt ourselves.

Where does the bible say Mary Magdalene led a sinful life? It says that she had been healed and that seven demons came out of her in Luke 8:3 but I can't recall her being specified as a sinner, anymore than any of the other NT followers of Jesus.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
In challenging those assumptions what I remain unclear about is how common the "well adjusted sex worker" is. Are we talking about a few well payed individuals working a particular crowd, or are brothels in countries where sex work is less criminalized a place where this can happen.
ISTM from articles like the one posted above that the happy sex workers are the ones charging hundreds of dollars and hour and thousands of dollars a night. Based on nothing more than It Stands To Reason, I doubt many clients are able and willing to pay those prices, and consequently I imagine their share of the market is small.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
One of my thesis-churning-out acquaintances sent me a review copy of her mss on the trade in Victorian Canada. What she found interesting is that there was a cohort of working girls who got on the game to bankroll their move to western Canada, where they would marry a farmer or businessman in those regions awfully short of women, founding thereby respectable prairie dynasties. Many of them had initially immigrated as domestic workers, either from the British Isles or the backwoods of eastern Ontario and the Atlantic provinces, and had entered the trade either through work difficulties (the over-attentive master of the household was staple of popular song) or preferring a more interesting life, or having to provide for a child or sister.

She told me that contemporary Ottawa prostitutes (the things one learns at dinner parties!) are great users of the internet, which provides them with a way of checking up on prospective clients and administering their businesses. My researcher informed me that the general conversation of escorts seemed to focus on tracking expenses for the taxman. As well, she knew of a few students (both men and women) who subsidize their studies through the sideline facilitated by their efforts. Generally, this was not known by their fellow students but she thought there was likely more acceptance at the city's other (largely francophone) university.

This is, of course, far away from the world of the street prostitute, who tend to be more involved in the world of drugs. I came to be aware that one of my former colleagues had been a cocaine-user in her teenage years and had financed her habit thus-- she was fortunate in that a friend brought her into rehab, and now she plies another profession in the financial circles of the bureaucracy, and volunteers with a women's support group for those trying to leave the business. And as referenced in my report of Saint Roch's in Québec City, they can be found among our fellow worshippers.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Jesus famously forgave the woman with five husbands and although we don't know for sure if Mary Magdalene was a prostitute we do know she had led a "sinful," life and was also forgiven by him. I'm sure she understood, just as Jesus told the other woman to "go and sin no more," that she was not expected to keep it up. The big story was that Jesus forgave these women and they were exceedingly grateful for that. It amazes me how many people seem to think that the Magdalene story tells us that prostitution is okay.

Like anything Jesus considered sinful, it wasn't because he didn't want us to have any fun, it was because he didn't want us to hurt ourselves.

Where does the bible say Mary Magdalene led a sinful life? It says that she had been healed and that seven demons came out of her in Luke 8:3 but I can't recall her being specified as a sinner, anymore than any of the other NT followers of Jesus.
You've got me there, Evangeline. I was actually arguing the common assumption that she was a prostitute ( someone mentioned her above) because I was sure the Bible didn't say that -- so I thought the misunderstanding probably came from the Bible saying she had been sinful, but I think now you're right and I've confused her with someone else -- the woman who washed his feet? The one with the perfumed oil for his head?
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
For those with access BBC3 have had 3 programmes looking at the sex industries in different countries and some of the issues. The most recent is BBC3 sex in strange places
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
The most recent is BBC3 sex in strange places
In which the most sensationalist stories are highlighted (presumably on the same basis that the daily mail is full of swimsuit models at the same time as decrying moral decline) whilst the presenter wanders around playing the naive idiot abroad.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Jesus famously forgave the woman with five husbands and although we don't know for sure if Mary Magdalene was a prostitute we do know she had led a "sinful," life and was also forgiven by him. I'm sure she understood, just as Jesus told the other woman to "go and sin no more," that she was not expected to keep it up. The big story was that Jesus forgave these women and they were exceedingly grateful for that. It amazes me how many people seem to think that the Magdalene story tells us that prostitution is okay.

