Family First have linked up with a women who was tragically abused as a young child to speak up against prostitution, in an attempt to get the government to re-criminalise the industry and charge men who pay for sex. From Stuff:
“One former prostitute told the committee her 16 years on the streets as a sex worker began when she was just 12, after a toxic family life exposed her to drugs, and emotional, verbal and at times physical abuse.
“Me and my cousins would roam the streets and scab money for food. It was then when I was approached by a gentleman who said that if he gave me money to feed myself and younger cousins, in exchange I was to give him oral sex.
“It wasn’t until I was 14 that prostitution became full time from then on” she said.”
That is terribly tragic. But I’m worried that Family First appear to have conflated child-sex with consensual adult sex. Child-sex has always been illegal and has nothing to do with prostitution being decriminalised. Child-sex would still be illegal and morally abhorrent with laws as they are currently. It would seem that over the period she was exploited, prostitution was criminalised.
“”The act not only encouraged more men to buy sex, but transformed prostitution into an acceptable, even attractive job for young, poor women in New Zealand”, Subritzky said.”
If Family First understand that many people on low-incomes are dependent on sex work, why would anyone want to take it away from workers? When conducted safely adult sex work is a job as respectable as any other, and the money can be a useful supplement that benefits many households. To say sex work was transformed into something acceptable (as opposed to shameful and reprehensible) seems a good thing that lends to offering workers better support with employee rights and a safer working environment.
Wellington trans sex worker Annika says “Decriminalisation means that sex workers can share information without fear and we can call on the police if we need to. We can screen clients more easily when we can talk openly with them. If sex work is treated like any other business, it’s a lot harder for people to victimise us.”
It’s also safe. Sex workers have lower general rates of sexually transmitted diseases than the general population. There is no evidence that sex workers have higher rates of sexual assault, and given that we know that rape is usually perpetrated by known people (friends or family of the survivor), I think we can pretty safely say that the majority of the risks are at home, not at work.
Wellington sex worker Versace adds:
”People need to be aware of what is being said by peer-led sex workers rights organisations, such as the New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective.
Criminalising clients and other ‘third parties’ becomes a huge occupational health and safety risk. Violence rates go up with the Swedish model, workers have to work from more discreet locations, they don’t want to report violence against them in case police start stalking out their workplace and arresting their clients, which puts them at higher risk of violence and undermines the progress made by the Prostitution Law Reform 2003. Currently, sex workers have a reasonably good relationship with the authorities, which is essential to seeking their support.
The Swedish model also means that third parties such as landlords, hotel owners, listing agencies and newspapers can’t ‘assist prostitution’ by renting rooms or running advertisements for sex workers. It also criminalises receptionists, security, drivers, and people ‘living off the avails of prostitution’ such as financially dependent children, etc.
Having less options helps no one. If you want to help sex workers, support sex workers having the same rights as any other workers.”
There are plenty of sex workers who enjoy their jobs; it can offer good money, good friends, and work that’s enjoyable in itself. It seems like a taboo to suggest that prostitution is a legitimate form of employment or that someone may even like that line of work.
Everyone agrees that child sex, human trafficking and rape are bad things that should remain illegal, but they aren’t safe, consensual sex work, they’re child-sex, trafficking and rape.
We ought to stand up solidarity for sex workers instead of continually appointing shame and unfounded moral panic to their decisions as free-governing adults.
Jessie Hume: Activist, feminist and recently led anti-rape march in Auckland
I agree whole-heartedly. If Family First wants to protect women involved in the sex industry from exploitation, and to starve abusive “pimps” of income, the best thing they can do is support the legal regulation of prostitution under our current world-leading model.
Well made point, Danyl. But I think we all know Family first is not involved in this due to concerns about women and their rights who happen to work in the sex industry.
Great piece Jesse, I totally agree – except for this:
“There is no evidence that sex workers have higher rates of sexual assault, and given that we know that rape is usually perpetrated by known people (friends or family of the survivor), I think we can pretty safely say that the majority of the risks are at home, not at work.”
Where’s your data on that?
And why did you connect known to survivor (which is true for someone who doesn’t have sex for a living) to a job that clearly exposes a woman/man to far more sex that can go wrong/is coerced?
That’s a dangerous assumption.
