Pt 5 - Normalisation of Sex-Industry = More Stigma : Swedish Model vs. New Zealand Decriminalization

Maybe Normalisation would be the worst cause of Stigma for Sex-Providers...
Also, if prostitute becomes a normal job, why would voters carry on funding an exit-strategy from the sex-industry? Given that it would have become nothing more than helping people change their job.
Thus, funding for exit strategies in Melbourne, Australia, has consistently failed, according to:
From Making Sex Work (p.241)
Free pdf of this book - http://tinyurl.com/msex-work
- - -
"Overview" quote from:
http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/the-sex-industr...
- - -
The idea that decrim would give rise to a flourishing of Co-ops, or Soobs (Small Owner Operator Brothels) has turned out to be false.
1999 - 36% / 2006 - 36% / 2007 - 31%
Figures from a pro-decrim publication @
http://tinyurl.com/soob-numbers

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Sweden
• New
• Zealand
• Prostitution
• Sex-Industry
• Feminism

[justamarxist]

This won't be a popular sentiment, but I think stigma has its place.

[mickGPN]

@justamarxist - Well, I think there is a difference between removing the stigma from sex-providers, and going to the other extreme, where we pretend there is nothing degrading about paid-sex. So, acknowledging that it is a degrading activity is appropriate. And it's necessary if we're going to avoid normalising the s-industry. For one thing, normalisation would make the public much less likely to fund exit-strategies for sex-providers... which is the subject of an upcoming video in this series.

[cannibalcountry]

I'd rather live in a world where ppl aren't seen as sexual objects - a world where I can be in public and not deal with men who feel entitled to grope me. I wonder - how does NZ deal with underage/trafficked prostitutes? Nevada gets THAT very wrong. are prostitutes arrested for not being in zones?

[mickGPN]

@cannibalcountry - Yep, I certainly won't be moving to NZ, or Australia, any time soon. But Sweden, that's a different matter. Last time I was over there (several years ago now) it was amazing how people just took gender equality for granted. It was like being able to breath fresh air for the first time :-)

[WatcherAzazel]

@mickGPN Yes you can. If an action would infringe on the rights of the minority, you don't take it. The majority of men in the US are happy with their mutilated penises. Does that mean that MY rights weren't infringed when my parents allowed a doctor to mutilate my penis? OF COURSE NOT! Even if only 5% of men were unhappy, it would still be wrong.

[mickGPN]

@WatcherAzazel - I might need to facts to confirm that the law is doing what I said it would But there aren't any facts which can "prove" that sexual-objectification for money is wrong. You can argue for it, but you can't prove it. Then it becomes a social norm (and, on that basis, laws are passed) or it doesn't // 95% of sex-providers ARE victims, so being pragmatic, I'm not going to let the other 5% hold us back (Plus I have got an answer for that 5% too, but I'm still working on the details.)

[WatcherAzazel]

@mickGPN If you want to create a social norm, you're more than welcome to stand on your soap box and tell everyone why they shouldn't pay to have sex, but if you want a law, you need cold, hard facts on your side.  And even then, arresting people based on supposedly "victimizing" an adult who says he/she WASN'T victimized is shaky grounds, in any society that dares to call itself free.

[mickGPN]

@WatcherAzazel - Yeah, but my point is that "having an opinion about someone else" can develop - via interactions with other people's opinions - into a social norm. Which can often be a good thing, and goes beyond our existence as atomised individuals. And then, yes, sometimes it's appropriate for those norms to take the form of a law. So, sometimes it IS appropriate for a collection of opinions to coagulate into a law. (And I don't think S'Skeptic should be arrested either, btw)

[WatcherAzazel]

@mickGPN There's a difference between having an opinion about something, and thinking it should be illegal. I think SmilingSkeptic is an asshole because he's refused to approve my video responses to him, and kept changing the subject when I asked why. However, I hardly think he should be arrested for that.

The minding your own business part comes in when you declare that you're going to protect people from themselves, when you declare them incapable of making their own choices.

[mickGPN]

@WatcherAzazel - Of course not. I wd have the usual safeguards for minority opinions All I AM saying is that when someone expresses an opinion about what other people are doing, it's not appropriate to just say, "Shut up and mind your own business / Stop moralizing / Etc" Having opinions about other people's choices is part of what it means to be part of a society. And obviously there are all sorts of ways that can go wrong. But it's not automatically invalid, as many Libertarians seem to think.