Like anything Jesus considered sinful, it wasn't because he didn't want us to have any fun, it was because he didn't want us to hurt ourselves.

Where does the bible say Mary Magdalene led a sinful life? It says that she had been healed and that seven demons came out of her in Luke 8:3 but I can't recall her being specified as a sinner, anymore than any of the other NT followers of Jesus.
You've got me there, Evangeline. I was actually arguing the common assumption that she was a prostitute ( someone mentioned her above) because I was sure the Bible didn't say that -- so I thought the misunderstanding probably came from the Bible saying she had been sinful, but I think now you're right and I've confused her with someone else -- the woman who washed his feet? The one with the perfumed oil for his head?
It was a Pope who conflated Mary Magdalene with another Mary who led a sinful life and thus misrepresented the first witness of the resurrection, so you can be forgiven [Smile] Whilst we're at it, you seem to have conflated another story as well....

It was the woman caught in adultery who was told to "go and sin no more" John 7:53., The woman with 5 husbands aka the Samaritan woman at the well John 4 was the first evangelist and Christ neither declared his forgiveness nor told her to sin no more. In fact as a woman in that day and age I think to tell her to leave the one she was with now would have sentenced her to starvation. Jesus' startling acceptance of this woman-shows that the kingdom is for all. I don't believe the Samaritan woman at he well was a prostitute just a victim of the patriarchal society of the day, technically an adulteress but possibly a victim of divorce laws and general lack of opportunities for woman to live without the protection of a male.
 
Posted by Cherubim (# 18514) on :
 
For as long as men and women voluntarily make an informed choice about how they use their bodies in exchange for reward, I don't think it is the business of anyone here to interfere. Having said that, I would see a greater moral conflict with homosexuality, but overall is it better for men and women exchange sex for reward than being unable to cope with a life without sex that explodes into assault? Prostitution can act as a valve for the frustrated, something for which the church has to take responsibility for those who exploded in their ranks.
 
Posted by Cherubim (# 18514) on :
 
For as long as men and women voluntarily make an informed choice about how they use their bodies in exchange for reward, I don't think it is the business of anyone here to interfere. Having said that, I would see a greater moral conflict with homosexuality, but overall is it better for men and women exchange sex for reward than being unable to cope with a life without sex that explodes into assault? Prostitution can act as a valve for the frustrated, something for which the church has to take responsibility for those who exploded in their ranks.

The church has long had an uneasy relationship with sex, that confounds not only reason but biology. Women have a clitoris, which serves no other function than to serve as a conduit for orgasm. Why would God create the clitoris if He didn't want it used, (nuns and virgins please note). If people aren't to get an orgasm through prostitution then what should they do? Wank? The church has long had a problem with wanking. I really think the church is inadequate and ill-skilled to decide upon matters of sex and should step back from the whole argument,
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Does no harm? I guess if the prostitute makes the John promise that he is not married, his wife or girlfriend can't possibly find out and be hurt, they will receive just as much affection as if he hadn't visited the prostitute and the prostitute is 100% sure that she isn't carrying a disease from her encounter an hour ago -- then maybe it won't do him any harm.

For her the immediate harm is in the reinforcement of her belief (common to most prostitutes because of the abuse they suffered as children) that her only value is in her ability to do sex. That plus the already mentioned huge increase of chance for drug addiction or violent death.

Jesus famously forgave the woman with five husbands and although we don't know for sure if Mary Magdalene was a prostitute we do know she had led a "sinful," life and was also forgiven by him. I'm sure she understood, just as Jesus told the other woman to "go and sin no more," that she was not expected to keep it up. The big story was that Jesus forgave these women and they were exceedingly grateful for that. It amazes me how many people seem to think that the Magdalene story tells us that prostitution is okay.

Like anything Jesus considered sinful, it wasn't because he didn't want us to have any fun, it was because he didn't want us to hurt ourselves.

