all 40 comments

[–]DistantGlimmer 19 insightful - 5 fun19 insightful - 4 fun20 insightful - 5 fun -  (4 children)

No. I support the Nordic model. Go after the demand and the pimps of course.

[–]catoborosnonbinary 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This model is a failure because it causes secrecy. It was imposed on sex workers. By comparison, New Zealand's 2003 decriminalisation is a great success because it was led by sex workers. See my other comment.

[–]DistantGlimmer 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have no desire to see prostituted women punished as they are largely victims of a predatory industry however I think prostitution itself is very harmful and I don't see how completely decriminalizing it will deter it.

You say the New Zealand law is a great success but I wonder from what point of view? There are always interviews with the small minority of women who sell sex voluntarily and find this "liberating" we rarely if ever hear from the true victims.

[–]SnowAssMan 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

How come legalisation of prostitution in Germany didn't eliminate any of the common issues associated with it (exploitation of the economically vulnerable, theft, rape, murder, trafficking, etc.)?

[–]Spikygrasspod 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's a success because it reduces demand. Reducing demand matters, because most of the women and girls who are 'supplied' are coerced in one way or another--financially, emotionally, physically. They are taken from the most vulnerable, poor populations. The stories they tell are horrific. It is, in general, an industry of abuse, even if there are some exceptions.

[–]SilverSlippers 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No. Its a very very tiny fraction of prostitutes. I think the efforts on prostitution should focus on jailing pimps and johns, not the women. Pretty much all women who enter prostitution 'voluntarily' do so because they believe it is their only option. If prostitution will help feed their kids or pay rent, they may feel like the need to do it.

[–]SnowAssMan 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

that would be like arresting the victim of a crime. It'd be like asking if we were in favour of putting rape victims in jail. Arrest the johns. Exploiting someone is a crime, not being exploited.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The ones who force them to do this should be charged and imprisoned.

When USSR crashed and burned, our economics was the ruins, and many our women were forced to prostitution to repay debts, and many our men were forced to basically slavery to repay debts. Both of sexes were working illegaly and were not payed at all, they had place to live and some food, and all job they were doing was going to pay the debt, and their work was very hard and had payment strongly below the reasonable margin. Men were mostly working by doing the hardest or most dangerous to life (with chemicals without protective costumes, etc) works, while women were mostly engaged in prostitution. And I see no reason why such men's labour is outlaved, but literally the same thing - prostitution is "fine" and defended.

After all those problems are solved, then maybe controlled by goverment form of sexual work with licensing can be possible legal work, without any consequences to anyone and without anyone forcing others to do so.

[–]Maeven 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Prostitution is even more dangerous than those dangerous slave labor types jobs. There's nothing more dangerous. They are being killed, injured by johns and pimps and they are dying of drug overdose and suicide, deaths of desperation.

The solution is finding real jobs for these women not trying to create a legalization scheme that just emboldens the sex traffickers.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I suppose that "job" have a lot of illegal abortions too, which harm women's bodies.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

No. Fuck all women choose to prostitute themselves and they are usually not the ones going to jail anyway. Simply educate and offer training in some marketable skill.

Why do you keep asking these questions if you don’t accept that what one woman chooses is not great for women as a whole?

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Well this is a debate sub, where we debate opposing views. I believe women are entitled to make their own choices. For example, Cardi B. On other women dominated forums (like babycenter), everyone says it's empowering that Cardi B can sing about sexuality. These women may or may not identify as feminists. Gender Critical feminists are the only group so far who I heard criticized Cardi B.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And can you entertain our ideas even a little? Like, can you explain why it’s positive other than because some women say it is?

[–]firebird 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Gender Critical feminists are the only group so far who I heard criticized Cardi B.

Maybe the only ones you heard, but not the only ones in general. Over on Twitter I've seen plenty of people criticizing it. The amount of dislikes on the video is too high to be just GC people.

It's just that the second someone criticizes it, they are called conservative and racist, or when they're men, they're automatically considered misogynists.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I just went looking for criticism of the song, and I'm disgusted that more feminists aren't speaking out. This song celebrates derogatory slurs and pain and degradation, and not one woman who isn't a conservative will speak about it? Maybe I'm just missing the articles.

[–]firebird 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I haven't seen any articles on it either, just regular people on social media concerned about the message.

The most common reason women and feminists in particular don't speak about it more, seems to be because they consider it a song about female sexual pleasure, and in that sense it would be a good thing. Or they consider it some kind of role reversal. Never mind that it's neither. Maybe not the best example (it's just the first I could think of), but I think something like Ex's & Oh's did both better.

It worries me though. This is being described as "an already iconic song about women sexuality". They've already generalized it. And I haven't seen anyone wonder what the input was of the three men who co-wrote the song either.

