divide and conquer strategy is working
November 9, 2009 - 10:08pm
__
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
I couldn't imagine a better strategy by those whose interests are served by full decriminalization of prostitution than the one being employed on this board. It's an ages old method to reduce one's opposition -- that of divide and conquer. The way I see it, we are being manipulated by someone who represents an industry. Why are we allowing this to happen? Who benefits when the feminist community is riven with conflict over this issue rather than united in solidarity by the risk to the welfare of women it represents?
Loretta, are you accusing Susan of manipulating the feminists on this board? Are you also asserting that Susan, as a representative of the sex trade industry, is therefore not a feminist?
If I'm misreading your post, please let me know.
If I'm not misreading your post, then it seems to me that what you are doing is trying to impose a uniformity on feminist thought regarding sex work, asserting that this uniformity is aligned with your own position on the matter, and maligning those who disagree with you (such as Susan) as not only being outside the feminist community, but being, by virtue of their disagreement with you, a threat to that community.
The question has to be asked: Who benefits when, instead of recognizing the diversity of feminist positions on the issue of sex work, a group of self-identified feminists attempt to exclude another group of self-identified feminists from the feminist community because they are unapologetic sex workers?
Can you be a labour activist and be anti-union? Just wondering.
Frustrated Mess: I think that begs the question.
I would hazard a guess that a labour activist is someone who supports the right of labour to organize in order to promote and defend the interests of labour. That seems to require a commitment to unions in some form or another. Now, that's not to say that every labour activist will agree on a single definition of the interests of labour, or how to go about advancing those interests in an organized fashion. Furthermore, a labour activist could condemn features of the union movement in particular times and places...such as mob infiltration, collusion with managerial elites, etc. A labour activist could very well condemn certain unions and certain practices of unions and remain a labour activist.
At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth, I would hazard a guess that a feminist is someone who, by definition, supports organized action to promote and defend the rights of women. What exactly those rights are, however, and how to go about organizing to promote and defend them, seem to me to be up for debate among feminists.
The problem, as I see it, is that there's a temptation to foreclose debate by imposing a premature uniformity upon the feminist movement. A labour parallel might be the attempt in early 20th Century to impose a definition of labour activism that explicitly excluded Communism from the American labour movement.
This is not to say that a strong case can't be made against decriminalization; indeed, I think a number of strong arguments have been made to that effect. However, I have not seen any argument that would justify excluding the proponents of decriminalization from the feminist community.
Beyond all this, however, I am concerned that Susan is, apparently, being accused of attempting to "divide and conquer" the feminist community on Babble on behalf of the sex trade industry, and that she is being defined in such a way that places her outside the feminist community. This strikes me as being unfair.
Sounds about right to me, Michael - both on labour and on feminism.
Good God, Unionist is agreeing with me on something.
Loretta, are you accusing Susan of manipulating the feminists on this board? Are you also asserting that Susan, as a representative of the sex trade industry, is therefore not a feminist?
I am questioning that, really, based on some things she has said, aside from particulars on sex workers.
The question has to be asked: Who benefits when, instead of recognizing the diversity of feminist positions on the issue of sex work, a group of self-identified feminists attempt to exclude another group of self-identified feminists from the feminist community because they are unapologetic sex workers?
I started out on this issue by being open to full decriminalization. In listening to the evidence presented either way, I have found myself adopting a different position and find myself wondering, what if? Just because someone claims to be a feminist, does that mean they are? What happens when someone's actions (based on what is being presented here, which is all we have to go on) don't seem consistent with their words? For example, as was cited in another thread, how many feminists here would stand up in support of women in the Canadian Forces?
I do wonder if it is feminist to stand up in support of a diminishing of human rights for women, which is how I see this issue. If that makes me not accepting of diversity and less a feminist, I guess it does. I doubt I'm alone in wondering that, though.
We are holding Unionist in a secure place. We have succeeded so far in extracting only his login and password on a site known as babble. We hope, by judicious posting, to make amends for his erstwhile extremist agitation on this discussion board. Efforts to locate him and effect his release will be futile, although we note with some regret that there have been no enquiries to date.
