Prostitute Tolerance Zones

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Jan 2005, 16:04

What the POL view?

Listened to an excellent debate on the matter yesterday on five Live. There was one hysterical bit involving Margo MacDonald but altogether I find its an interesting and serious subject. Do you remember a few years ago there was a suggestion to move the Zone to Baileyfield Industrial Estate?

DG · Post by DG » 27 Jan 2005, 16:43

I think it should be taken one step further. There should be a number of controlled legalised brothels. Scotland is cold and dark and the areas that prostitutes tend to work are very unsafe. Surely it makes more sense for this buisness to be conducted in doors where there could be on hand help, safety measures, information and support

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Some people have been paying for s ex for centuries and this is not about to change. Prostitutes put themselves in dangerous situations while carrying out their profession. As a society we could do so much more to help keep them more safe and deter some of the less favourable characters exploiting them. AND...the government could get their cut too....if this keeps them happy! ..By tax's I mean..

DG

MrSpoon · Post by **MrSpoon** » 27 Jan 2005, 16:55

DG wrote:Prostitutes put themselves in dangerous situations while carrying out their profession

I think you'll find a lot of them don't volunterly put themselves into that position - it's a little more complicated than that. And just because something has always happened, it doesn't make it 'right'.

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 27 Jan 2005, 17:06

DG wrote: hand help

DG

Don't really want to think about that

DG · Post by DG » 27 Jan 2005, 17:07

I think you'll find a lot of them don't volunterly put themselves into that position - it's a little more complicated than that.

Of course it's more complicated than that. However, I'm not about to write a thesis on the subject. And yes, I am very much aware of the circumstances involved when certain people find themselves prostituting. Hence, if there was more control and a set work place these individuals would find the support, counselling, etc far more accessible that it previously is. It can be very difficult for current support systems to reach the most vulnerable.

And...just because something has been around for centuries does not make it 'right'...BUT it is not going away..and the fact that nothing has made it go away for centuries may be saying something. Do you suggest, Mr Spoon, that hanging around street corners and dark lanes or industrial sites is an option? This is when the system is wide open to further abuse.

Yes, this situation is complicated and I do not hold my current position on it through ignorance of issues involved.

DG

Post by **wangi** » 27 Jan 2005, 17:22

MrSpoon wrote:
DG wrote:Prostitutes put themselves in dangerous situations while carrying out their profession
I think you'll find a lot of them don't volunterly put themselves into that position - it's a little more complicated than that. And just because something has always happened, it doesn't make it 'right'.

But saying it's "wrong" aint going to stop it and make it disappear!

ali · Post by **ali** » 27 Jan 2005, 17:30

MrSpoon wrote:
DG wrote:Prostitutes put themselves in dangerous situations while carrying out their profession
I think you'll find a lot of them don't volunterly put themselves into that position - it's a little more complicated than that. And just because something has always happened, it doesn't make it 'right'.

It might help to move the debate on a little if we could leave the rights or wrongs of the situation out of it and try to focus on solutions, Mr Spoon.

How do we deal with the "problem" as it exists?

Surely DG has a point in that regulation would give prostitutes a safer and healthier environment in which to work?

MrSpoon · Post by **MrSpoon** » 27 Jan 2005, 18:16

Is it not the case however that the rights and wrongs of the situation have to be considered to decide on the appropriate action to take against the current "problem"? If it is made too easy, safe, and regulated, is that not going to be seen as incouraging the practice? I do not doubt that the people already in this position need help, but I would consider the help that will help and incourage and people to be able to get away from the need to prostitute themselves, and to stop it happening in the first place, of a different style the the type of action I described above.

Is that fair?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Jan 2005, 18:24

ali wrote:Surely DG has a point in that regulation would give prostitutes a safer and healthier environment in which to work?

Agreed, whether right or wrong, it is happening and I cannot forsee a time when it will not happen. IMHO prostitutes should be entitled or encouraged to ply their trade in a safe, healthy environment. Whether its indoor or outdoor.

