Instead of a Silly Germans story, you're getting a "Flamingly Idiotic Germans" story.
A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.
The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.
She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.
Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.
The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.
{...}Tatiana Ulyanova, who owns a brothel in central Berlin, has been searching the online database of her local job centre for recruits.
"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job centre when I pay my taxes just like anybody else?" said Miss Ulyanova.
Ulrich Kueperkoch wanted to open a brothel in Goerlitz, in former East Germany, but his local job centre withdrew his advertisement for 12 prostitutes, saying it would be impossible to find them.
Mr Kueperkoch said that he was confident of demand for a brothel in the area and planned to take a claim for compensation to the highest court. Prostitution was legalised in Germany in 2002 because the government believed that this would help to combat trafficking in women and cut links to organised crime.{...}
{Empahsis mine}
While I generally believe that if you hand yourself over to social services, you well and truly should be at their mercy, that strings are always and forever attached, this is just absolutely outrageous and just plain wrong. Perhaps it might actually make women want to get off the welfare rolls, but threatening them with a loss of benefits if they don't start hooking---particularly if they're willing to work at other jobs---is barbaric. It just is. This is no different than someone who is out on the street and finds that this is the only way they can pay the bills. This is moral equivalence at its finest. Germany can't say a legal, tax-paying business isn't worthy of the best and brightest of its unemployed because---ahem---they refuse to distinguish brothels from other late-night businesses, such as bars. It's all about the hours of operations, don't you know? One late night job is the same as the next late-night job.
Germany's effort to be a place where freedom of choice is celebrated has limited the choices of some to refuse things they find morally repellant.
I hate prostitution. I really do. I believe it seriously damages the person who is forced into selling themselves. It tells them that all they have of value to offer society is their genitalia. How it degrades the act of sex is really beside the point here, but that's another serious problem I have with it. But mostly, I hate it because some people refuse to see the downside of prostitution. They close their eyes to it. They take the worldly view and say it's just consensual adults fooling around, and what's the harm in that---even if money is what is required for one parter to consent? Ironically enough, I find that attitude to be incredibly naive and lacking in sight. Also, I don't believe such an emotionally and physically damaging business should ever be allowed equal protection under the law. Think about it for a minute: if an employee is legally protected from ever having to work with asbestos or some other harmful object, why on earth should they be allowed to sell themselves? Sex can be just as life-threatening as working with asbestos: why should this be allowed? I know I don't have to worry about this happening any time soon, but it just flames me when people suggest this is the solution to the problem.
I fully realize that given my, er, adamant stance on this one, I will probably get zero replies, I would love to hear from all of you who believe that prostitution should be legalized on this. Because I know there are a goodly amount of you out there. Really and truly, I want to know what you think about this one, because this is precisely what could happen if such a thing were ever to pass muster here in the States. If you force brothels into paying taxes, they are granted rights in return, one of those rights being that they should be allowed to advertise for employees at unemployment centers, with all of the restrictions associated with such an advert. It could---conceivably---happen here. Does this change your view at all, knowing this could happen to someone you know and perhaps love?
{Hat tip:Villains Vanquished}
Posted by Kathy at January 31, 2005 02:46 PMHey, I'm still fuming over the gender-based discrimination implied in this deal. I mean, really, they looked up her data and decided she was female. Ooh, goody, walking vagina!
I still contend that if they can't offer the job to a man...and fill the job with any man...then it is discriminatory and therefore they should not be entitled to the same benefits as other employers.
For example, suppose they were interested in an IT professional to build their webporn site. In this instance gender makes no matter. Nor does it for doctors, engineers, or au pairs. However, when you are looking for a receptacle for slaking the lust of the public...it becomes a bit more murky. Now you need gender specificity.
So, what you have is someone choosing a life of prostitution in order to feed themselves vs. the government forcing someone into a life of prostitution if they want to continue eating.
Nice.
they are scum.
Posted by: Phoenix at January 31, 2005 03:07 PMI'll have to disagree and say that prostitution should be decriminalized and given the same treatment under the law as other forms of consensual adult activities. The vast majority of harm is a consequence of government persecution creating a black market controlled by organized crime. When done legally it's no more dangerous then other commonly accepted activities. The job of the government is protecting people's rights,not dictating their lifestyle choices. Much like homo***uality,if you personally find it too dangerous,unpleasant or immoral, then the answer is simple-don't do it!
