Some of the comments that are uploaded online stay with you. So are some of the letters that are published. Some you remember because of a point excellently made. Then there are those you can’t forget because of their sheer awfulness.
In this vein there was a letter that I just couldn’t get out of my head. It was published a couple of months ago in a local newspaper and was signed by a certain Pupul Galea (hopefully a pen name). Mr Galea decided to weigh in on the ongoing debate about the regulation of prostitution in Malta. He is all for loads of brothels without further ado. Not out of some great concern for the wellbeing of women who work as prostitutes but because of women’s propensity to turn into frigid blocks of ice in middle-age.
The following is a translation of the letter:
“Dear Editor, the case where an elderly man was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment after brutally attacking his wife after she refused to have sex with him, shows that it is necessary for there to be brothels regulated by the Minister for Health. In this manner a man will find sexual relief against payment if his wife refuses to have sex with him.
“Man is not created in the same way as woman. Men remain sexually active and interested till the day they die. On the other hand, as soon as women attain their 50th birthday, they start to break down (iżarmaw) and turn into a block of ice. They start regarding their menfolk in a less flattering light. And the arguments and bickering begin. It is for this reason that regulated brothels are sorely needed in our country – more than ever before.”
And there you have it – in its full-blown chauvinistic, woman-hating grotty awfulness – the reason why people like our letter-writer are so keen on having brothels – that of being serviced and of being able to make use of other people as consumer goods.
One doesn’t have to be a po-faced prude or conservative (a dirty word at the moment) to find this attitude very demeaning. Far from being a bravely feminist move encouraging the self-determination of women, the State promoting prostitution means that it is upholding the idea that women’s bodies exist as a resource to be used and paid for by others.
There is another aspect of this drive to ‘regulate’ prostitution which is rather puzzling. And that is: what is it intended to achieve? It’s not an issue of decriminalising prostitution because prostitution is legal and always has been. I can’t see how ‘regulating’ prostitution and having brothels will exclude pimps and middlemen from the equation. Living off others’ prostitution is already illegal and prostitutes are free to work on a self-employed basis already. If it is the trafficking aspect that is of concern, then tackle that with more vigorous enforcement and not by means of ‘regulating’ brothels.
A brothel operator said the law was more advantageous for brothel operators than prostitutes
And let’s be pragmatic about any legislative changes and take heed of the experiences of other countries in this field.
Take Germany for instance. Prior to 2002, Germany had a legal regime that was similar to ours, with prostitution being legal but not actively encouraged. Then it enacted the Law Regulating the Legal Situation of Prostitutes, mainly ensuring that prostitutes became eligible for employment benefits.
Following that, police reported that it became more difficult to target abusive pimps. Time magazine claimed: “Both Germany and the Netherlands decriminalised sex work early in the last decade, but neither country saw a drop in human trafficking – in fact, the numbers increased. So did violence directed at prostitutes.”
On CNBC: “Countries [that] have decriminalised or deregulated the sex trade, like Germany and the Netherlands... have seen an explosive growth of legal brothels and increase in sex trafficking.”
And in the Irish Times: “Decriminalising sex in Germany in 2002 gave rise to ‘mega-brothels’ that were not being monitored. This made sex trafficking easier.”
Five years after the legislation had been introduced, the German Family Minister had a report drawn up to evaluate its effects. The results? The law had “not brought about any measurable actual improvement in the social coverage of prostitutes”. Neither working conditions nor the ability to exit the profession had improved.
Finally, there was “no solid proof to date” that the law had reduced crime. There was barely a single case involving a prostitute suing for her wages. Only one per cent of the women surveyed said they had signed an employment contract as a prostitute.
And – in the cruellest irony of all – a brothel operator said that she valued the prostitution law because it reduced the likelihood of raids. In fact, she said, the law was more advantageous for brothel operators than prostitutes.
Maybe we should take heed before legislating further incentives for pimps.
drcbonello@gmail.com