« Where Are All The Women And Teen Bloggers? | Main | Another Money-Making Divorce Scheme »
February 01, 2005
'Work As A Prostitute Or Risk Losing Benefits'
Update: It turns out that this story may not be true. Snopes has the details. Thanks to Sheelzebub for providing the update in comments.
From Snopes:
Origins: A news story about a 25-year-old German woman who faced cuts to her unemployment benefits for turning down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel was carried by a variety of English-language news sources in January 2005. It has struck a chord in many readers as an example of liberal morality and bureaucracy run amok: if prostitution is legalized (as it was in Germany back in 2002), this story suggests, then society has conferred its approval upon that trade, and prostitution can therefore be proffered to (and even foisted upon) women as a valid choice of employment.
We remain skeptical about the literal truth of the version reported in the English press, however, because the issue seems to have received scant attention in the German press (at least that we can find). Most German-language sources on this topic point to an 18 December 2004 article from the Berlin newspaper Tageszeitung, which (as far as our rusty command of German allows us to discern) does not report that women in Germany must accept employment in brothels or face cuts in their unemployment benefits. The article merely presents that concept as a technical possibility under current law — it does not cite any actual cases of women losing their benefits over this issue, and it quotes representatives from employment agencies as saying that while it might be legally permissible to reduce unemployment benefits to women who have declined to accept employment as prostitutes, they (the agencies) would not actually do that.
We suspect this is another case where, like a game of "telephone," a story has been garbled as it has passed from one news source to the next, and somewhere in the rewriting and translating process what was originally discussed as a mere hypothetical possibility has now been reported as a factual occurrence.
---
Some bloggers have already written about Germany requiring people to work as prostitutes or lose their unemployment benefits. I just read this story about an unemployed IT professional who is facing benefits cuts for refusing to work as a prostitute.
"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."
I wonder what kind of outcry there will be when an unemployed man is required to work as a prostitute or lose his unemployment benefits?
Posted on February 1, 2005 at 09:27 AM | Permalink
Comments
As someone who linked to the article and had loads of fun with it, I'm embarrassed to say that it turns out this is probably not true. Although the possibility that such an enforcement could happen is there, it wouldn't be worth the outcry it would generate.
Posted by: Sheelzebub at Feb 1, 2005 9:54:45 AM
Hey, thanks. I just updated my post.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 1, 2005 10:01:49 AM
In fairness to the Telegraph article, I think it only cites it as something that can happen, not something that yas happened. I do think the law does need to be clarified, because the fact that it could happen is bad enough. Some things are worth nailing down very well, because even if you trust that something won't happen today, you can't be sure of how the law might be used in the future.
I will update my own post, though, to clarify that it is only a possibility, not an actual occurrence.
Posted by: Lesley at Feb 1, 2005 1:34:02 PM
What caught my attention was that the German press hadn't jumped on this story. I've linked to Die Tageszeitung before, and used Babelfish to give me a rough translation of the text. My one-semester of German couldn't help me translate most of what I had read. I'm glad Snopes was on top of the story. I am happy to provide corrections and updates when it looks like I'm mistaken in something I post. Snopes helped out in that regard, and I think what was posted there was pertinent to the discussion. It does look like a bad translation made it to the English-speaking press.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Feb 1, 2005 1:54:30 PM
Well if she was a prostitute already, I could see them refusing her benefits. I mean in places where it is legal, you couldn't really make an argument AGAINST it, IF she had done it in her past...as long as it was legal...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 1, 2005 8:15:42 PM
That would still depend.
I know someone who used to work in a mental hospital. She was attacked one day (thanks to the cutbacks in staff at the hospital). Now, she was okay, she had no injuries or PTSD or anger toward the patient (who proved he needed to be there, after all). She was pissy with the hospital for cutting back on staff.
BUT--what if she did have PTSD from it? What if she realized that she didn't like what she did, that she did not feel safe, and that she couldn't handle it? I don't think it would be wise to make her do such a job.
Same goes for any job--even prostitution. If a former prostitute gets religion, has a change of heart, was attacked by a John and had PTSD, or simply couldn't bring herself to do it anymore, I don't think she should have to do it.
But this whole things seems strange to me anyway--we talk about people having to take any available job, but I think this really depends on class. I doubt very much that an unemployed male IT executive would be faced with the prospect of say, cleaning houses or getting his unemployment cut.
Posted by: Sheelzebub at Feb 2, 2005 11:10:02 AM
Sex against a woman's will is rape, whether or not she's been prostituted before.
This is an informative site:
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com
Posted by: Hazel at Feb 2, 2005 11:40:19 AM
My experience with NYS unemployment stipulated that you had to accept any job that you were qualified for that paid a certain percent of what you were making before and was within X miles of your house. If anybody's interested, could drag the papers out of the file. It sounded very restritive. However, in reality, unemployment was so understaffed during the early Bush administration that they didn't have time to check up on you and see if you were really applying for all these jobs or not. Plus, you can easily fake your way out of coercion. They want you to interview for something you hate? Blow the interview. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the system is coercive. However, there are some people who abuse unemployment so the system is designed to foil them. Not that I think it does a good job of really catching the pros at this. But it does frustrate the rest of us.
Posted by: silverside at Feb 2, 2005 2:29:53 PM
"Sex against a woman's will is rape, whether or not she's been prostituted before."
Yes, I understand that...and I never said the state is going to force a woman against her will...they will just tell her she is NOT eligible for benefits as there is a job that she's done before and she turned it down...
The end...
Posted by: NYMOM at Feb 2, 2005 8:28:41 PM
Silverside's experience with the NY Unemploy. Office is fascinating. I scoop it into my blog, linked back to yours. As for the story: totally false. Old bits scrunched together by the Daily Torygraph. It adds up to malpractice, really. No excuse for it.
Posted by: August Arrived at Feb 3, 2005 3:10:39 AM
Telling a woman that you will cut off her income (from benefits or whatever) unless she becomes a prostitute is coercion, thus sex against her will, thus rape.
Posted by: Hazel at Feb 6, 2005 9:49:43 AM
Nobody has proved that this story is false. Snopes suspects it. I'm reserving judgement.
The wider issue is that prostitution is being legalised across the world. More and more women are being told that it is just like any other job.
Sweden has the right approach, decriminalize prostituted women whilst prosecuting pimps and johns.
Posted by: Hazel at Feb 6, 2005 9:52:57 AM
This is EXACTLY why legalization of prostitution does not work, decriminalization is the better way to go. We do not need government pimps.
Posted by: Wendy at Apr 22, 2005 10:01:47 AM
Especially if govt enforces unemployed males to work as rent boys... yuk
Posted by: Steve at Apr 22, 2005 10:25:49 AM
"Especially if govt enforces unemployed males to work as rent boys... yuk"
What's a rent boy????
Is that like a pool boy...Or a Cabana boy...they had them in South Beach when I was there last summer...they just room around the pools and take drink orders or put fresh towels out...
Many were young and attractive; but I think they were also gay...
So is that equivalent to a 'rent boy' in England....
Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 22, 2005 12:54:29 PM
Oh-oh I see I made a Freudian slip...
I said 'room' around the pools instead of 'run or roam' around...
Sorry...
Posted by: at Apr 22, 2005 12:58:30 PM
