I couldn't imagine a better strategy by those whose interests are served by full decriminalization of prostitution than the one being employed on this board. It's an ages old method to reduce one's opposition -- that of divide and conquer. The way I see it, we are being manipulated by someone who represents an industry. Why are we allowing this to happen? Who benefits when the feminist community is riven with conflict over this issue rather than united in solidarity by the risk to the welfare of women it represents?
I know there are women who are victimized and that for many of them that victimization began at an early age, I have worked with some of them and my formerly drug addicted sister has let enough things drop that I am fairly sure she has ventured into sex work. I know she was there because of the drugs. I have also known young women who chose a Hollywood lifestyle funded by sex work and on these threads we are hearing from intelligent and articulate women who are telling us that they are choosing this lifestyle,
I don't have a problem believing that all of these are true but from your posts it seems to me that you have a fixed view of feminism which does not include the possiblity that women can and do choose this voluntarily. This is where the divide is.
"united in solidarity by the risk to the welfare of women it represents" How do you reconcile this with being told by women who are sex workers that your plans will put them further at risk?
Loretta: You're certainly not alone in seeing this as a human rights issue, and you're clearly entitled to advance the argument that decriminalization would have a negative impact on human rights in general and on women's rights in particular. I believe that you are also entitled to make the argument that feminism should not endorse sex work in any form. Certainly, this position has a long and respected place in feminist thought. The point has to be made, however, that the opposite position also has a long and respected place in feminist thought.
There is a difference between arguing that feminism should not endorse sex work and arguing that anyone who does endorse sex work is not a feminist. Feminism, like any other movement, is contested territory, with a multitude of voices engaged in ongoing negotiation and competition to define the movement. I think that, in such circumstances, a certain degree of mutual respect is advisable between the sides of the debate. Rather than a divide and conquer strategy orchestrated from outside the feminist movement, this strikes me as being something of an ongoing dialectic within the feminist movement. I think that both sides could profit from this dialectic, and that the continuing struggle could strengthen feminism as a whole.
Ennir I tried to answer some of your question in a post now locked:
How do you reconcile this with being told by women who are sex workers that your plans will put them further at risk? I think in this set of threads you will find that on the whole the argument is being made by the women who choose prostitution that the women who do not choose it will be safer. Whereas my impression from the women who do not choose it including those who call me, and some of those with whom I have been working on this and whom I have recorded say that they believe that decriminalization endangers them and will place more women in danger. We all agree that the most at risk are the migrant women the aboriginal women especially those migrating from poor reserves and without supports in the city and children entering prostitution too young for consent and often abused
There are two reasons to focus on these most disadvantaged: one is compassionate and one is strategic. If we fight for all with the criteria that we try to satisfy the needs of the most dispossessed we are more likley to get the best most effective tactics and the most principled as well. In this situation the plight of women, the migrant, ghettoized, racialized, colonized and the young of those prostituted should guide us in our search for the reforms that will best suit women as a whole. The desires of those prostituted who are not in those conditions matter to me but are are simply not as weighty in my political discussion of which reforms to demand
"united in solidarity by the risk to the welfare of women it represents" How do you reconcile this with being told by women who are sex workers that your plans will put them further at risk?
My plans for what? Decriminalizing their present situation? I do not accept, based on what I've read here, that it would increase their risk compared to their proposal for full decriminalization without regulation.
Some women who are sex workers have made the statement that the status quo is not acceptable (agreed) and some have said that they want full decriminalization. Some have also said that they want little or no interference from outside their community, despite the fact that their actions affect everyone, since we live in the larger community. Some have said that they don't support this move and they prefer that the workers are decriminalized while all others (customers, bosses, etc) continue to have their actions fall within the Criminal Code. There is a mix of opinions, for sure, so I don't believe that the voices of the workers here are necessarily representative.
Thank you for your answer Lee Lakeman.
And Loretta you say, "I don't believe that the voices of the workers here are necessarily representative". Which voices, the ones that agree with you or the ones that don't? And once again you reinforce that you decide who has credibility, I suppose that is your perogative but to my way of thinking it makes for a narrow playing field and it is disrespectful of their voices.
