Legalise brothels
Most of you will have heard about the killing of 5 prostitutes in
Prostitutes are only trying to earn a living, some to support their drug habit, others because they can’t survive on benefits especially when they have children. Prostitutes should not be vilified. They are a victim as much as anyone. They should be given a safe place to do their business where they aren’t beaten or killed because they are a prostitute.
I think the council should run brothels for many reasons, for one they are less likely to be treated as slaves and it removes the influence of the pimps whose only real source of income is from being a total parasite. If the pimps don’t have any influence the prostitutes will be safer, though not completely safe.
Let’s be clear. Most prostitutes will probably want out of the business but they can’t get out because they are addicted to drugs or have other problems like not having any skills. We have dealt with the pimps. Now let’s deal with the drugs. With the brothel a drugs rehab clinic should be built for those who volunteer to get off drugs. They shouldn’t be forced off them. The process of getting off the drugs should start with them and the only part that we should play is helping them get off the drugs.
The second part is helping them get skills so they can do more with their lives. One day a week they should be required to attend college where they will be taught a new skill or attend a local business that is prepared to give them an apprenticeship. This could be anything from hair styling and cookery (chef) to plumbing.
They want to get out of the business. We should give them that chance, not by punishing them but helping them improve themselves and helping them get off drugs.
Nothing much would change for the prostitutes either. The local council would merely be providing the security. The prostitutes could set their own rate and their own hours that they work.
This will not just be beneficial to the prostitutes but it will also be good for the police. It would free up police resources to deal with more important crimes like child prostitution and drug dealing. Far too much time is wasted on adult prostitution where the police should be arresting the pimps of child prostitutes.
With a crackdown on drugs the prostitutes that are on drugs will have no choice but to go to the drugs rehab clinic and get clean. With more resources to deal with paedophile rings there would be more children being freed from sexual slavery of disgusting perverts who should be lynched.
Critics of this say that it would cost the council hundreds of thousands of pounds per year to run and they are right of course but the prostitutes themselves should share the bill. They are taking advantage of the safety of the brothel so it is only right that they should pay a contribution towards it. So if they are 50 prostitutes per day and it costs £1000 per day to run they should each contribute £20 per day. There could also be a entry charge for those wanting sex of a couple of pounds. The brothel should aim to break even but if they do make a profit I don’t see why the local council can’t buy blankets just before winter starts and hand them out to the elderly so they don’t freeze to death. Sadly local councils can’t do much for the elderly like giving them heating allowances.
8 comments:
Prostitution existed on a much greater scale in this country in past centuries than it has done, say, in the last 50 years.
It seems that the effects of that large-scale 'sex industry' were what prompted the reforms that existed in the 20th century.
Undoing them is bound to open a veritable Pandora's Box.
P.S. I had to open a Google account to post comments. It is possible that other potential commentators have yet to do so.
I think it still has to be done to protect the girls. I think only the local councils should be allowed to run them though and give the prostitutes regular health checks.
Lets face it, prostitution can never be completely eradicated so legalized brothels are the answer, prostitutes can then be taxed which would benefit everyone.
PS. I've had a lot of trouble trying to post comments but all seems well now.
I knew alan had trouble because he emailed me but I thought he was the only one.
A couple of points.
Humanly speaking, we may never eradicate murder or robbery with violence (though we can make great strides in the right direction by deporting foreigners). That is no reason to legalise either.
Legalising whorehouses doesn't protect anyone, either from sexual assaults or STIs. This is proven by the fact that overall, permissiveness (legalisation in all but name only) has steadily increased in the last 50 years but so have STIs (up 8-fold since the 1950s) and so have sexual assaults on women and girls (rapes recorded by the police have increased at least 10-fold since the 1950s, along with all crimes of violence).
And there is another factor.
See this site.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com
/ideas/040213brink.html
Note, the writer is a Mormon, not a bible-thumping Baptist like me but that does not prevent him from speaking the truth.
The issue here is not to do with a minority group of 'sex-workers' but with the essential fabric of society.
The message is simple: to protect ALL girls, not just an isolated group, support marriage, not 'permissiveness.'
"Giambattista Vico, after completing an exhaustive study of ancient history, concluded in 1725 that marriage between a man and a woman is an essential characteristic of civilization.
"Without strong social norms that encourage a man to direct his sexual attentions to a single woman and thereafter care for his offspring, Vico concluded that chaos ensued. Marriage, he wrote, was the “seedbed” of society.
"British anthropologist J. D. Unwin reached the same conclusion some 200 years later. In his 1934 book, Sex and Culture, Unwin chronicled the historical decline of 86 different cultures.
"His exhaustive survey revealed that “strict marital monogamy” was central to social energy and growth. Indeed, no society flourished for more than three generations without it. Unwin stated it this way, "In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence."
"In the 21st century, the findings of Vico and Unwin are confirmed by hundreds of sociological studies that document the impact of marital forms and marital dissolution on men, women and children. Those studies speak with a surprisingly uniform voice: enduring marriage between a man and a woman is the best environment for the social, physical, mental, emotional and economic development of men, women and children.
"Without stable marriage, women suffer, men suffer – and children suffer the most. Every deviation from the ideal model of enduring monogamous marriage between a man and a woman increases the suffering of men, women and children.