Other than that – great stuff, awesome 🙂 thanks for writing it!
There are no studies from reputable sources that state sex workers have a higher incidence of sexualised violence than the rest of the population.
Sexual assault at work does happen of course, but I have been much more concerned about this in the office than in a brothel.
There’s a big difference in safety (and probably job satisfaction) between prostitution in a brothel and on the street. In a brothel there’s security and other people to help. If you’re street walking you’re far more isolated. The girls are far more likely to be under the influence of drugs as well. Street prostitution is harsh.
Most street workers don’t want to work in a brothel as they do not want to give up control of their working situation and earnings. Street workers work closely together and have community that other sex workers don’t. The idea that street work = bad/dangerous and brothel work = good/safe is a false one, there are downers working in brothels just as there are working on the street.
In a brothel your locked in a room with a client and no one can hear you if you screamed because music is so loud. Most brothels don’t have any security either and have all female support staff (reception, bar girl etc). Of course you are more likely to experience sexual violence if working as a prostitute, these risks just aren’t as high in mainstream employment. Men pay to have sex with you, get this confused with owning you for a set amount of time and in this time can do whatever however they want to you. Probably have a higher chance of being able to get them off you against a wall down a side street and alert someone then a locked room in a brothel.
So where are these brothels that lock their workers (and clients, no less) in rooms? Under the Prostitution Reform Act, no operator can force a worker to have sex, so this would be totally illegal.
Locks can be psychological, not just physical. You clearly have NO idea what some brothels are like. If you don’t believe me, you’re welcome to contact me privately and hear the truth.
Also, there is no point having laws if the police wont enforce them, brothels are often left to do what they want because the police dont want to waste their precious time dealing with brothels.
Police do enforce the law. When sex workers have complained about violence, etc., to the police, the police do attend, do take the complaint seriously, and do take the case to court.
The comments you are making Rachael, make it look more and more as if you are making it up as you go along.
I know of brothels that have provided the police with security camera footage when they have turned up to investigate. I know of brothels that totally support the worker’s choice to say no.
Not every brothel is as you would wish to paint them. True, some brothels do need to comply with the PRA. If they don’t, it’s because people don’t complain. If the people being fined, etc., in the brothels mentioned above complained to the police that those brothels were breaking ss16 and 17 of the PRA, the police would take action. But the police cannot take action when someone doesn’t complain. Some workers who have had a bad experience at a brothel like that prefer to move on to another, or to work for themselves, rather than complain.
Rather than complaining about the PRA “being a joke”, you should be encouraging people to complain about bad management practices.
If the locks are so psychological Rachael, why do people move from a bad brothel to a better brothel? Why do people move from a brothel to working privately?
She was clearly talking about physical locks. Don’t change the suject.
No offense, but why are you so certain about issues that are clearly proving you incorrect?
Femme Fatales in Auckland its electronic swipe cards so if you lose that you cant just open the door, also if a client is on top of you how do u even run to the door? Pelican club in Auckland door is locked from inside, managers don’t have keys ready to unlock if emergency happens. They all have locks! You can unlock them but you’ve got to be able to get to them first. The PRA is a joke, theres not meant to be forced hours to work either, fines, shift fees, bonds, but it all still happens.
Not every brothel is as you would wish to paint them. True, some brothels do need to comply with the PRA. If they don’t, it’s because people don’t complain. If the people being fined, etc., in the brothels mentioned above complained to the police that those brothels were breaking ss16 and 17 of the PRA, the police would take action. But the police cannot take action when someone doesn’t complain. Some workers who have had a bad experience at a brothel like that prefer to move on to another, or to work for themselves, rather than complain.
Rather than complaining about the PRA “being a joke”, you should be encouraging people to complain about bad management practices.
I would have thought street work would be more dangerous. People like Peter Stephens and Joseph Reekers attacked prostitutes on the street, but not in brothels, at least as far as I know. Reekers later went on to murder a woman, who I think was a hairdresser. These sort of guys could make a quick getaway on the street, whereas doing this sort of thing inside a brothel means that there are potential witnesses around, and maybe someone who can stop them. Of course, bad things can happen anyway, but I’d expect the street to be more dangerous.
I’d be interested to see the numbers on street prostitution since the law change – but it may be that there aren’t any. One of the hopes of decriminalisation was that it would lead to less street prostitution by opening other, less risky, options to sex workers.