I don't see women as victims, I see women as having abdicated responsibility and what I find frustrating is the reinforcement of victimization as a defining statement for feminism. I see women as immensely powerful beings capable and feel that every woman should consider herself blessed to have been born one.
Ennir I tried to answer some of your question in a post now locked:
How do you reconcile this with being told by women who are sex workers that your plans will put them further at risk? I think in this set of threads you will find that on the whole the argument is being made by the women who choose prostitution that the women who do not choose it will be safer. Whereas my impression from the women who do not choose it including those who call me, and some of those with whom I have been working on this and whom I have recorded say that they believe that decriminalization endangers them and will place more women in danger. We all agree that the most at risk are the migrant women the aboriginal women especially those migrating from poor reserves and without supports in the city and children entering prostitution too young for consent and often abused
There are two reasons to focus on these most disadvantaged: one is compassionate and one is strategic. If we fight for all with the criteria that we try to satisfy the needs of the most dispossessed we are more likley to get the best most effective tactics and the most principled as well. In this situation the plight of women, the migrant, ghettoized, racialized, colonized and the young of those prostituted should guide us in our search for the reforms that will best suit women as a whole. The desires of those prostituted who are not in those conditions matter to me but are are simply not as weighty in my political discussion of which reforms to demand
Your concerns for these specific people and children is addressed elsewhere, because certain things are already against the law including the fact that prostitution has a minimum age requirement. Also, there are other unrelated laws related to trafficking, kidnapping, assault, and a host of other issues mentioned to protect women and children from all sorts of things, including incest, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and so on, none of which have anything to do with prostitution. I believe that some want to blame prostitution and make it the problem. In and of itself, it is not the problem. A minority of people who choose to do this work come to it with problems, quite often drug problems. Nothing will earn someone quick money in sufficient quantity to pay for drugs.
But.......the drugs came first.
Deal with the drugs, deal with the mental health issues, deal with the children, by all means, deal with these. Not one adult sex industry worker has said any of these things are okay. The majority of sex workers do choose this occupation for the same reasons any other worker chooses what they do.
For example, what is the general opinion amongst you regarding safe injection sites? Good thing or bad thing? Do you believe these places enable and encourage drug users to continue to use drugs, or do you think that they offer a safe and healthy alternative to back alleys and shooting galleries? Or....do you think these places welcome the addict, and encourage them to get to know the people who are there, potentially to help them? Which scenario do you believe will have the best results, if the results that you actually want is that there are fewer dead drug addicts in Vancouver?
Shut everything down and you will see the same things that happened in Sweden: there is still prostitution OF COURSE, but it is driven underground, indoors where the workers do not feel safe, they work in other countries -- increasing the "trafficking" figures in the Netherlands for example, street workers who are still there (no kidding) are driven to remote areas and complain that the "nice" clients stay away and leave them only with the aggressive ones who make their work unsafe. The problems you see today in prostitution at the street level is a direct result of the solicitation, bawdy house, and living off the avails laws because these laws are recent, have been in place for a little over 20 years, and the results of them are seen daily. If you can provide me with statistics from before the laws were in place and compare them to today and prove to me that things were better after the laws came into play, then ok. But, curiously enough, there are still pimps, were even more of them in the mid 80s and 90s weren't there? There has been an alarming number of missing or assaulted street workers, since closing down some of the indoor venues (The Penthouse, for example) where they used to be able to hang out and work out of -- kicked out for public solicitation, of course. Pimps are a necessary form of protection for street workers, and they would not be necessary if people stopped trying to abolish the unabolishable (sic) and helped susi in her attempts to deal with the reality which is to help provide a safer place to work. This is impossible with the laws against bawdy houses, and the laws against public solicitation and laws against living off the avails. Because if you stop and remove the rhetoric of decrim is only helping johns and pimps, you are left only with the fact that it helps the workers themselves (the "owners").
If we, the ones who have to work around these laws every day, say they are detrimental to our safety and wellbeing, that they do more harm then good, then why are our opinions so readily dismissed?
My mistake, I thought there was a genuine question there. I have answered all the points in the last two posts many times over and so have many others. I am not interested in head bashing. I will post information and analysis when I think it might be useful to someone. And I will continue to monitor for misuse of our anti-violence feminist politics, positions and those of our allies.
