h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

To be frank I thing all countries under-estimate the depth of their prostitution problem.

And I'm afraid nothing will convince me that sex for money isn't degradation.

Degrading maybe, but prostitution at least calls a spade a spade. How many wad-waving fellas coax their way into a woman's knickers in clubs with a joke, a drink and a bit of bling, only to cast them aside when they're sick of them? No less degrading for being above-board, and market forces actively pour millions into securing the revenue from so doing. So the guy gets his rocks off, the girl gets a necklace, and Smirnoff, Hugo Boss et al get their cut.

Four of the 5 victims in Ipswich were finally laid to rest last week. I'd hope that whatever moral pitfalls legalisation might bring up, it would at least offer poor broken women like these a safe and regulated environment in which to do what they feel they have to. Failing to at least try, I think, degrades all of us.

>>"Degrading maybe, but prostitution at least calls a spade a spade. How many wad-waving fellas coax their way into a woman's knickers in clubs with a joke, a drink and a bit of bling, only to cast them aside when they're sick of them?"

That does almost seem to consider sex as just something done to a woman, with the woman as entirely passive and dependent. Surely even in causal-sex relationships, women end them a good fraction of the time?

If someone of either sex really was a 100% doormat, it'd be hard to blame even someone whose behaviour I found pretty distasteful for quickly getting bored of them.

Legisaltion and regulation would not have saved the girls in Ipswich, in my opinion, because it wouldn't have solved their drug habit.

Whilst there are few studies, early indications would seem to suggest that 70% of prostitutes are addicted to drugs.

The automatic response through legislation is not the answer - remove the drug problem - the prostitution problem practically disappears. If you also acted against the excessive profits made by baks and financial institutions you could probably wipe it out, except for the high class escort end of the market.

>>"If you also acted against the excessive profits made by baks and financial institutions you could probably wipe it out, except for the high class escort end of the market."

What's your point there? Are bank managers and insurance advisers, or shareholders of banks the major clients of prostitutes?

It might not have cured their drug problem, but it might allow for brothels to exist where they could have done their trade in *relative* security in a well-policed area, rather than in the back of someone's van miles out in the woods. Accepted, it won't make the problem disappear, but it could at least dramatically reduce the risk.

If 30% of prostitutes aren't taking drugs, why are they doing it? Alcoholism, gambling? Kicks? As long as there are people alive to do it, there'll be prostitution, and motivations for it. As long as it is forced underground out of sight, it suffers for a greater lack of scrutiny, and subsequently security, drug treatment, STI and mental health care. It seems disingenuous to expect the problems associated with prostitution can be addressed by the defence of its illegality. They're already criminals, what have they got to lose?

Apologies Potholer, I didn't mean to characterize women as doormats in those circumstances; just offer a comparison between people prepared to pay for sex in the conventional sense, and people prepared to invest a great deal of money in products and a lifestyle wholly geared towards getting it.

Taking it as a given that it is indeed the "oldest profession", prostitution throughout history has been legal, illegal, socially acceptable, socialy unacceptable and so on and so on.

It won't go away. Legalising or criminalising it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever.

So we should just accept it as a fact of life and ensure that it is as safe a practice as possible. The girls should receive full medical care, for their own good but more importantly to stop the spread of STDs into society in general.

There's an argument for legalising it and actively encouraging it. We have high unemployment and kids facing a bleak future on benefits because govt doesn't give a flying fig whilst it can cram in immigrants. It will reduce the drain on benefits and may lead to a decrease in sexual assaults. If a guy can get "satisfaction" easily and cheaply he's far less likely to harass girls who aren't interested.

(only partly )

>>"...just offer a comparison between people prepared to pay for sex in the conventional sense, and people prepared to invest a great deal of money in products and a lifestyle wholly geared towards getting it."

Fair enough, though presumably the blokes who dress up and splash out money in pursuit of their next casual shag often end up with women who've spent a fair bit on clothes and cosmetics for largely the same ends.

">>"If you also acted against the excessive profits made by baks and financial institutions you could probably wipe it out, except for the high class escort end of the market."

What's your point there? Are bank managers and insurance advisers, or shareholders of banks the major clients of prostitutes?"

Thats an interesting possibility, that I hadn't considered, I bow to your greater knowledge of financial circles.

I meant that poverty is the other over-riding driving force in putting women into prostitution - another common factor in surveys indicates that abused women move into prostitution to support, or protect their children.

There never has been and never will be a lover, male of female, who hasn't an eye on -- in fact they rely on -- tricks they can try on their partner. They're hoping their lover will help them or keep them, support them, promote them. Don't blame them: you're the same.

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/5967/lyrics.html

TRiG.

I somehow don't see bank profits as being a major cause of poverty driving people to prostitution. At best, excessive profits might be some symptom of a particular kind of society.

Though some drug dependence may come after people move into prostitution, much does seem to come before.
I'm not sure how many people turn to prostitution merely to supplement social security money.
Where there was no drug dependency and money was the overriding factor, I'd have thought it would be the people unable to claim what benefits there were (illegal immigrants, people hiding from the system for some other reason) who would be the likeliest to turn to prostitution.
I'm not sure how regular 'reducing poverty' tactics would reach such people.