P.S. according to articles posted at www.Feministing.com, the article you commented on was actually false. Does that change your opinion on legalization?
Posted by: Anon at February 3, 2005 11:27 AMI really don't know about the validity of the article anymore. It probably is wrong. I should have kept up with it, but I didn't. Bad blogger;) The overall point, however, remains the same: this could conceivably happen if a country was to legalize prostitution.
I take your points, anon. Usually I am one of those "get the government out of the bedroom" type of people. I don't believe it's anybody's business what happens in someone's bedroom, whether it be homos*xuality, BDSM, whatever...if everyone's on the same page, it's fine with me. I'm definitely not going to ask, and I definitely don't want to someone to tell. Yet, wouldn't you agree, that when money enters into the equation, it's a different story altogether?
The acceptance of payment substitutes for informed consent, and I don't believe that's good enough. Because what if someone really does need to feed themselves, or to pay the rent, and this isn't something they'd like to do, but can find no other way to raise the cash? In the world of prostitution, well, it's all right to sell yourself; your genitals can make you money, why the hell not do it? After all, you're going to do it anyway, why not get paid for it? There's something inherently wrong with that. It's coercive. It's not the same as saying you have a strong body and can haul things. It's not the same as saying you have strong legs and are able to pedal a bike and can deliver packages. It's not the same thing as saying you can deftly work a needle and thread. People who use their bodies in such a way don't lose much. Sure their legs and backs and eyes might hurt at the end of the day, but they've also earned an honest dollar, and they can still look themselves in the mirror. The simple fact is that the cost is not as high with those jobs as it is with prostitution. Besides the risk of STDs, there's also the fact that a goodly amount of violence takes place in prostitution---even the legal sort of prostitution. They always have bouncers in brothels. Why? Because there is a very good chance the prostitutes will be abused by the customers. Personally, I believe the risk of emotional harm can potentially outweigh all of these issues. S*x is already a thorny enough issue for most people without money entering into the equation.
Prostitution harms us all. It degrades self-worth and it degrades s*x in general. Like pr0n, prostitution makes s*x into something cheap and sleazy. Where prostitution is concerned, it's only about the satisfying of the baser human needs, it's only about what makes you happy in the pants. Your brain doesn't come into it. And that not only degrades s*x, but it degrades humanity, as well.
So, I suppose that's a longwinded way of saying, no, I don't believe it should ever be legalized. While there is a valid argument to be made about bringing it above board, there's always going to be something someone wants s*xually that will be outside the realm of the law. Are we now going to have children working in brothels? While, I don't think that's going to ever be legalized, still...once you take the approach that because there is a market to serve, that you're not going to make any moral judgments about what people do as long as its consensual, the slippery slope appears. Where does it stop?
Posted by: Kathy at February 3, 2005 12:26 PMHow about mistresses -- in the old form of a "kept woman." It's quite legal, and it's a girl (or guy -- see also Breakfast at Tiffany's) giving 5exual favors in exchange for financial or in-kind remuneration. How is that morally different from prostitution? Is it that it's not regulatable? Higher-end prostitutes will pick and choose which people to have as clients, so the take-anyone-who-pays doesn't always work there.
On the veracity -- checked with a friend in Germany (nothing like going to the source), and she says that while she's quite certain that nothing like that has happened, and that there are some level of safeguards in place to ensure that it won't, it's still theoretically possible, based on local regulations. So.... fake, but accurate.
Posted by: Adrianne Truett at February 3, 2005 06:37 PMThe poverty argument is simply a strawman. A person can consent to s*x regardless of how much money they have. Wealthier people,like beautiful people,simply have more options. Everyone has the option of saying "NO".
A prostitute doesn't sell herself,she sells a service. What's the difference? Agency. Engaging in any given activity is entirely a matter of her choice. A s*x worker never relinquishes control of her body at any time. Just as a massage therapist uses her skill to bring physical pleasure to her client,so to does a prostitute. While far more intimate,there isn't any ethical difference between the two. The exchange is as honest and legitimate as any other service for money interaction.
Social stigma is the basis for why prostitution is considered degrading. There's nothing objectively different about prostitution that would distinguish it ethically from other forms of casual s*x. All s*x is about satisfying basic human desires-none of it has an intellectual component.