For those interested I say there is a great speech by a weird guy with a great mind called Zizek posted on Democracy Now in which he speaks at length about the importance of context in any consideration of choice in this era of neoliberalism. He makes reference to pornography, and late in the speech he considers the portrayal of rape of women and the behaviour of leaders like Barlesconi and in which he calls for socialist rejection of "ethical degradation" and "moral vacuity" and in which he calls for us to promote "civility with the spirit of struggle". I found it helpful
Physical and occupational safety should be viewed as a fundamental human right in my estimation. In trundling off to work everyday for the hegemony, for the most part there is little to concern myself with in not making it home for dinner in the evening. The same privilege and piece of mind that comes with not having safety as a daily gamble should be available to others as well, in whatever is chosen for themselves as their means of survival.
Loretta, I have absolutely no doubt you are a feminist. I am as well, as are other women who are in favour of not criminalizing women's bodies over the work they do. I don't think either position makes one "less feminist". Just my two cents.
Article 6
part III of the international charter of human rights. i am a human and a feminist
Thank you for your answer Lee Lakeman.
And Loretta you say, "I don't believe that the voices of the workers here are necessarily representative". Which voices, the ones that agree with you or the ones that don't? And once again you reinforce that you decide who has credibility, I suppose that is your perogative but to my way of thinking it makes for a narrow playing field and it is disrespectful of their voices.
I don't see women as victims, I see women as having abdicated responsibility and what I find frustrating is the reinforcement of victimization as a defining statement for feminism. I see women as immensely powerful beings and feel that every woman should consider herself blessed to have been born one.
Sorry about that, I don't know why it posted me twice I was just trying to clean up a grammar error.
Article 6
Not to equate both jobs but I doubt that the Charter of Human Rights would justify the right of a paid assassin to work. I don't think this argument holds water.
ennir, you quoted yourself instead of editing yourself. :) (That is, you hit "quote" instead of "edit".)
I think it will. Just because the work involves a woman's body parts does not mean it is not work. Don't you find it odd the prostitution is legal but everything else surrounding it isn't?
A woman's body is hers. She can make her own decisions as to what to do with it.
I think the Charter Challenge has legs and will stand up. I am NOT in favour of criminalizing women who do sex work. What will we accomplish for our fellow sisters by doing that? It is not going to disappear so make it safer for the women doing it. I think that is a big priority.
I'm still confused by your opening post Loretta as I feel that it is directly about susan and can be interpreted as her trying to divide and conquer. In fact, I can find no other answer for your opening post except that.
We are all women, we all make choices in life over what we can do with our vaginas and that should be no one's business when that choice is made. There are laws on the books for underage people, exploitation, rape, sexual assaults, human trafficking etc.
Lest we forget the porn business, which is rife with exploitation and it is entirely legal. So why are the anti-prostitution crowd not addressing this? Instead the focus is on why, how or when a woman can do what she likes with her vagina in prostitution/sex work.
If I felt like having sex with a lot of unknown men who don't pay me, I don't think anyone has a right to enforce laws upon me. Likewise why should this be any different from sex work?
How are we helping our sisters by ensuring they are locked up? Can't feed themseleves or their families? Can't get a minimum wage job because it is no where near enough to support 1 person, let alone a family.
Not to equate both jobs but I doubt that the Charter of Human Rights would justify the right of a paid assassin to work. I don't think this argument holds water.
I wonder if that's because assasins kill people, which is against the law, whereas sex workers have sex with people, which is not?
I'd be willing to bet thta the Charter doesn't ensure anyone's right to work as an arsonist, or a bomber, or a torturer, either. Anyway, great comparison.
I am also confused by Loretta's "divide and conquer" assertions. Since the birth of feminism, we have not agreed on all things; there have always been dissenting opinions on various issues.
Where I think there is danger of division in all social/political movements, and not just feminism, is when some members consider their personal beliefs to be the defining philosophy of the movement, and anybody who has different opinions on some issues is not a "real" feminist.
