People aren’t angels woven of light, but neither are they beasts to be driven into stalls. – Vladimir Korolenko
One year ago today I published “November Miscellanea (Part One)”, which reported on an attempt by the U.S. Congress to censor the internet; the fact that the U.S. government hides the proof that 95% of “missing children” are simply living with the parent they prefer rather than the one to which clueless judges assigned custody; the widespread resistance to the HPV vaccine; weird search terms; a Los Angeles man who reacted violently to a proposal rejection; and prostitute “Don’t Panic” plans. These stories were all U.S. based, but today we’ll look at several stories from the “other side of the pond”. The first two are from the U.K. and demonstrate once again why legalization (rather than decriminalization) does no good for sex workers; this one’s from the October 6th Lancashire Evening Post:
A man who ran a brothel masquerading as a ‘gentleman’s club’ has been told to pay back almost £750,000 of his ill-gotten gains – or face prison. John Williams Burrows, 63, funded a “lavish lifestyle” from the proceeds of the business…he pleaded guilty…to managing the brothel…and…was given a 10-month prison term suspended for 18 months. But now, a Proceeds of Crime Act hearing at Manchester’s Minishull Street Crown Court has ordered him to pay back £742,759.83. He must pay in six months or face four years in jail, after which he would still owe the money…He could now be forced to sell his assets and hand over his savings to meet the POCA ruling.
Other residents in the remote Hough Clough Lane area said they were shocked by the news…[a spokesman for the police] said: “Brothels are a blight on our communities and we fully understand the concerns of residents who live in or near areas affected by the illegal sex industry. Burrows enjoyed a lavish lifestyle from the exploitation of young women. He has a property portfolio that will now have to be sold to fund this repayment”…[another] said: “This shows that anyone who profits from criminal acts will be pursued through the courts and we will do everything in our power to seize their assets.”
As you can see, the fact that prostitution is legalized in the UK doesn’t stop the persecution of sex businesses, the overblown dysphemisms, the governmental propaganda against sex work and the use of excuses to justify blatant money-grabbing (how can one “pay back” money to the government that didn’t come from the government in the first place?) Change the “£” to “$” and the names of places and institutions, and this is indistinguishable from an American news story. The same could be said of the following “sex trafficking” story from the October 4th Northumberland Journal:
A sex trafficker has been jailed for three years and four months for controlling prostitutes in Newcastle and elsewhere around the UK. Stephen Craig, 34, was jailed for arranging travel, accommodation and advertising for 14 women. His co-accused, Sarah Beukan, 22, was jailed for a year and a half for her part in the human trafficking network operated by Craig. They admitted at an earlier hearing to moving 14 people to various addresses…to work as prostitutes…they also provided accommodation for the women to work out of, put out advertisements for their services in newspapers and online, and took a cut from their wages…there is no evidence to suggest Craig and Beukan were trafficking people from overseas into UK…there was “never any pressure, force, threat or compulsion of any kind directed at the women involved”…Detective Inspector Stephen Grant, from Strathclyde Police major investigation teams, said Craig and Beukan were “despicable individuals”.
In other words, Craig and Beukan ran a business. Period. They hired people to do legal work as independent contractors and charged a management fee; part of that covered travel, advertisement and accommodations. And this makes them “despicable individuals”…how? Is Detective Inspector Marx simply opposed to capitalism? Or, as is more likely, is he simply a prancing savage who imagines that sex is magically different from all other human activity unless a shaman shakes his sacred rattles over the couple first? Just as in the United States, prostitutes are imagined to be infantile lackwits who can be “controlled” by anyone male, yet this outrageous sexism is cheered by neofeminists as supportive of “equality”.