After the movie, "Pretty Woman," came out the LA police had a big problem with the influx of young women from all over the country who thought the life of a hooker was a short cut to meeting a prince, or Richard Gere, and living happily ever after. It's sad how movies and TV and the new PC term "sex worker," have tried to make stripping, porn and prostitution seem glamourous and free when it's actually depressing, demoralizing and dangerous.

"Breaking Bad's" regular prostitute shows us a typical day in the life: "Windy" Richard Gere nowhere in sight.
This.

And consider that prostitutes are part of someone's family. Does anyone want their mother, sister, brother, father, children to be a prostitute?
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Cherubim:
quote:
Having said that, I would see a greater moral conflict with homosexuality (!?-L*R), but overall is it better for men and women exchange sex for reward than being unable to cope with a life without sex that explodes into assault? Prostitution can act as a valve for the frustrated, something for which the church has to take responsibility for those who exploded in their ranks.
I've been celibate for quite a few years. I hope someone tugs my coat to warn me before I explode.

[ 30. March 2016, 02:38: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cherubim:
For as long as men and women voluntarily make an informed choice about how they use their bodies in exchange for reward, I don't think it is the business of anyone here to interfere.
The question is whether "sex work" is a morally licit activity for a Christian - not whether one should "interfere" with anyone else.

quote:
overall is it better for men and women exchange sex for reward than being unable to cope with a life without sex that explodes into assault?
Is it better to have sex with a prostitute than to rape someone? Sure - but that doesn't necessarily make prostitution OK. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

(I'm assuming here you're imagining prostitution as an outlet for the client, rather as a means for the sex-starved prostitute to access sex.)

quote:
If people aren't to get an orgasm through prostitution then what should they do? Wank? The church has long had a problem with wanking.
Your argument seems to be "women have clitorides, therefore everyone should have lots of orgasms on a regular basis, therefore they should hire prostitutes because otherwise they might masturbate." That seems terribly confused to me.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'd be interested in y'all's take on this story on this topic.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

It seems to me that a fair number of people who work with sex workers on a regular basis report that very few are well adjusted, and that abuse, mental health problems and marginalization is very much the norm, even when considered brothels in decriminalized settings.
You will probably find that a fair number of people who work with people on a regular basis will report that very few are well adjusted and that abuse and mental health problems are the norm, because, well, they are, unfortunately.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The contention of many working with sex workers is that the prevalence of abuse and mental health issues is higher and more severe than in the general population. One can question cause and effect, biased reporting and other issues of course, but I don't think it is possible to write off what those working with sex workers report as simply normal human experience.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd be interested in y'all's take on this story on this topic.
Horrific story, but eye-opening. toward the end of her story she says:
quote:
The problem is that people see trafficked women as prostitutes, and they see prostitutes not as victims, but criminals.
That rings so true to me. There may be the occasional high priced "mistress to the one-percent," who enjoys her work, but I doubt that any woman on earth enjoys having sex with 20 men a night. Yet, I'll bet the men who used these women told themselves that they liked it and found it an easy way to earn a living. Whether forced at gun point like the women in the story or brought low by incestuous family members or addiction to drugs, they are almost every single one a victim.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd be interested in y'all's take on this story on this topic.
It shows how closed minded some people are to it, especially the authorities where she should have been given a safe haven and a listening ear, as well as the action she called for to release others and arrest the perpetrators.

The urban myth of most male and female prostitutes having a great time enjoying sex and getting paid for it as well continues to provide an excuse for those who use and abuse them.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I read some entries above. And the story link.

I wonder how the church would regard the choice between forcing sex on a trafficked woman or masturbating. How anyone normal would regard that as a choice, anyway.

There is a part of me that wants to burst into wholly inappropriate language about men who regard their need for "relief" (is that appropriate enough?) as so necessary that they want to be in a queue to take part in an emotionless action that is basically equivalent to using a human being as a toilet.

There was a TV programme I didn't watch but heard, unfortunately, discussed, about men who waited outside an abattoir for the calves... I thought that was pretty disgusting. But it's almost harmless compared with the users of prostitutes in slavery.

Are these creatures actually human themselves?