I have sympathy with both sides in this: I work in addiction medicine treatment and have seen many many women working in the sex trade to pay for their crack/heroin/Oxycontin etc. When I treat the same woman over and over for gonorrhea infection of the eyes, I figure, this woman has not made a personal choice but is enslaved by her addiction, compelled to work at something degrading and dangerous.
OTOH, I know in Toronto that there are all sorts of sex trade workers I don't see who are there by choice. And I don't think it's my place to judge them. And Stargazer's point about the state not criminalizing women's bodies is well-taken; I'd never thought of that before, but I'm totally on side with it.
There have been similar arguments in the past around porn; where some feminists feel all porn is exploitative and anti-feminist, and some who feel, well, differently. Personally, I believe that some people have personal problems with sex; prudishness, if you like. And for all their protestations of the exploitation of women, it's prudishness that's at the heart of some of the objections to sex work.
Me, I think it has more to do with some kind of belief in the preciousness of sex; that sex is a special act of love that must be shared between two committed partners, etc. So they'll always insist that they're not prudish and they're not against sex... so long as that's the definition of it.
I have to wonder if, somewhere out there, there are people with similar feelings about massage.
"It's not something you can just pay some anonymous set of hands to provide for you whenever you feel like you have a backache coming on!!"
Snert, I agree it's a perilously slippery slope. Why is it okay to rub this bit of skin but not that one?
All the same, I think the sex trade is different and does diminish women (all women, not just the ones involved in the sex trade) and just as soon as I can articulate what this fundamental difference is I'll let you all know.
it's difficult for me to hear things like "sex trade diminishes all women"......i feel as if we offer a great service to women in our understnading of and service to our customers. i guess i nedd to understnad what the big threat is G Pie.......we don't undermine the family unit- our customers go home, we provide intimate contact for men who would not other wise find a partner....
is it because you yourself could not imagine being a sex worker?i understnad that completely nor should anyone be forced to work in the sex industry. some of us do however enjoy our work and feel the nobel side of our profession is very rewarding.
it's almost as if you are saying by being sex workers who choose we are undermining the value of all women. i could counter and say that by saying we are "different" you are diminishing/devaluing us and therefore undermining the value of all women.
are we not a reflection of those who are most vulnerable among us?
I know there are women who are victimized and that for many of them that victimization began at an early age, I have worked with some of them and my formerly drug addicted sister has let enough things drop that I am fairly sure she has ventured into sex work. I know she was there because of the drugs. I have also known young women who chose a Hollywood lifestyle funded by sex work and on these threads we are hearing from intelligent and articulate women who are telling us that they are choosing this lifestyle,
I don't have a problem believing that all of these are true but from your posts it seems to me that you have a fixed view of feminism which does not include the possiblity that women can and do choose this voluntarily. This is where the divide is.
Where this line of thinking trips up for me is in the philosophical realm. Okay, so some women choose to become sex workers. But is it a pro-feminist choice? Or is it a choice predicated on the essential inequality between men and women? Does it not reinforce the power differential between the two? And what does that mean for all women living in this culture?
To say it's a choice doesn't make it feminist.
Yes it does. Protecting every worker is a feminist issue, as is the control over what we do with our own bodies. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.
Loretta at the top refuses to recognizes a basic political reality:
people on the same "side" politically sometimes have diametrically opposed views on key questions;
on the Right, the drugs issue, for example, can do the same: there are free-enterprisers who want complete legalization and an end to "prohibition", while other conservatives want full penalization for the dangerous moral wrong of smoking a joint
live and let live vs. punish the moral fault
and both groups vote Reagan, or the equivalent (there were similar but smaller gaps on abortion and free trade)
so, why should it be different elsewhere, ie on the Left?
when you evoke plots and groups profiting etc., you ignore the fact that the term "sex workers" is celebrated by others on the Left as an end to the vocabulary of stigma and shame, hence progress.
Both the Swedes and the Dutch have tackled the prostitution dilemma with social democratic governments -- and have gone in opposite directions regarding criminalization of the sex trade.
Why not accept your opponents honestly believe their arguments, rather than sink into conspiracy theories?