I’m not suggesting that legalization is inherently bad for whores; it’s certainly possible to imagine a legalization structure in which we are treated fairly. But as we can see in the U.K. and Canada, most legalization schemes aren’t much better than criminalization and all of them open the door to police and governmental abuse of prostitutes nearly as widely as criminalization does. The previous examples came to my attention through Harlot’s Parlour, but the following example from a different regime (published October 19th on IPS) was sent to me by regular reader Bandoblue:
The severe financial and economic problems in Portugal are driving many women to desperation and pushing them into prostitution as a last resort to support their families. The decision to sell one’s body cannot be taken lightly. But for many mothers the alternative is to condemn their children to hunger, which is why “increasing numbers of women in their thirties, who are victims of the crisis, are resorting to prostitution,” said Inês Fontinha, head of the Associação O Ninho (Nest Association). Fontinha…said that…[in addition to] the fear that is natural in novices to the game, many of…these inexperienced women are also afraid…of falling victim to human trafficking networks, often controlled by the so-called “Eastern mafias”, in comparison with which the local pimps seem almost harmless…
Alexandra Oliveira…a researcher at the Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences at the University of Oporto…[said] “Prostitution should be legalised to make it socially acceptable”…adding that it is still “highly stigmatised”…Her findings indicate that most sex workers, especially streetwalkers, come from the lower socioeconomic strata, have little formal education or professional training, and are from poor backgrounds…
What causes a woman to become a sex worker? IPS asked two women who took up the life because of the crisis. Pamela and Xana (their working names) said they are only in it for the money…”Lots of people mistakenly say that women who prostitute themselves do it for sexual pleasure, but they have no idea why we do what we do,” said Xana, a 29-year-old divorcée from Lisbon with two children she has to “feed, clothe and educate.” Pamela and her partner also split up. “From one day to the next he left home, and when a woman is left on her own with two children and the bills mounting up every day, life becomes pretty grim,” said Pamela, who worked in the textile industry up to a year ago…Both Xana’s and Pamela’s families are unaware of their activities. Most sex workers lead a double life that their relatives do not know about…As for the sex itself, both women stated that they themselves set the rules, defining very clearly what was acceptable and what they were not prepared to do. “We always insist on condoms. It doesn’t matter if a client offers more money to have unprotected sex, we won’t agree,” said Pamela. Can one be happy in such a life? was IPS’ final question. Xana answered for both of them, with Pamela nodding agreement. “When you are constantly judged and condemned, naturally you don’t feel very good…If our line of work was regarded in the same way as any other profession, I think we would feel better about what we do.”
Though the reporter is no less ignorant and the story details are no less lurid and sensationalized than one would find in the U.S. (including the typical emphasis on streetwalkers and pimps), the women are not portrayed as criminals, idiots or wantons, and it is notable that the Myth of the Wanton is specifically refuted by one of the interviewees. Furthermore, though “human trafficking” mythology is unquestioned, the solution proposed by the quoted experts is neither the universal police-state crackdown to which American “authorities” masturbate nor the “end demand” dogma of fanatical neofeminists, but the simple and obvious solution proposed by sex workers the world over: decriminalization, which is mistakenly referred to as “legalization” in the story (prostitution is already legal in Portugal). Considering the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal and the generally more sensible attitude toward sex prevalent in Mediterranean Europe, this is not at all unlikely; there is even hope for a more rational policy in the UK and Canada. Within the next few years it’s entirely possible that the only countries which completely deny women control over our own sex lives will be the U.S., its financially-dependent satellites in East Asia, and other oppressive Asian and African regimes.
The first two stories actually piss me of, especially since the government over here have the nerve to tell unemployed people that they should get unpaid “work experience” at major retailers such as Tescos ASDA (Walmart) Poundland etc…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/nov/16/young-jobseekers-work-pay-unemployment
Whenever big business snaps its fingers you can bet that our dear leaders – sorry – elected representatives will be rolling on the floor with their feet in the air waiting for titbits in the form of a nice fat pension. Our MPs are the biggest whores ever. If I was king for a day I would decree that all politicians during their time in office should have NO other jobs apart from Westminster; that way they wouldn’t have vested interests in passing certain laws and be less vulnerable to “contributions”.
Sorry for the rant.
Well, our Congress in the US may be more corrupt than your MP’s.
We’ve had numerous stories come out in the last few days concerning “insider trading” for sitting Congressmen/women. Both parties seem to be almost equally guilty of it and the funny thing is – it appears that it’s not illegal for them to engage in insider trading. Absolutely stunning. Our congress has written many laws that we’re required to follow – but they’ve exempted themselves from.
One of the Republican candidates for President, in reaction to this, has called for Congress to be made a “part time” Congress with their pay and benefits cut in half. Of course – a part time Congress would also mean a lot less staff … plus, they’d have less time to tend to crazy laws.