[–]worried19 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

This is what I don't understand. It's not about women's power. It's about women calling themselves "whores" and talking about how much they like pain and want to choke on penis and be spit on. Why are people saying this is about women's dominance? It's clearly nothing of the kind. It's about a woman who has sex for money and materialistic perks, and in the course of having that sex allows men to do violent things to her body. Has mainstream society become so sickened by porn that they believe this is both natural to women and powerful for women?

Why are conservative dudes from The National Review the only ones able to point out a problem here?

[–]firebird 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Has mainstream society become so sickened by porn that they believe this is both natural to women and powerful for women?

I think so, yes. Combined with "regular" misogyny. The idea that women are just naturally submissive never really died, so then them chasing it in the bedroom seems logical, I guess.

In the end it just comes down to perspective. If you just warp it enough, you can turn anything into something empowering. The people doing the warping know it's not actually empowering, and the people seeing the message have grown so accustomed to similar ones that they believe it immediately.

Thanks for sharing the article, by the way. It was an interesting read. I don't think I'm anywhere near conservative, but they made a pretty solid analysis on how this impacts different groups and such.

[–]worried19 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The article seems like common sense to me.

“Critiquing ‘WAP’ as degrading, dehumanizing art is a camouflage for critiquing Black womanhood as a problematic expression.”

I try to avoid talking about race because I'm white from an extremely white area, but holy fuck, this comment from a defender of the song is highly offensive. They're saying this song represents black womanhood and black female sexuality. Good God, black women being portrayed as prostitutes and gold diggers who want to be slapped around is supposed to be empowering for black women and girls?

I did find one article from a black woman with some criticism:

[–]firebird 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The trick for figuring out if something is empowering or not, is checking if the people who are actually in power are doing it. White men are definitely not portrayed this way, let alone that they would portray themselves this way, so the conclusion should be clear.

And regardless of the message, you'd think that proclaiming a song performed by just two people as representative for an entire demographic would be offensive enough on its own.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Pornsickness spreading to general media. Get spit or pissed on by men because YOU love it ladies! Take charge and take slaps to the face like a boss babe.

The cognitive dissonance to call it empowering as a woman is astounding.

[–]eddyelric 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Women are entitled to smoke crack but that is not a good thing and it's not good to make that into a social virtue. Same with prostitution.

[–]Maeven 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No. I do not want women punished for their own exploitation.

I seriously doubt any woman is making a substantial income on prostitution, because if women could earn enough to save they could escape and most want to escape. The sheer amount of abuse and danger involved with johns and pimps make it so. But her income is irrelevant. That's hush money to keep her quiet about the abuse. If someone is given $1m hush money by her rapist, she still didn't do anything wrong.

[–]worried19 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Of course not. I've never heard anyone say they're in favor of putting women in jail.

It's a statistically irrelevant number, anyway.

[–]burninglikeabridge 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why do you care so much if women are making "big bucks"?

I dont like the word prostitution, most women are being sexually exploited in one way or another. But if someone doesn't want to stop doing something jail isn't going to help them magically change their mind.

[–]questioningtw 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No real feminist wants to see prostituted women go to jail! It is the pimps and johns that need to be charged and they rarely are. I am for the Nordic model. BTW, places with legal prostitution have not been a "huge success" you should read about the Hell's Angels running an illegal brothel in Germany. And I don't believe for a second that things are somehow different in New Zealand.

[–]Lilmishap 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Voluntarily - Done without any desire for or expectation of payment. The exact opposite of doing something for payment.

No I don't think women should be imprisoned or charged for accepting money, the people making mega bucks will NOT get charged, only the most vulnerable women WILL. They are the ones most likely to be poor, desperate and exploited.

[–]catoborosnonbinary 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

No. Nor their clients. New Zealand's decriminalisation works very well because the reform was led by sex workers.

Prostitution was decriminalised in New Zealand in 2003. In 2018, Catherine Healy, who as a member of the New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective led the reform, was appointed a Dame Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit, for services to the rights of sex workers. (That is the feminine form of a knighthood; I do not think she carries a sword.)

[–]anonymale 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

New Zealand's decriminalisation works very well because the reform was led by sex workers.

Yeah, sounds like it:

"I thought it would give more power and rights to the women," she says. "But I soon realised the opposite was true." One problem was that it allowed brothel owners to offer punters an "all-inclusive" deal, whereby they would pay a set amount to do anything they wanted with a woman. "One thing we were promised would not happen was the 'all-inclusive'," says Valisce. "Because that would mean the women wouldn't be able to set the price or determine which sexual services they offered or refused - which was the mainstay of decriminalisation and its supposed benefits."

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I still think clients should be treated as criminals. What’s the benefit of decriminalising the purchase of sex for the buyer?