"Marriage, therefore, is more than an intimate association between two people. It civilizes men. It protects children. It generates social energy. It fosters individual and collective growth. It teaches norms."
The BNP should be the British Nuptial Party. No other party supports the institution of marriage and no party has genuinely done so for decades. Thatcher's lot callously weighted the tax system against married couples and Blair's cabal have done nothing to reverse that.
It is not surprising that convictions for prostitution increased 4-fold from the 1960s to the 1990s*, when the police decided to ignore the problem.
*i.e. the result of the work of the 19th century and early 20th century reformers being steadily undone.
At least one of the 5 recent victims was a single mother. Doubtless many prostitutes are. Children in such households are at least 15-30 times more likely to suffer serious abuse than in 'normal' households with 2 natural parents married.
Further condoning prostitution in any way, shape or form cannot even begin to address the real issues, except by way of aggravating them.
"Humanly speaking, we may never eradicate murder or robbery with violence (though we can make great strides in the right direction by deporting foreigners). That is no reason to legalise either."
Prostitution is a victimless crime. Both parties are consenting unlike murder and robbery.
"Legalising whorehouses doesn't protect anyone, either from sexual assaults or STIs"
Yes it does. It may not eradicate it but it wil reduce the number. Prostitution will exist no matter what. In places like Nebraska the prostitutes that belong to the brothels actually get tested and treated for STIs when they have them. Surely if the brothels were legal like they are in Nebraska the prostitutes would be tested so they would know they have STIs so they can be treated which would cut down.
It is a plane fact that some prostitutes are assaulted while out walking the streets for business. If there was a secure place for them to do their business with security and if they were assaulted the police would know who it was and arrest them but are they really going to assault them when there is security about when they have a high chance of being caught? Yes. they might just follow them home and assault them but they would do it anyway. This may not eradicate it but it would make them much safer.
"The message is simple: to protect ALL girls"
How do you go about protecting all girls if you aren't trying to protect some girls like prostitutes. the only way you can make it safer for them is to give them a place to go.
"support marriage, not 'permissiveness"
Even with the state supporting marriage like it was until a few decades ago there were still prostitutes. You cannot stop it.
Hi Wayne, As you know, I have written along the same lines, but the prostitutes would prefer it if their trade was decrimalized, and I'm not sure what would be best, I think we should ask them, the reasons why, and how we can help their lives so they don't need to take such drastic steps in the first place. I've just posted on this.
Re: Victimless crime. I don't think so. I have read Doreen Irvine's testimony. She became a Christian after 16 years as a prostitute in the 1940s-50s (and 14 years as a drug addict).
I was once privileged to hear her address a meeting.
Needless to say, Doreen Irvine does not recommend legalisation of prostitution, or drugs, for that matter.
The psychological effects of 'the profession' are severe - as was confirmed to me independently about 40 years ago by a Christian minister who had dealt with individuals with similar problems.
Another such minister, an American, who had encountered equivalent females in the US, once said to me, "It's like someone has injected them with a huge syringe and sucked all the life out of them."
By legalising prostitution you will create more victims of this kind.
The media, as usual, gives a falsely glamorous impression which is not real life.
However, that wasn't my main point, which was essentially that even if eradication isn't possible, that is not an argument against restriction.
If you take the legalisation argument to its logical conclusion, you have the situation that even Allied servicemen were shocked to encounter in Italy in WW2.
Parents pimping for their own daughters, brothers pimping for their own sisters.
And in Nebraska, it appears that the 'sex workers' have obviously been reduced to the level of commodities, which occasionally have to be 'serviced,' just like the premises.
Social trends of that kind should not be encouraged, I suggest.
Re: zoning or what you call "a secure place" it's been tried before in Britain and it failed.
See p 6-8 of the following - and note the contemporary example, not just the 19th century one when they didn't have wonder drug cures for everything etc.
http://www.christian.org.uk/
pdfpublications/
Update_Issue1_Nov2001WEB.pdf
The report also shows that the 'sex workers' were not quite the sensitive, caring individuals that the media is currently trying to make them out to be - see comments above on media deception.
Also, a potential attacker will only move somewhere else to get a victim in an area that is not monitored. You will note from successive episodes of Crimewatch that most victims of sexual assaults in this country were not attacked in red-light areas - and were not prostitutes.
It's the war of the flea. Any conniving rapist knows that.
Re: STIs and sexual assaults etc.
Note again that these have risen exponentially in the last few decades, in spite of prostitution and 'casual sex' becoming more acceptable, even if not fully legalised and in spite of advances in medical science.
But in addition to that of condoning wrong-doing, which is directly counter-productive to any kind of social progress, the other basic flaw in the 'harm reduction' philosophy is that at best, and as indicated, it can only protect the few, in theory - and an irresponsible* few at that - while in actuality placing the many at greater risk.
Which is wholly unacceptable.
*I note that 3 of the 5 victims were single mothers, apparently, not one and all were supporting dope habits. They did not seem to want to kick those, in spite having responsibility for dependents.
*I would call that irresponsibility and I cannot see why it should be either rewarded or condoned.
Post a Comment