Always win when you’re singing

I’ve never been a drug addict. I’ve never owed money to a loan shark. I’ve never been abandoned with a couple of small children and no means of support. I’ve never felt under the control of a man, who might physically or mentally abuse me.  I don’t know her life story, but I’d bet Jacqui Smith has never been in any of those situations either. So maybe neither she nor I are the best people to comment on what some women see as their way out of such a crisis - sex - or rather, sex for money.

I should also add that I’ve never lived in or near a red-light district, so I also haven’t had to suffer the quite legitimate concerns of those who find that their residential streets have become full of scantily dressed ladies, kerb crawlers, and the criminals who can be associated with the sex trade. I’ve also never been a poor woman from a developing country ’sold’ in one way or another into the trade and trafficked to the UK to be used and abused.

So having established that the issues surrounding prostitution aren’t simple, it was strange to see the Home Secretary simplify them to one potential new criminal offence: paying for sex with a woman ‘controlled for another person’s gain’. Ignorance of the woman’s situation will be no defence, thereby effectively criminalising anyone who pays for sex through recognised channels. I say ‘recognised channels’ because there will still be the option for the rich, powerful or attractive man of simply picking up a woman in a club or bar, having a good evening out - followed by a good night in. And no-one seems to have mentioned male prostitution.

Having over-simplified the subject of why women become prostitutes, Ms Smith then goes on to complicate matters by apparently confusing or correlating it with lap-dancing. Over the past couple of years, lap-dancing clubs have become the new enemy of middle-class Britain, as their licencing requirements are not those of a sex establishment, but the same as a wine bar. Now I do not approve of lap-dancing clubs in residential areas, any more than I approve of any other establishment which makes residents feel uncomfortable, unwelcome or unsafe on their own streets. I would not support a prostitution ‘toleration area’ on the same basis. I don’t want my soon-to-be teenaged daughter and her friends propositioned by a leering Mondeo Man as they walk back from the bus stop. But is lap-dancing or prostitution per se wrong?

The terribly middle-class voice of the Fawcett Society has thrown itself behind the campaign to limit lap-dancing clubs. Now whilst I can support the campaign to remove such establishments from residential areas, I am not quite sure how this fits into the Fawcett’s equality’ portfolio of campaigns. The society seems to follow others in believing that all those employed in the sex industry are there because they are forced, either physically, or by circumstances. They think that women should be prevented from being forced into such degrading work and freed to do the more glamorous and rewarding work of cleaning toilets or being dependent on a man. Wasn’t that what we were trying to get away from in the first place?
The Enflish Collective of Prostitutes are predictably opposed to criminalising their clients. But they make some good points. One of their case studies is of a young woman who can make £250 for 4 hours lap-dancing - about the same as 35 hours cleaning mornings and evenings. And if she can make that money from waving her attractive body at some gullible men, who is nearer being exploited here?

The same will undoubtedly be true for many prostitutes. Of course we should stop women being forced into prostitution, just as we should prevent them being forced into other jobs and situations against their will. If we dislike drug addicts turning to the sex industry, let’s make sure there are plenty of places for them to get clean of drugs. But to say to a woman who is acting of her own free will ‘You may want to earn a very good wage by selling your body, but we think it would be more ‘dignified’ for you to clean a factory or be a shelf-stacker‘ seems to me to be as far opposed to feminism as you can get. What right has anyone, even other women, to tell women what they can and can’t do for a living, just because we disapprove of it? As my old friend Costigan Quist states: ’This “feminist” message betrays a remarkably low opinion of women’. There are many ways in which women (and men) are exploited in 21st century Britain, so why not seek ways to address those by ensuring everyone has a safe and secure place to live and enough money to live a decent life? If people then want to sell their bodies for sex rather than manual labour, should morals be a reason to stop them? If a woman truly makes a free decision and the effects on residential areas are removed, what is the harm?

Some critics have argued that men will look for other ‘opportunities’  if prostitution becomes less available.  Jacqui Smith has brushed this aside, saying that it was ‘not mine or the government’s responsibility to ensure that the demand is satisfied‘, adding: ‘Basically, if it means fewer people are able to go out and pay for sex I think that would be a good thing.’ So there you go. A moral judgement from Nanny Jacqui. Let’s go back to the days when women ‘gave’ themselves to a man and where admitting to wanting and enjoying sex, rather than engaging in ‘marital duties’ made you a wild and wanton woman. The right of a worker to move away from wage slavery is ingrained in socialism, but it seems Labour is frightened to give women the freedom that they sought over the years for other workers.

Dr Katherine Rake, Director of the Fawcett Society, said ”We’ve sleepwalked into a situation where sex is bought and sold like a commodity.” Maybe so, but stopping prostitution won’t end that. Whilst The Sun and Sport, together with the lads mags are still making their money from admiring men, sex will still be a commodity, just one that has a thin veneer of respectability and where mainly men pull the strings and make the money. The feminist Bea Campbell, opposing lap-dancing. said, “The problem isn’t sex, it’s sexism.” Too right, but not in the way that you meant it.

Ms Smith said that she had ruled out a universal ban on paid sex because some women argued they did it out of choice ‘and it’s not my job to criminalise the demand for that‘. Really? You could have fooled me.