Thereby lies one of the problems. Its my guess that many of those who "use" prostitutes come from the better residential areas of our city. Yet they would be up in arms if it arrived in their neighbourhoods.

Did the tolerance zones work on any level?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Jan 2005, 18:39

MrSpoon wrote:Is it not the case however that the rights and wrongs of the situation have to be considered to decide on the appropriate action to take against the current "problem"?

So if its decided (who by?) that Prostitution is "Wrong" what do you believe the appropriate actions might be? Given that it is guaranteed still to happen.

ali · Post by **ali** » 27 Jan 2005, 18:41

MrSpoon wrote:Is it not the case however that the rights and wrongs of the situation have to be considered to decide on the appropriate action to take against the current "problem"?

Why are you so insistent on judging these people?

MrSpoon wrote: If it is made too easy, safe, and regulated, is that not going to be seen as incouraging the practice?

Nobody is "incouraging" anybody. Its about making people safe.

MrSpoon · Post by **MrSpoon** » 27 Jan 2005, 18:46

Em, I was using "problem" to copy Ali's use - it wasn't language to express my own views. It's not going to be a very interesting discussion if another way of looking at this isn't considered, is it?

ali · Post by **ali** » 27 Jan 2005, 18:57

MrSpoon wrote:Em, I was using "problem" to copy Ali's use - it wasn't language to express my own views. It's not going to be a very interesting discussion if another way of looking at this isn't considered, is it?

I think most people would consider that many of the issues stemming from prostitution are "problems".

BUT like Porty I have a problem with someone deciding that prostitution is "right" or "wrong". I presume you mean "morally" wrong?

MrSpoon · Post by **MrSpoon** » 27 Jan 2005, 19:28

ali wrote:
MrSpoon wrote:Em, I was using "problem" to copy Ali's use - it wasn't language to express my own views. It's not going to be a very interesting discussion if another way of looking at this isn't considered, is it?

I think most people would consider that many of the issues stemming from prostitution are "problems".

BUT like Porty I have a problem with someone deciding that prostitution is "right" or "wrong". I presume you mean "morally" wrong?

I think I would be a lot clearer if I just said what I think on the whole issue rather saying little bits here and there

You are completely correct when you say we should not judge - and I hope that is not what I've demonstrated so far. However, making a moral decision on something is different to judging, and affects the approach one should take to the issue. As a Christian, the moral decisions is rather easy - I accept what it says in the Bible, and that is prostitution is not an acceptable practice. This, coincidentally, agrees with what my morality thought of the issue before I was a Christian. As to what we should do, and I'm afraid I don't really have any answers. All I can say is that whatever happens, it must express love and compassion to people who find themselves in this position, and should be concerned with improving their quality of life, and ultimately helping them get away from the need for prostitution. Perhaps I'm being rather naive, but I find it hard to comprehend prostitutes being happy with what has become their 'job', and not keen to be able to do something else with their lives.

I think, though as I already said I really don't know what the answer is, this has consequences on the way the situation has to be treated. There needs to be a balance between making conditions safer, and not making it too easy or tempting to continue as a prostitute instead of trying to change your life.

Certainly, we must not look down on prostitutes as none of us are without fault Ã¢â‚¬â€œ we must care for all people and provide care where it is needed.

I think thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s all I can say really!

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 27 Jan 2005, 20:48

2000 years of history shows us that the market for prostitution is here to stay and judging it immoral will change nothing. If that is your view then it is surely just as "immoral" to use a prostitute as it is to be one and yet these women are the main object of denigration by those who seek to condemn.

As others have said, the main criteria should be to make it safer for prostitutes to work. Lets be grown up and accept that the practice is here to stay for as long as men have sex drives and bring it in out of the cold.
I include same sex prostitution.

ali · Post by **ali** » 27 Jan 2005, 21:00

Foxy, that was going to be my next point!!

The good Rev Spoon (to be

) made an excellent (and honest) attempt to outline his position but he neglected to point out that the people who use prostitutes can equally be "judged".

Whats that all about then??