Why do you consider being "happy in the pants" objectionable? Doesn't that essentially condemn all s*x,and not just prostitution?
As far as the slippery slope is concerned,it stops when the people involved haven't given informed consent, free of force or fraud.
Posted by: Anon at February 4, 2005 02:19 AMThe poverty argument is simply a strawman. A person can consent to s*x regardless of how much money they have. Wealthier people,like beautiful people,simply have more options. Everyone has the option of saying "NO".
Yeah, everyone has the option of saying 'no.' But saying 'no' is a luxury some simply cannot afford. Whether they're hooking for money, for a visa, to keep their families safe (as is the case with many Eastern European women), to make sure they live to see the sunrise, or simply to eat, many people don't have the option of saying 'no.'
Why is it the default position of those who support legalized prostitution that everyone who hooks for a living:
a. knows precisely what they're doing
b. has no issues with what they're doing
c. sees it simply as a way to make a living
d. simply provides a much-needed service? It's like you assume there is no bad side to prostitution. You say "the poverty argument is a strawman." No, it's not. There are more poor hookers in the world than there are fancy prostitutes who sell their services for thousands a night. That's a simple fact. Why assume that because there are fancy hookers out there and they do well by themselves, the rest of the s*x trade is just like it? And should be judged accordingly, particularly when it's blatantly obvious that it's not the case? Choice is a luxury most poor prostitutes simply cannot afford.
A s*x worker never relinquishes control of her body at any time.
Wanna make a bet on that one? I have to ask: are you a man? While I don't want to threaten your anonymity, it would seem to me that you are. If so, you wouldn't know what it's like to be a woman and to know that most men are simply bigger than you and, if they wanted to, could force you into doing many things during s*x you would not like to do simply because of their size and strength. I'm not saying all prostitution is rape, or even that all s*x is rape, but your statement is a broad generalization and is not true in actuality, whether it be consensual, non-moneyed s*x, or prostitution.
Just as a massage therapist uses her skill to bring physical pleasure to her client,so to does a prostitute. While far more intimate,there isn't any ethical difference between the two. The exchange is as honest and legitimate as any other service for money interaction.
That's kind of funny. I never go to a massage therapist to "receive pleasure." It feels good, don't get me wrong, but any pleasure I might receive is a side benefit: I generally go to get my back straightened out;) While I would agree that both can be honest and ethical exchanges, which transaction is less likely to cause physical and emotional harm to the service provider? While I'm not discounting that there are, undoubtedly, many prostitutes who have absolutely no problems with their customers, that everything is just as you said, who is more likely to be attacked? Who is more likely to have harm done to them? Who is more likely to have some sort of hangup with what they're doing? It's not the massage therapist and I don't think legalization would change this.
Social stigma is the basis for why prostitution is considered degrading.
While I'm not going to argue with you about social stigma just yet, I would simply ask whether you consider all stigmas to wrong and if they are, should they be pitched in a 21st Century way? Were the morals of our forefathers completely wrong, or is there perhaps a reason, outside of religion, that certain behavior was encouraged and other discouraged?
I'm curious as to what you'll say.
There's nothing objectively different about prostitution that would distinguish it ethically from other forms of casual s*x. All s*x is about satisfying basic human desires-none of it has an intellectual component.
Why do you consider being "happy in the pants" objectionable? Doesn't that essentially condemn all s*x,and not just prostitution?
S*x doesn't have an intellectual component? Of course it does. To get turned on, your brain has to be involved. Male or female genitalia just doesn't swell up on it's own. The eyes see things, the nose smells things, the mouth tastes things---these are all processed by the brain, which then sends out the appropriate signals to your body. That's what's going on in the subconscious. But then there's the conscious part of the equation: human beings think about s*x. They know what they like. They know what they don't like. They fantasize. They put their thoughts into motion. I would argue that human beings use their brains more during s*x than during their commute home from work if they're doing it right. Whether conscious or unconscious, all s*x starts with the brain: in either case, if the brain's not into it, well, there isn't going to be any action in the hot town tonight;)
I would have to say that conscious s*x is much, much better than s*x that's simply motivated by the desires of the subconscious. I don't find "being happy in the pants" at all objectionable. I just know I'm much happier in the pants when my brain hasn't just been shut off by hormones. Can you get conscious s*x from someone you barely know, or someone whom you've paid? I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. I know which type of s*x is ultimately more fulfilling to me as a human being and I simply don't think you can find that with a prostitute, because it involves taking the kind of risks one wouldn't take with someone they're paying. If you just knock s*x down to the basic need department and treat it as such, you're missing all the good stuff.