Some at least of the liberal arguments for decriminalisation, especially the right to control their own bodies line, are somewhat eroded by women being pushed onto the streets by gangs or partners. It’s an area in which to avoid dramatic reforms – but a few – perhaps age limits, seem sensible.
The kind of sexual culture that a thriving prostitution industry promotes also feeds into the commodification of sex, which has some bearing on the emergence of phenomena like twerking or roastbusting. A long, well-considered inquiry and reform process is probably desirable.
The Key government will no doubt instead introduce something as meaningful as a drunken knee-trembler: urgent, incoherent, and essentially unsatisfactory.
There is already a restriction on age (18) which is heavily enforced by operators and the government.
If you’d like do something about the commodification of sex, I suggest you do something about Hollywood and the music industry. These being the largest cultural purveyors of sex. Sex work, which takes place privately behind closed doors, is miniscule in comparison.
Vast though my personal influence may be, Hollywood has not thus far not chosen to bow to it. Perhaps too these technical issues are best left to those who have developed expertise in the field.
Prostitution though is a public policy matter – and I am by no means convinced that either the abundance of underage street prostitution in some areas is unrelated, or that large scale prostitution businesses such as the Chow brothers’ represent an improvement on the legal principles that reigned before the reform.
There are figures (from Christchurch) quoted in here:
http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/commercial-property-and-regulatory/prostitution/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrc-report/documents/report.pdf
“total numbers of sex workers increased slightly from 375 in 1999 to 392 workers in 2006”
“The number of street based sex workers decreased from 106 in 1999, to 100 in 2006”
There was a lot of fear mongering in the media about street-based workers increasing by 400%, which is absolutely ridiculous. If anything, there was a reduction. Either way, the entire point of the law is that people can work in brothels or on the street and many people choose to work on the street, and shouldn’t be demeaned for that.
Although Christchurch has been spoken for, most of the controversy is around South Auckland, and the supposed 400% increase in workers on the street there. Prior to Law reform, the police established the number of street based sex workers in Auckland city at 360. Counties Manukau police established the number of street based sex workers in South Auckland at 150. That was in 2003, and gives a grand total of 510 for all of Auckland.
In 2007, the Christchurch School of Medicine established that there were 230 sex workers in all of Auckland. That’s a reduction in the number of street workers by over 50%.
Wellington had 50 in 2003, in 2013, it’s less than 20.
People forget that although sex work has been decriminalised, sex for free has a greater draw, and is readily available through various dating sites. It is this, as well as media images, that “commodifies” sex.
The so-called Family First group would be more credible if they offered alternatives to women engaged in sex work, rather than promoting punitive measures. Giving women (and men) a choice in their careers is far more productive than engaging in quasi-religious moralising.
Considering that making soliciting illegal has never been successful in any country, I think the track record of criminalising this activity speaks for itself.
Which suggests to me that FF would be happy to push prostitution back underground; out of sight; out of mind; and pretend it doesn’t exist. Of course it would still exist. But not so visibly and the middle class moralists could rest easy, pretending otherwise.
That is what I find repugnant about FF’s activities – the hypocrisy of what they advocate.
It is clear when reading the background to their submission – the 103 page “addendum” (unless they are correcting their submission, they meant an appendix), their real concern is not about freeing anyone from sexual exploitation, but about whether or not the sex industry as a whole is paying sufficient tax (by making various primary school errors, they say it isn’t), and make the claim that all managers of SOOBs (Small Owner Operated Brothels) should also be required to obtain Operators Certificates. They even claim that the law does not exempt the “managers” of SOOBs from being required to have Operator’s Certificates. obviously, they can’t read, as it is clear in the legislation that SOOBs are exempt as, and the legislation makes this quite clear, SOOBs don’t have operators or managers. By it’s very definition in the PRA, a brothel operator is someone who has control over a sex worker, or sex workers. A SOOB is generally one person “managing” their self, working from their own home – in the same way that any other Home Occupation is carried out. How is that person supposed to get an Operators Certificate when they are only managing their own self? The language they use throughout is derogatory.
All this adds up to indicating that Freedom From Sexual Exploitation isn’t concerned about exploitation of any sort.
Comments are closed.