Despite our similarities with Australia etc, we live in a very different culture. I remark on this because of the different treatment of prostitutes around the Anglo-Saxon world ..... supposedly the second oldest profession in the world, but in many places not accepted as being part of society even now.
For instance, despite its historical connections with the free love movement via the the early socialist groups such as the 'Fellowship of the New Life', and its more socialist offshoot, The Fabian Society, many of whose members were followers of the free love movement, the UK Labour Party has never embraced the idea of 'working girls', preferring to think of them as exploited women instead. The other political parties have to some degree or other taken a similar stance, with a set of polices to limit prostitution by making soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning or managing a brothel, pimping and pandering, crimes. But left the act itself legal .....
However in Australia, they have taken a different view and prostitution is legal in the most populated states in the country ....
But what brought the difference in treatment of prostitutes to my mind, was the news reports coming out of Australia this year that hookers who lose their jobs ~ by which I have to assume those in organised brothels, and not the 'freelancer', although reports didn't specify ~ can now claim unemployment welfare benefits if their sex work dries up, welfare officials have decided.
Now. liberal though this may seem, for the life of me I don't see how the ladies concerned are going to prove that their sex work has dried up? I speak with some authority on this, as a long time ago, and in a different career, I worked as a visiting officer for the Department of Social Security (DHSS), and many of the ladies I visited turned a trick or two when they needed shoes for their kids etc. I couldn't prove anything, even if neighbours complained (anonymously), and simply advised the girls in question to either ply their trade away from home, or be discrete and not do many clients or I would be forced to cancel their benefits. Which of course would have simply forced the girls back into the sex trade full time, and put them at risk of harm.
The Australian welfare officers will face the same problem ..... proving a girls work is 'drying up' can be a very tricky business.
For instance, despite its historical connections with the free love movement via the the early socialist groups such as the 'Fellowship of the New Life', and its more socialist offshoot, The Fabian Society, many of whose members were followers of the free love movement, the UK Labour Party has never embraced the idea of 'working girls', preferring to think of them as exploited women instead. The other political parties have to some degree or other taken a similar stance, with a set of polices to limit prostitution by making soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning or managing a brothel, pimping and pandering, crimes. But left the act itself legal .....
 |
| The Worlds Oldest and Most Honest Profession? |
However in Australia, they have taken a different view and prostitution is legal in the most populated states in the country ....
 |
| Australian Prostitution |
But what brought the difference in treatment of prostitutes to my mind, was the news reports coming out of Australia this year that hookers who lose their jobs ~ by which I have to assume those in organised brothels, and not the 'freelancer', although reports didn't specify ~ can now claim unemployment welfare benefits if their sex work dries up, welfare officials have decided.
Now. liberal though this may seem, for the life of me I don't see how the ladies concerned are going to prove that their sex work has dried up? I speak with some authority on this, as a long time ago, and in a different career, I worked as a visiting officer for the Department of Social Security (DHSS), and many of the ladies I visited turned a trick or two when they needed shoes for their kids etc. I couldn't prove anything, even if neighbours complained (anonymously), and simply advised the girls in question to either ply their trade away from home, or be discrete and not do many clients or I would be forced to cancel their benefits. Which of course would have simply forced the girls back into the sex trade full time, and put them at risk of harm.
The Australian welfare officers will face the same problem ..... proving a girls work is 'drying up' can be a very tricky business.