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Jan 2005, 21:05

foxy wrote:2000 years of history shows us that the market for prostitution is here to stay and judging it immoral will change nothing. If that is your view then it is surely just as "immoral" to use a prostitute as it is to be one and yet these women are the main object of denigaration by those who seek to condemn.

Foxy, i think its a lot more than 2000 years of history, unless you believe the birth of prostitution coincided with the supposed birth of christ.

There is no doubt that the Prostitute is viewed as the main "culprit" in the act and that is not right. Christianity and indeed all of the main religions have had more than enough time to influence those who seek to be Prostitutes. Its time to try an approach that's not based on a dubious and unscientific belief system. Has Christianity ever cured any social problem?

PS : on reading Mr Spoon's last post I do not believe he intended any condemnation.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Jan 2005, 21:44

An unofficial tolerance zone existed in Coburg Street for many years, before the yuppies moved in and demanded action. Since then, attempts have been made to relocate the prostitutes but, understandably, no-one wants them in their back yard. Although reported by the Evening News, Baileyfield was in fact never an option. The site under consideration was the freightliner terminal but it was deemed to be unsuitable. Salamander Street was resisted by local residents and no other site has thus far been identified.

Prostitution, of course, is tolerated in the guise of massage parlours. My guess is that the women working the streets are the ones who can't find work in parlours for a variety of reasons, or who are controlled by pimps. I've heard that many are 'bussed in' from Glasgow and further afield, since the going rate is higher in Edinburgh.

I'm FOR tolerance zones. I am not opposed to prostitution in principle, in that I see no reason why a woman should not be free to sell her services, but I would guess that most of these women are not happy in their situation, many are co-erced through threats of violence or drug dependency and they need help.

MrSpoon · Post by **MrSpoon** » 27 Jan 2005, 21:45

I really should be getting on with my homework (eek) at the moment, but I'll quickly say that I'm in complete agreement with you that those who use prostitutes are also an issue, and (in my mind) morally wrong too. As you say, without the people looking for it, it wouldn't exist

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Jan 2005, 22:01

Bob Jefferson wrote: Although reported by the Evening News, Baileyfield was in fact never an option. The site under consideration was the freightliner terminal but it was deemed to be unsuitable. Salamander Street was resisted by local residents and no other site has thus far been identified

I mentioned that there was a funny moment in the 5 Live debate. Now would be a good time to introduce that light hearted occurrence. A female councillor from Bristol was making the same point that Bob just has "Who wants to live in a tolerance zone?". I swear this is true.

She then went on to relate her own idea for the Bristol TZ . She figured that Park and Ride areas were not used in the evening but are well lit etc. There was not a hint of irony.

There was a sort of on-air pause as the broadcaster took a gulp and then dealt with the comment totally professionally. There was also an on-air giggle. When the councillor stopped talking. The broadcaster asked who had laughed? At that point Margo MacDonald confessed antd the whole "team" wet themselves.

DG · Post by DG » 27 Jan 2005, 22:16

I liked that

DG

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 28 Jan 2005, 10:03

Excellent, Porty!

I am in favour of tolerance zones but to absolutely frank I probably wouldn't like it in my own area - not because of my disapproval but because I would feel unsafe.

I hate the way the women involved in this area are always demonised, and whilst Foxy pointed it out and everyone agreed with her, before that this discussion did aim a fair bit of moral judgement at the women and not the clients - just like society. A woman who provides this service is a criminal and yet a man who uses it is not? What's that about?

Furthermore, most (not all) women and a lot of men who turn to prostitution have suffered abuse in the past and have not at that point in their lives the tools to gain a better lifestyle for themselves. Many of them have been trafficked and are in it because they've been beaten, raped, threatened with murder, threatened with the murder of loved ones. Many survivors of sexual abuse have been taught that in sexuality lies their only value, and they are at that time unable to see things any differently. Many prostitutes are in simple desperation - how many people at POL have been threatened with homelessness, hunger, desperate poverty? Not all are drug addicts, and for the ones who are, well, do you think you would cope with life better faced with such horrors?