[ 30. March 2016, 12:32: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd be interested in y'all's take on this story on this topic.
It shows how closed minded some people are to it, especially the authorities where she should have been given a safe haven and a listening ear, as well as the action she called for to release others and arrest the perpetrators.
I have to confess to a certain degree of scepticism with respect to some parts of the story.

I don't doubt the general miserable conditions of prostitution and trafficked individuals, but her story sounds embroidered to me.

From the article you'll note that she gets citizenship in return for her testimony. I'm fairly sure that in return for citizenship, some prostitutes will tell investigators what they want to hear and not necessarily the truth, or name the right names. I'm not saying she did that, but I am pointing out yet another of the less-remarked-on twists and turns of this issue.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cherubim:
...but overall is it better for men and women exchange sex for reward than being unable to cope with a life without sex that explodes into assault?
Dangerous nonsense. Lack of sex is not an excuse for violence.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
The most recent is BBC3 sex in strange places
In which the most sensationalist stories are highlighted (presumably on the same basis that the daily mail is full of swimsuit models at the same time as decrying moral decline) whilst the presenter wanders around playing the naive idiot abroad.
Which is basically what BBC3 did with any half-serious subject. I'm glad its gone.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I'm inclined to think that if someone is in such a state that the lack of a sexual outlet causes them to commit violent assault, then they are in need of much more help than can be administered by a prostitute. Preferably in a secure environment.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I would imagine that sort of person is exactly why sex workers are in such danger. Would they assault the sex worker if the sex wasn't good enough? Or if the fee was too high? Or on another occasion simply because that is part of the desired experience for them?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I would imagine that sort of person is exactly why sex workers are in such danger. Would they assault the sex worker if the sex wasn't good enough? Or if the fee was too high? Or on another occasion simply because that is part of the desired experience for them?
Might the rationale go like this: "I paid for the use of this body, and I am going to f*** it any way I want". Sort of like the dehumanizing of people that pornography provides. Except that there is a human there, but differentially this prostitute human pretends to enjoy the interaction (or not). I think this dehumanizing aspect is the wrong and problematic part. It isn't "loving others as I have loved you", because it is dehumanising, even if the prostitute consents because they've agreed to rental of their body parts.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Might the rationale go like this: "I paid for the use of this body, and I am going to f*** it any way I want".
Removing sex from the equation, how different is this to a whole bunch of exploitative jobs?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Might the rationale go like this: "I paid for the use of this body, and I am going to f*** it any way I want".
Removing sex from the equation, how different is this to a whole bunch of exploitative jobs?
Having someone put a part of their body into your's is different than several exploitive jobs I can thing: poor waged retail workers, berry pickers, repetitive factory workers. While there is risk of injury and poverty, none of these involve some direct intimate human to human contact.

Now, if we think of people from, say from Myanmar or Thailand who are enslaved on Indonesian fishing boats (check what company packs your tuna), we might consider this to be more parallel. And I think it is in regard to some aspects of exploitiveness, but it still isn't personal in the same way as sex is. In the same way that law enforcement is similar in some ways to soldiering, but also different.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
I was listening to a podcast earlier about paid surrogates in third world countries. It made me think of this thread the way they were treated.

But that's about the only other 'job' that comes close I think.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Might the rationale go like this: "I paid for the use of this body, and I am going to f*** it any way I want".
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Removing sex from the equation, how different is this to a whole bunch of exploitative jobs?
It's more exploitative than most.

One can minimize anything by putting it in a class of things that are similar in quality but not in quantity.
 
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
I was listening to a podcast earlier about paid surrogates in third world countries. It made me think of this thread the way they were treated.

But that's about the only other 'job' that comes close I think.
Surrogacy seems to have been a more accepted practice by the more Conservative end of Christianity than you might think.

http://www.modernfamilysurrogacy.com/page/christian_surrogacy

I suppose the logic being that if it was good enough for Abraham..........
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
It's not so much whether surrogacy per se is seen to be wrong, it's how it plays out in practice, often exploiting poor women with few options. It was that that made me think of it.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
This whole discussion can not be hived off from the thinking behind why Johns become Johns.