Would that candidate have been Ron Paul, perchance? He’s the only one I can think of who’d suggest an out-of-the-box idea like that.
How is it that these folks are actually being found GUILTY of trafficking at trial?
I mean – wouldn’t testimony from the “contractors” be proof enough that they aren’t trafficked individuals? I mean – I can understand judges and prosecutors getting a hard on for this kind of stuff – but the jury’s?
Speaking of which, my parish just sent me a questionnaire for jury duty. Being in the military all those years spared me this duty – but now I guess I’m in line to do it.
Man – I really HOPE I get to sit on a jury in a case where this kind of goofy stuff is happening!
I totally agree that the treatment of the brothel owners in these cases is a farce. But perhaps restricting brothels can have positive benefits for whores and clients. Allow me to explain. In the country where I live, prosititution is decriminalised while pimping and brothel keeping are illegal – this is how the country has chosen to interpret its obligations under various international treaties covering that old monster human trafficking. There are occassional prosecutions of brothel owners but whores are generally left alone, leading to a situation where most prostitutes are independent operators. Typically, one or two women rent an apartment, advertise on low cost sites and take in calls. There’s also a bit of streetwalking in specially designated areas. The few places where there are larger numbers of girls working, and which obviously have some kind of “management”, generally tend to either charge the customer more or as several girls have told me, take about 50 percent of the money. Obviously, as with running any small business compared to working for a boss, there are risks going out on your own, but the financial rewards also seem to be much greater. If the law was different and there were big brothels out in the open, I wonder if economies of scale, marketing clout etc wouldn’t force independents out of the game, a bit like the impact a Walmart has on small retailers. The result would probably be a worse deal for eother the client or the whore because the middle man wants his cut. Of course there would also be some advantages – the city where I am already attracts sex tourists, but I think whores miss out on a lot of business because potential customers are repelled by language difficulties, fear of going to weird neighbourhoods etc. Not everyone wantws to go off the beaten track. As a customer, I like the brothel experience in other countries and would probably partake here. And some whores are prepared to pay the “management fee” in the unofficial brothels because it is more convenient for them – not everyone has what it takes or wants to be an entrepreneur, working for the man has its upside. But on balance, I don’t think the current situation is too bad for the only people who really matter – the whore and the client.
OT: Kristof at the NYT has his usual sleazy “slavery” column today. But the comments are even worse. Here’s one from the demented “Stella Marr” who obsessively comments about prostitution at the NYT — note that the editors chose to “highlight” her comment:
http://tinyurl.com/Demented-comment
You’ll be glad to know that a link placed by one of my readers in a comment on last week’s Kristof column brought me dozens of new readers, and that my upcoming column for the 28th will be on “one-hand” Kristof. As for Stella Marr, I’ve seen her comments before and I’ve noticed the experiences she relates get more and more lurid and graphic with the passing months; if she ever really was a prostitute, she’s been taught by the prohibitionists to “reframe her experiences” (i.e. lie) and the tales get taller every time she tells them.
I am glad to know that.–
Have a good weekend, Maggie. You super-babe. 😉
First – that woman probably has never worked in prostitution. That’s the wonder of the internet – you can be whoever you wish to be. However, now that she’s posted her “personal experience” as a prostitute … and it’s so horrific (more horrific than anything I’ve ever heard) … I guess we can expect her to come out of the closet now and allow the NYT to do a full expose on her experiences? Such a story would have a huge impact on the trafficking debate I’m sure – and I’m sure the editors at the NYT knows this so they should be contacting her in 5,4,3,2 … oh wait … no they won’t because this story is made up.
Second – it doesn’t matter because most people will believe her. That’s why I always tell Maggie that maybe we should take a very hard line on underage prostitution and legitimate instances of trafficking (however rare they are). Personally, I just think we’ve got to pry the prostitution issue out of the trafficking issue somehow. Maggie don’t buy that though … because “prison tough” is how Maggie rolls!
But I mean, seriously – this woman is saying that the sex occurred so often – and in such a rough fashion that she often had to “stumble” into ER’s where they thought she had just had an abortion? Her shoulder dislocated so many times it won’t stay in the socket now? What kind of prostitution ring was she in? And why didn’t she just walk into a Catholic Church somewhere and ask them for safe-haven?