As for my own view, I just dunno ...
it's difficult for me to hear things like "sex trade diminishes all women"......i feel as if we offer a great service to women in our understnading of and service to our customers. i guess i nedd to understnad what the big threat is G Pie.......we don't undermine the family unit- our customers go home, we provide intimate contact for men who would not other wise find a partner....
is it because you yourself could not imagine being a sex worker?i understnad that completely nor should anyone be forced to work in the sex industry. some of us do however enjoy our work and feel the nobel side of our profession is very rewarding.
it's almost as if you are saying by being sex workers who choose we are undermining the value of all women. i could counter and say that by saying we are "different" you are diminishing/devaluing us and therefore undermining the value of all women.
are we not a reflection of those who are most vulnerable among us?
susan, you're probably going to be offended by my point of view.
I don't give a shit about your customers. I really don't. So your understanding of them is no service to me. In fact, the day one of your customers puts an nth of effort into understanding someone like me or any woman on this board, I'll consider giving a good goddam. But right now, no. And the not being able to find a partner? Give me a fucking break. That's pretty much along the lines of "my wife doesn't understand me".
No, I can't imagine being a sex worker. I don't care if you enjoy your work. I don't see anything particularly noble in it. It's immaterial to the question at hand.
Yes, I think you do undermine the value of women by further commodifying the value of a woman's body. I don't think that diminishes you as a human being, but it diminishes all women by putting a price tag on our physical selves.
If you are a reflection of the most vulnerable, why is it you keep telling us that our perceptions of the very vulnerable are the exception and we should reconsider our positions based on that notion?
Susan, it is really not my intention to cause offense so I'm sorry you take my statement that way. My concern is that your work tends to promote the idea that sexual services are some kind of commodity that men have a right to. These men that use you and then go home to their families, how do their partners feel about this? And who are these men who would never find an intimate partner?
Well, you're right that I would never be a sex worker but I don't think that's what informs my feelings on it. I believe you that you and some others enjoy your work but I don't really get what's noble about it.
Yeah, I am saying that.
It's the work you do, Susan, that I'm opposed to. I respect you as a human being no matter what you do for a living.
Not sure whom you're referring to here. I think the most vulnerable among you are those that I see downtown. To my eyes, they look ill and unhappy and shockingly young.
To some degree, you could substitute "stay at home mother" for "sex worker" and still have some interesting questions.
I'm also reminded of a schism in the gay community, wherein some homosexuals would really rather that Pride parades didn't exist, or more specifically, floats with semi-naked hunks on them, gyrating their hips and throwing condoms to the crowd. Do they influence the public perception of homosexuals? Sure. Is it toward a negativer perception of homosexuals? I suppose that depends on how you view sex and sexuality. On the one hand, I can appreciate not wanting others of your group to bring unwanted attentions or attitudes on you, but at the same time, how can that be made compatible with free will and self-determination? To what degree can we structure our choices in life so as to not indirectly affect others in our group(s) in this way?
Yes it does. Protecting every worker is a feminist issue, as is the control over what we do with our own bodies. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.
Not really. Although feminism fights for the right to choose, some choices are not inherently feminist. Think of the fundamentalist "surrendered" wife. Is that a feminist choice, too?
I'm on the fence here. I support decriminalization, but I also recognize some pitfalls to it. I'm sure it would be good for susan and others like her, but I'm still not convinced she's in the majority of her field, and I think it leaves the door open to abuse of women in much more vulnerable positions. I also wish I had a better answer to how that could be handled.
Oh so it is only the women who do it by choice that you think "undermines women" as a whole? So, how do you feel about those who do it for drugs, or to support their children, or go to school? Do they also undermine you as a woman? You must get mighty peeved when you're in downtown TO and see all the prostitutes there. Are you filled with indignity? Do they also make you feel less of a woman?
I don't care about the customers either but I am not trying to control what susan does with her own body. Some of you people are, or desperately want to.
BTW, you realize you are sharing the same position as REAL Women of Canada and the hard right? That doesn't bother you a bit? It bothers the hell out of me.
We fought forever to get access to abortions. We women were not even thought of during drug testing until not too long ago. How is imprisoning women going to work in the feminist framework? can anyone please tell me where they would like to see sex workers? I mean in reality. This reality we live in today. Not a fairy tale where men no longer buy sex. I'd love to hear your solution. Prison? More jail time for those who chose?