I remember a number of media stories from the last 2 decades about those who end up at "John school", the "scared straight" attempt to educate Johns about why buying sex was bad. The success was mixed.

Some of the men just didn't understand what the issue was. They were far away from home and wanted something that somebody was willing to take for pay. The argument was that transaction was better then abstinence and far more acceptable to them culturally then porn/masturbation.

Harm reduction is of primary importance in a world where that world view exists.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
So why is using a person in an impersonal way that almost certainly does not pleasure that person more acceptable than self-pleasuring? Because the culture says that the latter is wronger than a wrong thing?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Removing sex from the equation, how different is this to a whole bunch of exploitative jobs?
It's more exploitative than most..

We've been here many times over the matter of who exploiting who where sex work is concerned. I'm not talking pimps exploiting unwilling sex workers, neither clouding the argument over what sex workers do with there earnings, (drugs, drink, feeding kids, putting an extension on the house or whatever). This still isn't the essential moral point.

One person is prepared to do something for money another person is prepared to pay that money--- a transaction made between two people. Who am I to morally judge that situation? Besides which, even if I did want to make a judgement it certainly wouldn't be based on anything the church has got to say about it. Anyone here watched The Borgias ?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Removing sex from the equation, how different is this to a whole bunch of exploitative jobs?
It's more exploitative than most..
Well at the extremes of treating people as things I think we can all agree that such things are exploitative.

[Note; but how much more uniquely so than (to pick a few examples of things that people here are likely to be consumers of); the migrant builders crammed into 20 foot shipping containers, who have their passports stolen and are forced to work on the skyscrapers of the Gulf with inadequate safety equipment, or the slaves on the cocoa plantations of Ghana who are worked till they drop, or those forced to work in the diamond mines in west africa (whose tormentors found that the best way of motivating their workers was to threaten to amputate their children's limbs). ALL of these things to my mind seem to be driven by the attitude of treating people as things or (to misquote the OP) "I have paid for this person and I can do what the f**k i want with them"]

The thing is is that prostitution exists on a continuum. Not every prostitute is the mistress of a multi national millionaire businessmen, equally - at least in the west - the best data we have is that the sorts of cases highlighted in that article are rare - yes unfortunate, but very rare.

The groups that work most with sex workers attest to this numerous times. It's also attested to in the aftermaths of the various high profile raids that sweep big cities, usually the initial headlines are of hundreds of prostitutes being detained due to trafficking, actual charges are vanishingly rare. A lot of the most egregious cases occur within ghettoised minority groups. Reports like that by Amnesty were driven by their finding that a large number of sex workers were simply trying to make a modest living - rather than drag addled addicts sleeping with 20 men a night in order to make their next fix. [See also Eutychus' original post - his experience seems to be one reflected by a large number of the organisations that work in this area]

Even if you believe that this is not an ideal state of affairs, the question that arises is 'what next ?'. The Swedish model ? The biggest effect of criminalising either side, will be to drive the whole thing underground, where it is less easy to keep an eye on. The day after her johns are criminalised, what is the average prostitute actually supposed to do?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The reason sex for money is worse could be because it is actually designed by God as a loving affirmation between two people. It might be therefore more on a continuum with restaurants (the exchange of food is also an expression of affirmation between two people) and handshakes. Which mostly do not involve money or profit.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
So why is using a person in an impersonal way that almost certainly does not pleasure that person more acceptable than self-pleasuring? Because the culture says that the latter is wronger than a wrong thing?
I don't like the idea either but that's how some people think.

That having been said, there's a lot of pejorative assumptions in those two sentences.

"using"
"impersonal"
"almost certainly does not"

I wouldn't assume that unless I talked to Johns. I havn't. Anybody seen any research on how Johns think of their "escorts"?

Likewise, any actual research on what sex workers think of all this? I see a lot of discussion in here that assumes a lot of stuff and one thing I now from my social worker days, never assume how and what people think - ask them.