The only plausible part of her story was that there was a cop involved in her “breaking” ritual – almost, almost makes her believable.
If you read a lot of these “survivor” stories you’ll notice they all have a great deal in common; the only thing missing from this one (so far) is the part about how her pimp (or a “john”) once dragged her for several blocks behind his car without her being killed or anyone noticing.
Well – I think that a woman with an incredible story like that ought to come out in the open and tell her story. What’s happened to these brutal pimps of hers? Are they still out there brutalizing other women? Why doesn’t she care to put those guys behind bars?
Certainly a woman who could truthfully recite a first person account of this kind of barbarism would be a valuable asset to the war against TIP, right? So doesn’t she have a bit of a responsibility to do more than just post anonymous stories?
The New York Times seems to be hot and heavy into fighting TIP and this woman is registered on their site – they know her email address – why don’t they contact her and do a full story on her horrible experiences?
It doesn’t make sense … unless of course it’s all malarky and then it all makes sense!
Well, that’s just it; they know better than to look too closely, because the stories usually fall apart when examined.
Stella Mar wishes that there were an “abolitionist” movement so that she would have had the courage to escape? This woman is even more remarkable than we thought: she’s from an alternate universe!! One where there are no efforts to keep prostitution illegal.
You are really callous. Let’s just go off the POSSIBILITY that her story, either in whole or in part, IS TRUE. Then you are being cruel, divisive, and threatening to her in a public forum, further victimizing someone who has already suffered probably more than most of us can ever imagine. We CANNOT KNOW if her story is really true or not, but we do know that there are at least SOME people who are trafficked against their will. Do you really want to be the person who chances further victimizing a TRUE victim? Or further traumatizing another victim (not necessarily this woman) who reads this blog? Rather than assuming the worst and throwing the stones, why not er on the side of caution from traumatizing someone further?
It is one thing to advocate for women who you believe choose to go into the sex industry and enjoy it. And it makes sense that you are frustrated when some abolitionists exaggerate or trample on your domain. It is another thing altogether to attempt to bully true trafficking victims into silence – that is a shameful thing. Even IF this woman is not a true victim of trafficking, they DO EXIST. Any real victim of trafficking would be reading this and trembling in fear from coming out with her story due to the critics and skeptics and stigmatizers who would attack her right away and slander her name all over the internet (as if she doesn’t already feel attacked enough.)
Oh, and one other thing – your comments about publicizing her story are ridiculous. Yes, a select few victims are brave enough to make their faces and locations known to the entire world. But all of the victims I know of from ACTUAL trafficking do not want their names or whereabouts known, because they are AFRAID of the consequences of someone finding them again. Why be so cruel to these women?
I’ve allowed your comment because it’s of a certain type which needs to be answered ONCE.
The reason the current situation of sex work is in the situation it is, with ignorance ruling and facts rejected, is EXACTLY because of pap like this. The world is the world and facts are facts, and no amount of coddling and pretending will change those facts. You’re so VEWWY WOWWIED about the dewicate widdle feewings of self-declared “survivors”, but you’re not at all concerned with the institutionalized mistreatment and persecution of other whores. Your bias is obvious; according to you I only believe women choose sex work, but every “victim” you know is 100% credible. You don’t care about truth, and you don’t care how lies and misinformation are used to convince ignoramuses like yourself that sex is magically different from all other human activity so that the extremely rare woman who was coerced into sex work is somehow different from the rare people who were coerced into anything else in this cruel world. No, to you preserving that ignorance because “somebody’s feelings might be hurt” is a GOOD thing, no matter how many whores in how many countries are arrested, persecuted, marginalized, infected and institutionalized due to laws predicated upon those ignorant ideas…ideas self-proclaimed “survivors” like Stella Marr actively promote in order to advance a tyrannical political agenda which treats normal men like criminals and heterosexual women as moral imbeciles.
People like you nauseate me; your cerebral functions would be more at home in the Middle Ages than in an advanced society which should’ve learned by now the value of truth and the price of ignorance.
“Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter.” – Yoda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3ScAq-l1dc
🙂
I wouldn’t describe prostitution as “legalised” in either Britain or Canada. The act of exchanging sex for money isn’t illegal in either country, but there are so many related aspects that are illegal, it’s hard to be a sex worker without breaking some sort of law. In Britain you basically have to be an indoor worker operating alone; in Canada you have to be an outcall worker. In both cases the “legal” sectors are decriminalised rather than legalised.
In American sex work activism, the situation in Britain and Canada is what we call “legalized”, i.e. subjected to a legal regime, where prostitution itself is legal but nearly nothing about it is. The term “decriminalized” means what exists in New Zealand, in other words the government recognizes that women’s sexual affairs are none of its business. Decriminalization is what most of us want; legalization is what we often have to settle for. I know the terms can be very confusing, especially because they’re used the other way ’round in drug legalization circles.
That’s interesting. How does that framework distinguish between the situations in Britain and Canada, where sex work is only legal to the (small) extent that there aren’t laws specifically prohibiting it, to those in Nevada and parts of Australia (and even New Zealand to a lesser extent) where legislation specifically regulates the conditions under which it can take place? Or does it distinguish them at all?
It doesn’t distinguish them. The term “legalization” applies to any place where a woman can’t be arrested for simply being a whore (as she can in the US and other police states), but can be arrested for violating arbitrary local rules which aren’t applied to anyone else and can differ widely from region to region (in Canada brothels are illegal, in Nevada only brothels are legal). Only when a woman can only be arrested for the same reasons as any other citizen might be is the trade considered “decriminalized”.
OK, I see the logic of what you are saying. I guess when you’re operating in a situation where everything you do is illegal, any amount of relaxation of that law is going to look like “legalising”. Sort of the same way that some Irish people oppose legislating to allow women have abortions in the case of life-threatening pregnancies because to them that is “legalising abortion”. It probably looks different to sex workers actually operating in those regimes though. See for example the FIRST FAQ (from Canada).
Most of the stuff I’ve seen from Canada is calling for decriminalization, because they recognize that legalization is just a sneakier form of oppression.
Well, that’s the case for sex worker organisations pretty much everywhere; I don’t know of any that support legalisation. The point I was trying to make is that if you read that link it is clear that they consider the Canadian regime to be one of criminalisation, not legalisation, despite the fact that selling sex itself is not illegal.
But that’s what most legalization regimes are like. They hide behind the “legal” label and do everything they can to harass and persecute prostitutes. True, the far end of the legalization spectrum (Japan, Australia and Germany) is not very bad for working girls, but the near end (Canada, the U.K. and Nevada) is almost indistinguishable from criminalization.
True, the far end of the legalization spectrum (Japan, Australia and Germany) is not very bad for working girls, but the near end (Canada, the U.K. and Nevada) is almost indistinguishable from criminalization.
That actually underscores my point. There are significant differences between what you call the “near” and “far” ends of legalisation, and this is why they usually (outside the US, at least) are not lumped in under the same general term.
Oh, I totally agree, but in the absence of better terminology there’s very little we can do about it. If there’s a separate term for “hard” and “soft” legalization schemes, I’m not aware of it.
Wendy, to answer, what we have here in the UK is described by the computer terminology as an anti-alias bitmask; everything *but* the target behaviour (Consentual Sale of Sex, which is legal) is blocked (made illegal).
That’s *functionally* the same as making Consentual Sale of Sex *illegal* since all paths of access to it are illegal.
That has the same effect of denying the sex worker’s freedom of choice by attempting to make the choice *ineffective* by eliminating the client base by criminalizing them.
But thats as bad as criminalizing prostitutes : the clients most liable to basic decency are deterred, leaving both the most desparate and those inclined to lawless behaviour before legislation.
The UK law also makes it a crime for prostitutes to work collectively if they choose, employ “bouncers” or “vetters”, or many other things that would make them safer.
Only full decriminalisation will attain that.
>What causes a woman to become a sex worker? IPS asked two women who took up the life because of the crisis. Pamela and Xana (their working names) said they are only in it for the money
Really? And you needed a study for that? Women hook for the same reason anyone does any job, the money. Oh sure, there are other perks, but it’s the income.
So-called “legalization” in the UK has resulted in a weird environment where the act of prostitution is legal, but everything connected to it, all the supporting activities aren’t, basically making it all but impossible to do prostitution legally. It would be like making hooking legal on any day of the week without a vowel in it’s name.
