4

Prostitutes are okay, but not pimps

Britain’s proposed law stops short of a ban on paying for sex


 

Prostitutes are okay, but not pimps

Paying for sex in Britain is about to get riskier. A new law is being proposed for England and Wales that would make it an offense to pay for sex with prostitutes if they are controlled by pimps.

Right now, buying and selling sex is legal, but soliciting and pimping are not. The new law would mean that people who hook up with prostitutes who are “controlled for another person’s gain” could be fined up to $1,900 and get a criminal record. As well, anyone who has sex with an illegally trafficked woman could be charged with rape. The police also gain new powers to close brothels, and there would be more “naming and shaming” of persistent johns.

The crackdown was announced by British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith last week. According to Smith, the measures are designed to increase penalties for buyers and those who prostitute others, and decrease the “demand” for trafficked women. But the new measures stop short of an outright ban on paying for sex.

“My proposal is that men should think twice about paying for sex,” Smith told the BBC. “The reason they should do that is actually the majority of women don’t want to be involved in prostitution.”

Critics say the government may as well have banned prostitution because there’s often no way to know whether a prostitute has a pimp or not. And many prostitutes themselves oppose the law. Niki Adams, of the English Collective of Prostitutes, told the BBC the legislation will only force women underground. “All this will do is hound the decent parlour owners,” she says. “The government is trying to take the moral high ground but it’s a low blow for women who are struggling to make ends meet—whether they are from Croydon or Croatia.”


 

Prostitutes are okay, but not pimps

  1. The proposed new law for England and Wales, re: prostitutes, could work if the prostitutes wore a sign advertising whether they are self-employed entrepreneurs, or being “trafficked”. If the intent is really to reduce incidences of prostitution, measures should be taken to decrease the supply side of prostitution, by “naming and shaming” the persistent prostitutes, and not only naming and shaming those who are lured and take the bait.
    Seriously, contrary to stereotypes (especially as perpetuated in a country like Canada), prostitutes are not poor victims unwillingly “trafficked” by an evil keeper. The majority are shrewd female-entrepreneurs (there are a few males). Ages ago, when the going got rough, and as a deterrent against getting ripped off or abused, prostitutes hired “strong arms” for their protection (or enforcement of pay-up). Yes, some unscrupulous persons become “pimps”, but not all “pimps” have been men. Parents, even mothers have pimped. Bottom line, prostitution should be legalised, medically-controlled, and taxed by the state, in specifically-designated, secured areas of cities. This would provide protection, security, and peace of mind to those involved on the supply and the demand side of prostitution.

  2. Yes, prostitution should be taxed and the money should be spent on the rehabilitation of broken up families due to prostitution itself. This flow of money is good for the overall economy. We may also ask for government subsidies to enable racial and ethnic minorities to join this profession. Outright preference for caucasian and blonde women (and men) by sex buyers is discrimination.

  3. All this naive. The erotic appeal of a prostitute is that she obeys, does whatever the customer can afford and asks for. As such she attracts men who want women who are submissive, but only those men who do not have the time, courage, whatever, to find a submissive among the women of his acquintance. Prostitution panders to those who confuse sex with power, survives only on those who are willing (happily or in desperation) to trade personal strength for money.

    Prostitution is not OK. It is a crime involving sexual exploitation. Sometimes John and Jane are complicit, usually John is complicit while Jane is desperate, afraid, ill – physically and mentally. We neet to offer prostitutes rescue, at the very least.

  4. I agree with RK Ozga, 100% .Only want to add that there is need for honesty, No shortage of stereotypes,
    Hookers are always poor victims of circumstances and Johns are real Criminals, Did anyone try to find out how Prostitutes abuse men? just for shame they do not come out and cry , they mint money,abuse ,including blackmail. It is ignorance and some complacent kind of moral righteousness that forces legislators to agree with their old wives into making such laws. Prostitution should be legal, regulated, and transparent , these are poor or sometimes not so poor girls who make their living , There is a prostitute in every woman and John in every man. Women who know how to exploit their power of sexuality are high flying professional women who may have used that power wisely but have successfully avoided that label .you can not condemn those women who are honest and do what they want to do openly ,without any fear, world’s oldest profession deserves some dignity . those who try to bring stupid legislations in the name of morality are the worst abusers of women, forcing them to believe that they are immoral and victims of circumstances.

Sign in to comment.