While the transaction is happening, reduce harm.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
While the transaction is happening, reduce harm.
This much, I agree with. The bleary-eyed glorification of sex work I've seen on this thread, not so much.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This much, I agree with. The bleary-eyed glorification of sex work I've seen on this thread, not so much.
Indeed. I recalled the parody of the 1970s book "The Joy of Sex", The Job of Sex: A Workingman's Guide to Productive Lovemaking.

Perhaps we can farm out this type of work to robots in the future. [Help]
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
quote:
Likewise, any actual research on what sex workers think of all this? I see a lot of discussion in here that assumes a lot of stuff and one thing I now from my social worker days, never assume how and what people think - ask them.
The article from New York Magazine that I linked to earlier on the thread had some of this in it.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
On behalf of the large number of people called John who are not now, and never have been, users of prostitutes, can we have another word for the latter, please?

And Og, I was responding to your own comment about the ideas of the users, which apparently referred to interviews with them. And didn't seem to acknowledge that what they thought of the women was relevant.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
After skimming through three pages of this discussion, I am struck at how little is said about how Jesus approached the subject.

Is being a sex worker compatible with Christianity?

Well, Jesus was constantly being accused of eating with prostitutes.

There is only one instance where we are told that he told a woman who was about to be stoned (probably because she had been charging too high of a price for her services--either that or because she knew too much about the men in the village) to go and sin no more.

No other indication that he asked other prostitutes to reform their ways.

Thing of it is, back in his day, if a woman lost her husband, or the husband divorced her, there was very little recourse for survival other than prostituting oneself.

Now I have in interesting proposition: there were a number of very wealthy women--Mary Magdalene being one of them--who may have taken in some of these "soiled" women and taught them a trade or other ways to make a living--but this would be arguing from silence.

No, Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. We do know she was wealthy but that was because she shrewd business woman. I am going to comment more on this in Kerygmania.

Point is I think you can name nearly every profession and ask if what is being done in that profession is compatible with Christianity. But Jesus never demands anyone lives up to his standards he just accepts them for who they were. Okay, he did seem to have problems with religious leaders but that was because of their hypocritical lifestyle.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

I wouldn't assume that unless I talked to Johns. I havn't. Anybody seen any research on how Johns think of their "escorts"?
They was a T.V programme a while back about UK males who purchased to services of female sex workers. It was quite informative, most of those interviewed seemed perfectly happy with what they were about.

As one gentleman pointed out. Which is the most immoral?
Going to a club or pub and looking for a female to ply with booze, bullshit etc. solely for the purpose of coaxing her into the bedroom. Or simply saying to someone willing to sell the same-- "here's the payment".
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
But those aren't the only choices.

There are cups of tea that could be drunk, films that could be watched, relationships that could be developed, licit and illicit substances that could be abused with or without company and many other options.

No-one is forced to adopt a method of exploiting another human being for sex.
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I wouldn't assume that unless I talked to Johns. I havn't. Anybody seen any research on how Johns think of their "escorts"?


Not research. Anecdotally the handful of guys I know who have talked to me about this haven't talked much about the women. They were regretful about their own actions but usually because of the effect on their own lives. One guy talks about it as if it were a status symbol, the ability to buy sex usually gets mentioned in the same breath as using drugs and driving flashy cars. All things he now puts into a category that can't make you happy.

quote:
Likewise, any actual research on what sex workers think of all this? I see a lot of discussion in here that assumes a lot of stuff and one thing I now from my social worker days, never assume how and what people think - ask them.


There's plenty of bloggers who are sex workers if you look around a little. The ones I've read are pro decriminalisation and activists for SW's rights. Which I guess means in terms of 'research' they're biased as they're blogging because they're activists, arguably the (hypothetical) ones happy with the status quo have no need to write about it.

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Well, Jesus was constantly being accused of eating with prostitutes.


He was, and he did. Doesn't tell us he approved of what they did, just tells us he was willing to be with them anyway.

quote:
There is only one instance where we are told that he told a woman who was about to be stoned (probably because she had been charging too high of a price for her services--either that or because she knew too much about the men in the village) to go and sin no more.