[–]catoborosnonbinary 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

There is no benefit to criminalising consensual sex between adults. Many people engage in transactional sex. Vilifying one type gains nothing. All that happens is that secrecy is introduced and that participants are less likely to cooperate with police. Just like the war on drugs. Just like the prohibition on alcohol. Prosecuting victimless crimes is a poor alternative to addressing the underlying economic inequalities that are at the root of the problems associated with the sex industry. Much like prosecuting people for homelessness (vagrancy), punitive measures miss the point.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Is it really consensual sex if the woman has the choice between feeding her kids after selling sex or watching them go to bed hungry without selling sex?

Trafficked women are not consenting. Those women make up far more of the women you’re talking about than women who want to make a quick hundred bucks for a blowjob.

There is massive benefit to criminalising johns and using the fines to find somewhere for those hungry kids to eat.

Prostitution is barely consensual. The prostitutes are the victims, it’s absolutely not victimless.

[–]catoborosnonbinary 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Is it really consensual sex if the woman has the choice between feeding her kids after selling sex or watching them go to bed hungry without selling sex?

There are many women whose marriages are little better. There are many men who sell sex. Transgender women were also overrepresented amongst sex workers (but I do not know whether this is still the case).

There is massive benefit to criminalising johns

Decriminalisation has allowed stronger policing of laws against coercion and a great reduction in those under 18 in the sex industry (because it is illegal).

Trafficked women are not consenting.

New Zealand prohibits sex work by those other than citizens and permanent residents for this very reason. Legal brothels will not let trafficked women work because they would be shut down. They are also incentivised to report illegal brothels (their competition).

Prostitution is barely consensual.

New Zealand's regime aims at harm minimisation. Prostitution is going to happen, and less harm occurs if it is done in an environment in which those involved have recourse to the law for protection against coercion and other criminality. We also permit up to two sex workers to work from a residential premises; this allows self-employment, removing brothel operators from the relationship. Not so great for the neighbours, who complain about late-night vehicle movements.

One downside of decriminalisation for sex workers is that their tax compliance in more strictly policed.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

There are many women whose marriages are little better. There are many men who sell sex. Transgender women were also overrepresented amongst sex workers (but I do not know whether this is still the case).

And? How does this make sex work to avoid destitution more or less consensual?

Decriminalisation has allowed stronger policing of laws against coercion and a great reduction in those under 18 in the sex industry (because it is illegal). How? Sources?

Prostitution is barely consensual. New Zealand's regime aims at harm minimisation.

This is unrelated to the fact that prostitution is barely consensual...

What specifically minimises the harm here? How does any of this protect against rape or abuse or stds? How does any of this prevent grooming? How does any of this establish clear and accessible routes out of prostitution? How does this answer in any way my points about women in poverty having a choice between prostitution or hungry kids, and how it’s not really a choice?

[–]catoborosnonbinary 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Sex workers have lower rates of STIs than the general population. Some people choose to work in the sex industry because of the high hourly pay and flexible working conditions, despite the unpleasant or distasteful work, because they prefer it over cleaning toilets for minimum wage. Reasons for wanting money can range from lifestyle to drug addiction. NZ has social welfare and fully taxpayer funded health and education, especially for kids. People leave the sex industry when they want. Prohibition does nothing to help.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

None of this is relevant to my points and totally ignores the fact that most prostitutes want out.

“ 1998 survey of 475 women who were involved in prostitution, ninety-two percent of them said they wanted to leave prostitution but couldn’t because they lack basic human services such as a home, job training, health care, counseling and treatment for drug or alcohol addiction”

“ One small study of 130 prostitutes found that 68% of the prostituted women interviewed met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which was in the same range as combat veterans and victims of torture.”

You’re choosing to ignore this in favour of the glamorised call girl trope which isnt what’s really happening.

Do you have any responses to the points raised or just more irrelevant and unsourced feelings.

[–]catoborosnonbinary 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

And you are completely ignoring my point that criminalisation does not reduce harm. A minority prostitute themselves because they like it over other options; in a free society, we should respect their choice, even if we do not agree with it. Most prostitute themselves through economic necessity; on this, we are in complete agreement. One proven solution is to provide the basic human services you list. One other proven solution is to decriminalise the sex industry to eliminate the worst abuses: child prostitution, slavery, trafficking, and police corruption. Criminalisation is not a solution to social deprivation. This has been discussed in depth through the legislative process in my country, including select committee enquiries, passed into legislation, and tested in practice for 17 years. Nobody is saying that prostitution is good, only that criminalisation increased harm.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

None of this explains why we shouldn’t criminalise johns and pimps.

Like, prostitutes are being harmed by the current state as another commenter in this thread mentioned. Clearly decriminalising has not made prostitution out of necessity any more consensual either.

Respecting the so-called choice to sell ones body in order to survive does not involve calling it consensual and the same as employment. People who scrub toilets don’t get ptsd from it.