Posted by: Kathy at February 4, 2005 02:09 PMThey do have the option of saying no-it's simply that saying yes is a better choice for that person. The "poverty argument" is flawed because if the person is truly in dire poverty,starving homeless or whatnot, then forcibly preventing them from saying "yes" simply condemns them to a life that they feel is worse then prostitution.
I don't want to generalize for all supporters of legalization,so I'll only give my personal opinion on the following questions.
A.-is part of informed consent.
B.-it's possible some or most have issues,but isn't relevant from a legal standpoint.
C. I doubt very many do it as a hobby.
D. Everything has a bad side,including prostitution. That doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of those who choose to do it. It's akin to saying that we should oulaw s*x and dating because date rape,heartbreak, and divorce exist. Weighing the pro's and con's of any choice in life is best left to the one who'll experience the consequences of it. Only around 1/3 of prostitutes are of the stereotypical "street hooker" type. The vast majority are working in illegal "massage parlours",brothels,and escort services. As such,their job choice isn't qualitatively different then any other form of work.
"Choice is a luxury most poor prostitutes simply cannot afford."
Which is a very good reason why it shouldn't be a crime. It simply means that person will be engaging in a dangerous criminal activity,rather then a safe legal one. If you truly want to help poor people,then the best way to do so is by protecting their rights, and increasing their options and opportunities through education,counseling,drug rehab,healthcare or other similar assistance programs. Prohibiting what they choose to do simply infringes on their freedom, increases the danger,promotes organized crime and diverts resources from more useful areas.
"A s*x worker never relinquishes control of her body at any time."
"Wanna make a bet on that one?"
Yes, I would. If she hasn't given consent then it isn't prostitution,it's s*xual assault.
"who is more likely to be attacked? Who is more likely to have harm done to them? Who is more likely to have some sort of hangup with what they're doing? It's not the massage therapist and I don't think legalization would change this"
On this question the statistics are overwhelming clear-legal prostitution is many times safer then doing so illegally. If the government gave equal protection to s*x workers then there is no reason why they would have any significantly increased risk of attack compared to a massage therapist. If someone has an emotional problem with doing that form of work,then they should say " no thanks" and find some other way of making money.
"While I'm not going to argue with you about social stigma just yet, I would simply ask whether you consider all stigmas to wrong and if they are, should they be pitched in a 21st Century way? Were the morals of our forefathers completely wrong, or is there perhaps a reason, outside of religion, that certain behavior was encouraged and other discouraged?"
I would say that,yes,historically all stigmas regarding s*xual behavior are baseless and irrational. Be it casual s*x,homos*xuality,"alternative" forms of s*x,interracial s*x,the virgin/whore dichotomy,misogynistic slut/stud double standard,etc.etc. None of these stigmas or prohibitions have ever been rationally substantiated.
It's possible to disagree with or discourage a behaviour using reason and discourse without criminalizing or stigmatizing it. In a free society if you disagree with how someone chooses to live their life,you voice that disagreement by writing an op-ed piece,not with government force.
"S*x doesn't have an intellectual component? Of course it does. To get turned on, your brain has to be involved. Male or female genitalia just doesn't swell up on it's own. The eyes see things, the nose smells things, the mouth tastes things---these are all processed by the brain, which then sends out the appropriate signals to your body."
Exactly. That's all the act of s*x is-a stimulation/sensory experience. There isn't any significant high-level abstract thinking occuring. This holds true for everyone, whether or not money is involved. While certain reasons or means for having s*x may be best for you personally,that standard doesn't hold true for everyone. Each person has a variety of different needs and desires in life, and what works well for one person won't be suitable for another. When peoples rights are protected then each person can choose for themself what actually best suits their needs,not the lifestyle that others would force upon them.That's why free societies work so well.
Posted by: Anon at February 5, 2005 08:00 AM