We're not told she was a prostitute, just that she was "caught in the act of adultery".


quote:
But Jesus never demands anyone lives up to his standards he just accepts them for who they were. Okay, he did seem to have problems with religious leaders but that was because of their hypocritical lifestyle.
"Be perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect." Matt 5:48.

Lest I be accused of 'proof-texting' this is one of many occasions where Jesus sets a high standard for his followers. Whenever he references the OT law he always raises the bar. I'm amazed anyone can read the gospels and still think he never asks us to live up to his standards. He does. He knows we'll fail and loves and restores us, but he never lowers the standard for us.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:


Perhaps we can farm out this type of work to robots in the future. [Help]
Why not? If anyone considers it demeaning to use a sex doll or robot but not to use a prostitute for sex, why might that be?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
After skimming through three pages of this discussion, I am struck at how little is said about how Jesus approached the subject.

Is being a sex worker compatible with Christianity?

Well, Jesus was constantly being accused of eating with prostitutes.


Jesus ate with everyone, he ate with tax collectors, he ate with Judas. Clearly "eating with," doesn't mean "approve of everything they do," to Jesus.

quote:
There is only one instance where we are told that he told a woman who was about to be stoned (probably because she had been charging too high of a price for her services--either that or because she knew too much about the men in the village) to go and sin no more.

Leaving aside your imagination about why she was being stoned -- Jesus only turned over the tables of the merchants in the temple one time. How many repetitions of any one thing do you need to get his message?

quote:

Thing of it is, back in his day, if a woman lost her husband, or the husband divorced her, there was very little recourse for survival other than prostituting oneself.

This is why Jesus keeps exhorting us to help the widows and orphans, he didn't expect them to resort to immoral activity, he expected the rest of us to take care of them. I'm sure, back in his day, many thieves were just trying to survive. The commandment remains, that we should not steal. Jesus said that he did not come to change the law.

quote:
Now I have in interesting proposition: there were a number of very wealthy women--Mary Magdalene being one of them--who may have taken in some of these "soiled" women and taught them a trade or other ways to make a living--but this would be arguing from silence.


Yes, that's possible, but if this is part of your argument that Jesus thought prostitution was okay then why would they need to be taught a new trade?

quote:
Point is I think you can name nearly every profession and ask if what is being done in that profession is compatible with Christianity. But Jesus never demands anyone lives up to his standards he just accepts them for who they were. Okay, he did seem to have problems with religious leaders but that was because of their hypocritical lifestyle.
I do think we need to ask if our profession, what ever it is, is compatible with the Christian lifestyle. Just because Jesus forgives us when we fail to live up to high standards doesn't mean we should set out deliberately to fail. Should we sell real estate and lie to our buyers about the structural faults of the house? Should we promise to fix someone's fence, take some of the money up front, then fail to complete the job? Should we sell faulty cribs to parents? Should we cheat on our taxes? I always worked in banks and I was uncomfortably aware of how Jesus felt about money lenders. I knew I would not be able to allow myself to work at the sort of "Title Loan," business that took your car if you failed to pay back or any business who's interest rates bordered on usury. Just thinking of myself I know Jesus would not "just accept," the fact that I'm divorced or my anger issues. I believe his standards for us are very exacting.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The biggest effect of criminalising either side, will be to drive the whole thing underground, where it is less easy to keep an eye on. The day after her johns are criminalised, what is the average prostitute actually supposed to do?
What is this "keep an eye on," and what good does it really do?

As for the day after her clients are criminalized -- a half-way house would be great or a temporary shelter. Rehab for addicts would also be very good. She should be told where to go to apply for welfare and subsidized housing. She should be helped to find work. Even during times of high unemployment, there are usually lots of low-level jobs in fast food and hotel cleaning. If none of this help is available I still think she may be better off in the long run. If she stays in prostitution and manages to stay alive for ten years, her age will probably make her unable to find much work. Those ten years could have been spent working her way up in a legal occupation.

