Because there is nothing new about women selling their bodies for sex, is not justification enough for the tolerance of prostitutes on our streets today. The images of the five unfortunate Suffolk women displayed on our TV screens nightly reminds us of the ultimate dangers of life as a ‘working girl’. The great majority of these women had been taking the well-known risks of prostitution to fund further risk-taking behaviour with drugs, invariably using heroin or crack (or both).
This appalling case in Suffolk has stimulated a further debate about the most effective way to handle one of the oldest professions known to the human race. What should society’s attitude be to women (and men) selling their bodies for sex? And where do you draw the line as to what “selling your body” constitutes? Are lap dancers acceptable? What about lingerie models? Indeed, what about any photographic model? My own reaction to the appalling events in Ipswich is to wish that working girls did not exist. The list of things I wished did not exist, however, is not a short one. What about paedophiles, heroin, racism? And not wanting something to exist certainly does not help those trapped in the position that these five women found themselves.
I do not have a daughter so I have no way of knowing how the fathers of the five women in Ipswich feel about each daughter’s apparent daily existence. What I do know is that I hope that no daughter of mine is ever a working girl. I hope that no daughter of mine ever feels the need to raise money in that fashion to feed an opiate drug habit. But what if she was a working girl. How would I want my daughter treated by society in those circumstances? For how she was treated would, on the evidence of the last few weeks in Suffolk, influence her personal health and ultimate security.
A few thousand years ago the picture above adorned the interior of a Roman brothel. How further forward has our policy on prostitution moved in the last two millennia? By calling for the re-introduction of brothels are some commentators going back in time or are they being realistic about human behaviour? Are those who call for more “traditional” policies denying the truth about people’s sexual behaviour? It would on the face of it appear to be an argument of pragmatism versus idealism. Arguments about social policy often are like this.
I am not sure where I stand on this issue. Instinctively, I tend towards pragmatism when it comes to social policy, however, if I do not want any future daughter of mine to be a working girl, then why should I tolerate someone else’s child being one? As it stands today, though, I would rather live in a society that protects its citizens, whatever their chosen form of employment, than condemn them to darkened streets so that they may be more easily preyed upon by murderers and rapists. Just because we cannot see something occurring does not mean that it does not happen. Allowing the present situation to continue makes us all complicit in the murders of working girls today, in the past and in the future.
December 20th, 2006 - 9:35 am
Come on, come off the fence. The solution to this seems pretty obvious, I think. Allow only heavily regulated brothels which are closely inspected to ensure people trafficing is not taking place and that women with drugs problems are getting the help they need. Then make illegal the buying of and the organisation of the sale of sex other than at these licenced tax-paying establishements (a stealth tax we all agree with?. However, decriminalise the prostitutes themselves and lock up the pimps and curb crawlers. Is this too simplistic?
December 20th, 2006 - 11:07 am
I admit to being very uncomfortable astride this particular fence. Honestly though, I have problems with society legalising prostitution – how many women had dreams of growing up to be working girls? My difficulty stems from both the realities I have encountered in clinical practice and my own libertarian streak (which runs deep). Opiate drug users are very vulnerable because of the strength of their addiction – to get that hit a user will do almost anything. However, I am uncomfortable about denying a woman's right to choose to be a 'working girl'. And if she does choose that form of emlpoyment, she should have access to appropriate and effective health services.
Hence this is why I find myself on the fence. If I had to commit to a policy, I suspect, as I indicated in my original posting, I would pragmatically support the introduction of legalised brothels (with the regulatory framework you suggest). More agreement Graeme. It must be the Christmas spirit flowing……..
February 7th, 2010 - 7:52 pm
hi
it was so good, please send me some more!
March 3rd, 2011 - 10:05 pm
This is an interesting debate that has been ongoing for many years in Thailand, and if you wish to seriously research the relevancies of legalising brothels as opposed to decriminalising prostitution, then you could do far worse than checking through the online archives of CityLife ChiangMai magazine (http://www.citylife-citylife.com (if I remember correctly)).
They surveyed at length and reported deeply on the issues and feelings of the women involved, and included much input from NGO and representation groups for the women and the establishments where they worked.
The over-riding concensus was that all involved in the industry preferred decriminalisation to legalisation – the difference is subtle. Legalisation would simply bond them via legal measures into working for legalised pimps. Decriminalisation would allow them the same place of employment freedoms accorded to all other worker groups. With decriminalisation, they would be free to form “unions” and support groups, to arrange collectives and health care etc. With legalisation, they would be forced to accept only what employers were willing to offer, and would be “herd” managed in licensed establishments.
When the series completed (and it was/is a monthly publication) the debaters from the “puritan” side of the fence concurred that the arguments put forward by the women were more sensible and practical than those from anyone else.
Agreed, licensed premises allow a modicum of locale control under planning and business use regulations, but run the risk of creating “mafia-like” control groups within those licensed. All who have studied the topic consider the free enterprise model for the women themselves, to be the preferable choice from legislature.
The one aspect you did not address however, and extremely pertinent in today’s post-Labour Britain, is the Immigration effect. Not the trafficked peoples side of it – that is sufficiently covered already – but whether it should or would be acceptable for masses of EEA and non-EEA nationals from poorer countries to arrive in the UK and immediately set up as prostitutes and brothel staff.
Should it be an employ reserved only for locals? Is that a debate for the Euro MPs to handle, or should it be a matter for local rather than EU legislation?
That is a whole new fence to sit upon, and one that has barbed wire along the top, so you’d need to jump down on one side or the other, rather quickly.