I don't want to take this thread off-topic but will respond to this precisely because it has veered off-topic here.
There are major problems with applying elastic definitions to agreed terms in order to conflate sex work with rape. The author is reaching in trying to make connections between this incident in Cologne and the legalisation of prostitution in Germany (since 2002). The reason she is doing this, is because she believes that prostitution IS rape. This is why she identifies as a "prostituted woman" (exited). The 'prostituted woman' term is meant to indicate that the woman is unable to provide consent because a woman cannot consent to rape.
Obviously, there is a world of difference between consensual sex for money and sexual assault/rape. The difference in terminologies revolves around "consent". "Prostituted women" believe it is impossible to provide consent to sex for money, whereas "sex workers" believe that women have agency and can therefore decide for themselves whether to provide consent or not. Sex workers do not define prostitution as 'violence against women' (as Rebecca Mott does) although they do acknowledge that violence and rape can occur within a sex work setting. Sex workers advocate for decriminalisation of sex work (not legalisation) and for labour rights for sex workers, so that they may be afforded the same rights and social protections as other people in society. "Prostituted women" advocate for criminalisation of prostitution, whether directly or through the "End Demand" model which criminalises the clients. They believe that prostitution is not only rape of the prostitute, but that there is a causal link between sex work, or more specifically the sex industry, and rape as defined in the dictionary. Meaning: the rape of "good" women.
As for the article:
That men in mass crowds of all cultures, all backgrounds and in all times of history have been sexually violent to females.
What does Rebecca mean by this? That men are inherently violent? Or that they have always been sexually violent throughout history because ?? why? This sentence is not qualified with the "P" word, so is she talking about actual sexual violence here? Perhaps the next sentence will provide a clue.
That Germany has made itself the brothel of Europe – that is it ok to rape, mentally abuse, torture and even murder women and girls as long you pay for it.
Brothel of Europe *eyeroll* - rape, mentally abuse, torture and murder of sex workers is okay ..... because why? Oh legalisation of prostitution apparently.
There is no questioning of the disappearances of prostituted women in Germany, no questioning the high rate of murdered prostituted women since prostitution was legalised.
Yes there is. There is no data on disappearances or rapes of sex workers available.
There is data from the Federal Crime Office on exploitative labour situations in the sex industry - but that doesn't cover murders.
The fact is that the police thoroughly investigate any and all murders of sex workers. Claiming that politicians don't care about violence against sex workers is rubbish.
There is no comprehensive data outside the Federal Crime Office's figures - which show consistently that exploitative situations in sex work declined.
"As the government stated in 2013, from a quantitative viewpoint, the risk potential of human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation in Germany is limited. What did increase,
however, is the number of media reports about human trafficking, and thus the impression that the phenomenon itself increased."
https://researchprojectgermany.wordpres ... ution-act/To justify prostitution as sex work – you must ignore all tortures, all mental violence, all the murders of the prostituted.
No. Actually efforts to decriminalise seek to address violence against sex workers including murders. We just celebrated End Violence against Sex Workers Day on December 17th - a global event held each year to commemorate all the brothers and sisters we have lost or have been harmed through violence. Sex workers again vowed to continue fighting for decriminalisation so that the violence against sex workers will at the very least, be mitigated. We'd like for it to end completely, but realistically we accept that we live in a deeply mysoginistic and violent culture. WE cannot end violence as one movement made up of mostly women. That would take a mass movement and would include bringing an end to imperial wars and the downfall of capitalism and dismantling our current system of government. Rachel offers no such analysis. Her remarks tend to be based on how she feels about her time in the industry. It doesn't seem to progress from there. I have been reading her stuff for 4 years, and it hasn't evolved or grown in any way. It is always the same tone of resignation and at times utter despair. Very few actual solutions. TBH, I find her stuff very difficult to read and digest.
Of course, majority of that violence will remain hidden and considered a non-crime, for it will done inside the sex trade.
Violence against sex workers is hidden largely due to criminalisation. If sex workers feel confident reporting violence to police, they will and do do it. (See the New Zealand model and the NSW Australia model for evidence). But again, I suspect that Ms Mott is referring to sex work itself as being violence and torture.
When we choose to legalize prostitution, we are stating that the prostituted class are sub-human.
No, we are stating that sex workers are human and deserve the same rights as other people.
Stating that it is impossible to rape a prostitute.
Stating that the prostitute does not have human emotions such as terror, grief or confusion.
Stating that you cannot hurt a prostitute, for it has been decided she feel no pain.
And stating that killing a prostitute is a non-event, just getting rid of the trash.
Only Rebecca Mott is stating this. The German police are not. Nor is the German government. Nor are sex workers.
In that environment, why would any men living in or visiting Germany, think that women have rights to safety and dignity.
Right. Because prostitution is a job devoid of dignity and therefore causes rape. *raises eyebrows*
What the men in the crowd have to learn is to pay for their sexual violence first, then no-one will care
Prostitution is sexual violence. Rape is sexual violence. Rape and prostitution are one and the same.
Does anyone else see how this approach fails to serve rape victims and in fact muddies the waters and is more likely to leave them overlooked? This is the same rhetoric they employ (yes Rebecca is paid by the anti-prostitutionist lobby) to supposedly tackle trafficking. Sex work is trafficking; sex work is rape; sex work is torture.
If a woman says "I consent" then let her consent. Isn't "agency" a foundational principle of feminism?
If a woman says "I do not consent", she is being assaulted or raped. There is no need to perform semantic contortions so that the scenario fits your ideology. Surely it is better to utilise terms based on their dictionary definitions. Especially when talking about sensitive matters like sexual violence - the more specific, the better for a unified understanding.
I will include the report by the by the Federal Government in Germany on the I m p a c t of the Act Regulating the Legal Situation of Prostitutes for those who are interested.
http://www.bmfsfj.de/RedaktionBMFSFJ/Br ... b=true.pdfJust wanted to clear that up before we move on.