As for Stella Mars, look, I worked the rougher end of the game, that was my thing, my specialty. And how many times did I have to “stumble into hospital”? Not once. I knew what I was doing. There is some skill involved.
Have to differ with you when you classify the UK as ‘legalised’, Maggie. You’ll spent a long time looking for UK legislation ‘legalising’ prostitution! Rather, the traditional UK Home Office approach has always been to criminalise anyone other than the prostitute her/himself involved on the supply side – brothel owners/managers, landlords, drivers, anyone ‘controlling’ prostitution etc. – the sex workers themselves are only commonly prosecuted for street soliciting, and even then they’re more commonly diverted into some detox and/or brainwashing program in line with the ‘victim’ stereotype with which they are supposed to conform.
So prostitution itself has never been ‘legalised’ because it’s never been illegal.
In practice, when closely inspected, more liberal regimes do not fit quite as neatly or clearly into ‘decriminalised’ and ‘legalised’ boxes as some believe. In parts of the antipodes (sorry – our antipodes is Australasia, where’s yours?) that have much better legislation, those working with sex workers (brothel managers and staff etc, though not the sex workers themselves) require licenses, so it’s not as if all regulation has been abandoned.
As I said to Wendy Lyon above, there’s definitely a deficiency in the nomenclature. I’d make something up, but I don’t think I have quite the clout yet to ensure it caught on! 😉
You might be interested in this piece Maggie:
21 different frameworks of sex work law and still counting
I didn’t fully agree with any of them so I added my own in my thesis, so now there’s at least 22 🙂
How about: criminalized, semi-criminalized, restricted and normalized?
That would describe how harsh the laws against prostitution actually are. So respectively; US, UK, Australia, NZ.
Wendy Lyon, I’m not at all susprised to see you here.
Wendy — to clarify — I meant it’s not surprising to see you on a blog where the blogger is mocking someone who’s described violence she’s experienced in prostitution.
Not at all, Stella; what I mock are people whose minds are so narrow that they believe every person reacts to every situation in exactly the same way as they do, and who believe they have the right to stop everyone else in the world from doing things they dislike.
Just imagine if I lied about and campaigned against air travel because I personally get airsick, therefore I declare that air travel must be “bad” and nobody should be allowed to do it.
Actually, today’s column is about people like you.
I’m sorry Maggie, I have no interest in reading your column.
Of course you don’t; unrealistic beliefs can’t stand exposure to truth, so the facts must be avoided to protect the irrational belief.
Actually darling, I am all about truth. I am not about pimping women for my own profit. Which is something you do.
Ten days, and the best you can come up with is “you’re a pimp”? Oh, my. If you ever develop an argument of substance, like for instance a justification as to why YOU get to decide what’s right for all women in the world, let me know. Until then, you probably should avoid the childish insults; they reveal you for the silly ass you are.
Darling, a madam is a female pimp. You’ve acknowledged you’re a madam. I’m stating facts, not insulting you. I
Uh…no. I owned an escort service; I was a madam. But to you, the word “pimp” does not mean a prostitute’s agent, who makes money the same way as any other agent; to you, “pimp” carries a tremendous amount of emotional baggage and imaginary implications that outstrip anything that 80% of real pimps are like. So, no, I’m not a “female pimp” in the way YOU use that word…and I never was. Unfortunately, people like you see the world in black and white, therefore you cannot be reasoned with. Goodbye.
Readers, unless Stella can come up with something better than this kindergarten repetition, I’m not going to bother letting any more of her comments through moderation. If she can come up with a reasonable argument which A) doesn’t contain the word “pimp”; B) lacks other ad hominems; C) acknowledges that 98.5% of prostitutes are in the trade as voluntarily as anyone does any other job; and D) does not require everyone accepting her cult as the sole moral arbiters of what is “right” for women, I’ll let it through. But given what we know of Stella, that means this is the last you’ll see of her because that sort of argument is completely beyond her ability.
[…] Nova Orleans. Maggie McNeil declarou: “Eu possuía um serviço de escolta. Eu era uma madame. https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/across-the-pond/#comment-15832 e “eu era a melhor dona da agência em Nova Orleans” […]