Here’s a prime example of socialistic laws gone bad as illustrated in the article “We'd Be No Worse Off Than the Europeans”. In Germany, any person who is out of work is given a form of ‘unemployment’ to survive until he or she can find a job. Sounds great doesn’t it? Well, the downside is that after one year a person on welfare is given a work assignment by a local ‘Job Center’ which is operated by the government. If the person turns down the work assignment, the person is no longer able to receive government help.
I am a strong believer that government aid should be worked for and not so freely handed out but…in Germany, prostitution is legal. The government can call up any woman after one year of being unemployed and force her to work at brothels or as a phone sex operator. “At one job center in the city of Gotha, a 23-year-old woman was told that she had to attend an interview as a "nude model", and should report back on the meeting. Employers in the sex industry can also advertise in job centers, a move that came into force this month. A job center that refuses to accept the advertisement can be sued.”
This is what happens in a socialistic style economy, one which other countries readily embrace and one which America mimmicks in so many ways. Too many handouts are given and now to make up the finacial difference, women are being forced into outrageous professions if they wish to survive. In a more capitalistic economy healthcare is better for some and worse for others; but at least in a capitalistic economy people have the freedom to choose their own professions.
3 comments:
-1 for spelling mistakes in MEG's post (waived)
As far as I know, this is a true story, and not an urban myth. Although apparently working in bars and restaurants as a waitress is in the same skill category as prostitution and posing nude - and you are allowed to choose openings from the skill category (before one is assigned to you).
I don't think it's correct to claim that socialism/communism has anything to do with this. I'd be more inclined to blame elected governments that have to make compromises.
Think about it. The "right" to work in the sex trade is enforced in many states in this country. And we also have people interested in welfare reform (like rex) who want the unemployed to be pushed a bit harder into work. All it takes is combining these two ideas and not thinking about how they interact with one another to get us in the same situation as in Germany.
Again, I think this comes back to the lack of incentives for intelligent decisions on the part of bureaucrats. It would seem fairly sensible to me to offer rewards to people who figure out that this sort of thing is a possibility (that needs to be eliminated) before it actually happens.
That's why us sex workers call for the DECRIMINALIZATION prostitution.Legalization views prostitution as a vice that needs to be heavily contained and controlled. In places that have legalization systems, such as Amsterdam, Germany and the State of Victoria in Australia etc., sex pros must regisister at the police station, be photographed, fingerprinted and give very personal info about themselves to the police. (Anyone previously convicted of prostitution is denied a licence).
Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?
One can only work in certain licenced areas, and those brothel owners that end up owning the (hughly expensive) licences are usually rather unsavoury people, best to be avoided.
Poeple in this industry should not be regulated into sex gettoes. SPOC disagrees with any kind of segragation.
If you work without a licence, it remains entirely illegal. Licenced sex pro`s must pay (equivelent CDN dollars) thousands in licence fees per year to authorities ). For that we don`t get any help or protection at all.
In legalized systems, typically, the house takes 50%, then the government takes another 25%, (of the gross, not the net, in the form of "sin" taxes ). (We are not a package of cigarettes or a bottle of alcohol). So we`re, (after they charge us inflated prices for such basics as clean sheets, soap, meals, usually the cheapest take-out food), are lucky to take home 25%. This, after we have done the actual work!
Also usually, it`s 12 hour shifts and we do not have right of refusal, ie., if a client wants a certain kind of sex we`re not comfortable with, well, then we still have to do it. We, at SPOC, call that sexual assault.
Many ordinary Canadians have their hearts in the right place, and will say things like, "There is nothing wrong with prostitution, they should legalize it and the girls can have health checks". Unfortunately this majority of Canadians do not have access to the real info re decriminalization, legalization and criminalization. And who can blame them for thinking this way? It`s not like they can walk into a library or read a newspaper and get that info. (We at SPOC have been speaking at universities and doing media, for years, but it clearly is not enough). Aside from the general ignorance of pro's legal issues, let's talk about forced STI (sexually transmitted infection) checks. All sexually active people should be responsible for their own sexual health. No, you can't fob off that responsibility on to a government official so you can have unsafe sex with us.
What we've seen happen in places like Germany, where they have legalization and forced STI checks, is that the checks are done on Thursdays. The pro then has to display her Grade A Disease Free Meat certificate on the wall of her room. (While the brothels officially state they insist on condom use, the girls tell a very different tale). The client then walks in, checks that she's disease free and says, "Great, you don't have anything! I'm not wearing a condom".
The reason we can get clients to use condoms is because they're concerned about getting something
from us, not because they're worried about giving us an STI. When that "bargaining
chip" is taken out of the equation, we're left with no way to protect ourselves. Also, if a pro does contract a STI, from coersive unsafe sex, her licence is revoked and a new girl is brought in.
Finally, we at SPOC have all agreed to refuse outright to participate in any kind of government legalization schemes.
While we do take an active role in our sexual health, we will not allow any agents of government to be poking and prodding around our vaginas.
Forget that we'll work illegally, like we do now.
Who'd have thought that a bunch of (mostly) Mormon business students would get a comment from an "exotic dancer".
Anyway, her comment and website draw an important distinction between legalization and decriminalization.
This is awesome stuff for an economics student to read because it highlights the difference between centralizaiton and decentralization, and the usefulness of asymmetric information.
Wendy's linked website makes clear that she (and others) favor decriminilization over legalization. They view the latter as a heavily centralized response that does not allow a sex professional to pursue their job in the most desirable way. Decriminalization - as a decentralized response - allows sex professionals to exploit asymmetric information in ways that make their lives better.
She offers the specific case of condom use. Apparently, there is great pressure not to use condoms after health inspections. Sex professionals could use the uncertainty created by a lack of health inspections to encourage condom use.
For doubters, this is similar to the cleanliness grade sheet that restaurants in California must post prominently. Patrons take this as a sign of cleanliness, but it is reasonable to view it as just the opposite: think about it, when is a restaurant dirtiest, right after an inspection or right before?
Post a Comment