I'm afraid if you don't see links between poverty, prositution and drug dependancy, you are probably in a minority of one.

This from a BBC news report -

"Simon Aalders, the co-ordinator of the Suffolk Drug Action Team who works with prostitutes in Ipswich, said women working in the area were worried.

"Some women are stopping their activity but some aren't and I think that what that shows really is that a lot of these women are in a desperate - extremely desperate - situation.

"Things like drug dependency and poverty are really pushing women into this sort of activity." "

This from Scotland.gov.uk -"For the great majority of women involved in street prostitution, their involvement is a search for survival. The main identified factors are:

Misuse of drugs, and sometimes alcohol;
Debt and low income;
History of family breakdown, commonly associated with sexual and/or physical abuse and consequently being looked after through local authority social work services;
Continuing physical and sexual abuse into adulthood;
Poor educational achievement, poor employment history and lack of skills useful to employment;
Mental illness or learning disability;
Homelessness or lack of secure accommodation;
Whilst, of course, not all women will have experienced all these adverse factors, and it is possible that some will have experienced none - although this seems to be so rare as to be discountable - the reality is that the overwhelming majority of women involved in street prostitution have experienced clusters of multiple numbers of these factors."

McKay,
I said I didn't see excessive bank profits as an obvious significant *cause* of prostitution via poverty.
You seem to see it as the major, if not the *only* cause:

("If you also acted against the excessive profits made by baks and financial institutions you could probably wipe it out, except for the high class escort end of the market.")

Presumably you have a meaningful argument about how the cause-and-effect works, rather than just seeing two things you don't like, and assuming that one must be the cause of the other?

Arguably you could see some debt as being caused by banks, and debt driving people into poverty, but much debt is a result of poverty, (or of people being unable to manage money in general), not just the cause of it.
I don't see financial institutions being a major cause of drug dependency, sexual abuse, lack of saleable skills, learning difficulties or serious mental health problems.

This discussion seems to be focusing primarily on street prostitutes. These are really the lowest edge of prostitutes and very much represent the minority.

The vast majority of prostitutes work from flats and houses where they rent a room and contribute jointly towards paying a receptionist. They find their clients through adverts and the internet. In the main, it is a part-time profession where they choose their working hours. You would probably be shocked at the number of respectable housewives who earn a bit extra by working afternoons whilst the kids are at school.

They are invisible in the statistics obviously, whilst the media concentrate on the more visible streetwalkers and massage parlours.

The vast majority of prostitutes are not poor, not drug addicts and not exploited.

This whole conversation is akin to talking about Americans being brash & overbearing based upon experiences with tourists.

>>"This whole conversation is akin to talking about Americans being brash & overbearing based upon experiences with tourists."

It rather depends if one is talking about Americans, or [maybe the most visible/stereotyped fraction of] American tourists.

If people aren't on some moral crusade, but are actually concerned about the most vulnerable prostitutes, then they presumably *are* the ones on the streets?

Where do accurate figures come from regarding the various strands of prostitution? I imagine various people will have agendas to push, but how can/does one get reliable agenda-free figures?

>>"You would probably be shocked at the number of respectable housewives who earn a bit extra by working afternoons whilst the kids are at school."

I'm curious where they get their clients from in the middle of the working day?

<>

Well, I expect married men find it a bit difficult to sneak away from their wives in the evening.

There are no figures because it's not the kind of thing women want known about themselves. It really is a black economy.

Yes, the focus is on street prostitutes, but any law passed criminalising prostitution will affect the majority. Given the police love for easy targets to improve detection rates, how long before the courts are filled with mild mannered Mrs Smiths? How many divorces? How many kids taken into care?

So - you don't see lending to vulnerable people as being a cause of poverty ?

You don't see poverty as being related to prostitution ?

You don't see people's homes being fore-closed upon as being a cause of homelessness ?

You don't see drug addiction as being related to poverty either ?

I presume therfore you are in agreement with SWL's summation of what prostitution is all about.

I can only assume you are both living in some ivory tower - "You would probably be shocked at the number of respectable housewives who earn a bit extra by working afternoons whilst the kids are at school." You're right I would - and I'd expect most of those who did do it were trying to earn money to buy clothes for thier children, because they were in abusive relationships.

As for who uses prostitutes in the afternoon - salesmen, businessmen, unemployed people, shift workers, blokes pulling a sickie so their missus doesn't find out.

<>

A sweeping generalisation to fit your preconception I'm afraid.

There was a documentary a few years back which followed this woman who had such a secret double life. She first got involved because
a) It was a bit of extra money
b) She enjoyed sex.
Gradually, she got greedy and used to the extra money. It was easy and she was enjoying herself. She even introduced both her daughters to it and they would go shopping together for sexy clothes and toys.

Another thing - I support the right of women to choose. Apart from the high-profile media hysterics about Eastern European sex slaves, the majority of women and girls are doing this of their own volition.