And yet these are the people we judge to be immoral. I'm afraid, Bible or no Bible, I don't understand that. I also thought the Bible said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". That's one that's easily forgotten.

Tolerance zones help to make society safer for everyone; they move towards ending the demonisation of suffering women, they cut down dramatically the rape and violence many prostitutes suffer, they help improve public health and cut down STIs. If you want to try and end prostitution, start prosecuting the men who use them with the same vigour and the same kinds of sentences. In the meantime, it would be good to remember that prostitutes are people just like you and I, with a job we wouldn't like to have to do. Perhaps we should be grateful that our lives have not led us to that point.

BB

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 28 Jan 2005, 11:40

Prostitution has been around for 1000's of years and the way it has been handled in the UK reminds me of the old adage:

"If you keep on doing what you have always done, you will keep on getting what you have always got."

It is time to break the mould. It needs to be legalised, controlled by license and set up in out of town brothels. Any prostitution outside of these perameters would be classed as illegal and clamped down on.

This would better protect the male and female prostitutes both physically and medically and contribute towards lowering associated crime.

DG · Post by DG » 28 Jan 2005, 11:49

It is time to break the mould. It needs to be legalised, controlled by license and set up in out of town brothels. Any prostitution outside of these perameters would be classed as illegal and clamped down on.

I entirely agree with this, P of P.

DG

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Jan 2005, 12:01

Pal of Porty wrote: set up in out of town brothels.

Could certainly revitalise the Borders' economy

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jan 2005, 12:15

Fantastic post Bellybabe!! One of my all time POL faves.

Marya, you just can't help it can you?

Funnily enough, i was thinking rather than out of town we could combine ZT areas with new build affordable homes. Has to be some synergy there?

Or what about that big empty building in John Street?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 28 Jan 2005, 12:26

Porty wrote:Fantastic post Bellybabe!! One of my all time POL faves.

Suffering from mild food poisoning...you can always tell from my posts when I'm over tired or ill as I get very agitated! Meant it all though.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 28 Jan 2005, 13:54

Porty wrote:..Funnily enough, i was thinking rather than out of town we could combine ZT areas with new build affordable homes. Has to be some synergy there?

Would a legalised brothel be better than a superstore?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 28 Jan 2005, 14:30

We could combine the two - "Just popping out to Tezzies to pick up a few things, love..."... (Bread, milk, and STI or two...)

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jan 2005, 14:34

STI? God, i am so naive. Sexual Tesco Incentive?

CatzVP · Post by **CatzVP** » 28 Jan 2005, 15:29

Very well written BB

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 28 Jan 2005, 15:41

Bravo BB and PoP

CatzVP · Post by **CatzVP** » 28 Jan 2005, 15:58

Pal of Porty wrote: Would a legalised brothel be better than a superstore?

Both are open for business 24 hours, but I'm sure brothels wont take 10 minutes to get a price check!!

Seriously though PoP your points are spot on, its all about safety, on both sides.

MrSpoon · Post by **MrSpoon** » 28 Jan 2005, 17:36

Bellybabe wrote:And yet these are the people we judge to be immoral. I'm afraid, Bible or no Bible, I don't understand that. I also thought the Bible said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". That's one that's easily forgotten.

No! There is a difference between judging someone, and making an informed decision on what one believes to be immoral. And even then, the focus is on the 'act' of prostituion being immoral, not judging the person who partakes in the activity.

Without getting into a debate on the 'nature of morality', you can surely see the flaw in your argument? There must be SOMETHING you deem as immoral, lets say (and hope) murder. When and how did you decide murder was wrong, and is it then wrong to make such a decision?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jan 2005, 17:55

This is not a question of morality. There are people who are putting their lives at risk to pleasure other people, its a fact. Whatever decision you or we take about the morality of the situation, it needs fixing.

Are you saying that the "solution", whatever that may be, will differ depending on the Christian view?

Based on the Christian track record of the last 2000 years, what comfort can you give the ladies who are out there plying their trades tonight?

Get real Mr Spoon.