------------------[The rest is "in general" and not directed at [Chris]

Prostitution is absolutely not the same thing as a date that ends in sex. Quite possibly the man is wining and dining the woman in the hope of ending the evening with sex, but at least he has had a few hours to get to know her, the chance of falling in love, possibly sharing a life together is there. She can say no at any time and is treated with dignity, we hope. It's a big difference.

This sort of subject always seems to come with an undertone that those who are against sex work are being judgmental. Someone always asks, "Who are we to judge them?" Well no one is judging anyone here. There is no individual whom we are pointing at and no one has suggested anyone involved in sex work is going to burn in hell so just drop that self-satisfied judging of us.

We are asking the question of whether or not this is a desirable occupation for any woman and particularly for one who is trying to live a Christian life. Ask yourself if you would want to do it? Ask if you would want your daughter or sister to live this life?

Think for one minute about protecting these women instead of looking around for someone who you might think is judging them. Believe me, being "judged," by some anonymous, stereotypical church lady is the very least of their problems. Being beaten to death by their next trick -- that's their problem.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

What is this "keep an eye on," and what good does it really do?
I have no idea where you are, but at least in the UK the local police and health services generally know where all the brothels and make regular and discreet visits and occasionally information flows both ways.

quote:
She should be told where to go to apply for welfare and subsidized housing. She should be helped to find work.
A large number of them are also working other jobs.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Chris Stiles, some time ago, you said that you had no idea where I lived; now you say the same to Twilight. If you look at the bottom line of a post, you can often see a location for the poster. Mine gives suburb, state and country; Twilight gives Ohio; and I see that you are in Berkshire - I assume that's the one in the UK rather than in Massachusetts.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The debate seems quite polarizing in France where paying for sex has just been made illegal. There seem to be quite different approaches within Europe with Sweden, Norway and Iceland preceding France in making sex work illegal, but Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands having legal brothels.

[ 09. April 2016, 11:58: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Well, that's the EU for you. You have to have the same rules and regulations in each member state. Loss of sovereignty, I tell you...
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, that's the EU for you. You have to have the same rules and regulations in each member state. Loss of sovereignty, I tell you...
... yes the day is soon coming where all European Johns and Janes will be paying for their sex work in Euros-- Disgraceful!
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If anyone considers it demeaning to use a sex doll or robot but not to use a prostitute for sex, why might that be?
Could it be something to do with the fact that you don't get to strike a deal with a robot? I doubt if the allure in the buying and selling of sexual activity is purely down to the sex itself.

An interesting point in the link about the criminalisation of prostitution in France, (a place many associate with the romanticized Parisian brothel), is that the penalty will be for purchaser not the vendor of sex acts.
Apparently this model has been tried in Sweden since 1999 and elsewhere, so presumably there is some mileage in it.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Tuppy Owens, who set up Outsiders, along with many sex workers, are furious at the French ban - as it has the unintended consequences of cutting off sexual contact from the people lowest down the sociosexual totem pole... some of the most disabled and isolated folks...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd be interested in y'all's take on this story on this topic.
It shows how closed minded some people are to it, especially the authorities where she should have been given a safe haven and a listening ear, as well as the action she called for to release others and arrest the perpetrators.
I have to confess to a certain degree of scepticism with respect to some parts of the story.

I don't doubt the general miserable conditions of prostitution and trafficked individuals, but her story sounds embroidered to me.

From the article you'll note that she gets citizenship in return for her testimony. I'm fairly sure that in return for citizenship, some prostitutes will tell investigators what they want to hear and not necessarily the truth, or name the right names. I'm not saying she did that, but I am pointing out yet another of the less-remarked-on twists and turns of this issue.
IME, this story is much closer to common than the Belle de Jour type accounts. Of course, there will be many in-between as well. But just how much abuse and exploitation is acceptable?
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

While the transaction is happening, reduce harm.
There is a programme in Holbeck, Leeds which attempts to do this. It is controversial and not perfect, but seems to have reduced harm to the people who were going to be engaging in prostitution regardless.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0