I wish I did too but it looks like thise coop susan was talking about is a tep forward. Criminalizing women is not a step forward. It is a step far backwards and it will do absolutely nothing to help those who do not chose sex work.
i feel as if we offer a great service to women in our understnading of and service to our customers. i guess i nedd to understnad what the big threat is G Pie.......we don't undermine the family unit- our customers go home,
This is faulty. I completely support your right to own and control your own body free of state interference, however you are not providing a service to other women. You are providing a service to men. And yes it does undermine the "family unit" if a man is lying to his spouse and not disclosing other sexual partners. Spouses often have unprotected sex on the trust and assumption that their relationship is monogamous.
Ghislaine, I would offer that to the extent that a family unit may be undermined, the ownership of that lies squarely with the customer and no other. As far as dangerous and unprotected sex goes, I'm pretty sure I recall seeing Susan post somewhere that one of her goals of having sex workers duely organised is to have standards which will minimise as far as possible the less safe practices which are currently happening.
Oh so it is only the women who do it by choice that you think "undermines women" as a whole? So, how do you feel about those who do it for drugs, or to support their children, or go to school? Do they also undermine you as a woman? You must get mighty peeved when you're in downtown TO and see all the prostitutes there. Are you filled with indignity? Do they also make you feel less of a woman?
I don't care about the customers either but I am not trying to control what susan does with her own body. Some of you people are, or desperately want to.
BTW, you realize you are sharing the same position as REAL Women of Canada and the hard right? That doesn't bother you a bit? It bothers the hell out of me.
We fought forever to get access to abortions. We women were not even thought of during drug testing until not too long ago. How is imprisoning women going to work in the feminist framework? can anyone please tell me where they would like to see sex workers? I mean in reality. This reality we live in today. Not a fairy tale where men no longer buy sex. I'd love to hear your solution. Prison? More jail time for those who chose?
Whoa nelly! Your first paragraph is pretty nasty. Stop with the attack mode already.
I visit TO occasionally, but no, don't see a lot of sex workers out on the street when I do. Here, in my own city, I see them regularly and I don't feel less a woman. Bizarre suggestion, that. No, I feel incredibly sad because they're heartbreakingly young, desperate and largely FN. They don't undermine me. Nor did my bipolar, drug-addicted sister who called me in tears to come and help her escape her pimp one night many moons ago. Not a memory I cherish. So ascribing indignance to my attitude to sex workers is out of line.
However, I do get indignant when somebody tries to sell me on the nobility of the calling, like I do when I'm being sold any other variety of bullshit.
My position is not the same as REAL women or the hard right. If you've read my post above, you'll see that I support decriminalization and that I wish I knew a better way than that. But let's not pretend this isn't an ugly business.
ETA: I'm not objecting to what susan does with her body. Not at all. I'm objecting to the commercialization of what she does with her body. That's different. It's the commercialization that's the problem, not the act.
I'm sorry TB, as soon as I posted that I realized it wasn't fair. Didn't have time to go back and edit the bloody thing.
Ghislaine, susan isn't undermining the "family unit". Those men are. It is there choice to see a prostitute when they wish. Not susan's. No one is forcing men to do anything.
In a perfect world we woudn't be having this debate, and TB I agree that there is a very very ugly side to the industry, but I do not believe that all men are bottom dwelling pigs who at the drop of a hat many rape or abuse women. I think when men finally see us as equals, this might not be an issue, but they don't, and I can't see equality between the sexes happening any time soon.
Nor can I, Stargazer, (thanks for the apology, btw!) but I don't think decriminalization of sex work is bringing us any closer to equality.
It is currently legal. The acts surrounding it are not. So, do we criminalize women or do we make it safer for women? I chose the latter.
Commercialization is already here. Look at the back of any Eye, Sun or NOW magazine. Look at the amount of rub and tug parlours. This industry is commercialized. There is no use pretending it isn't.
TB regarding your last line - you're probably 100 percent right. We have a hell of a long way to go before we're seen as equals.
It's the work you do, Susan, that I'm opposed to. I respect you as a human being no matter what you do for a living.
That sure sounds like "love the sinner but hate the sin." A very slippery slope for any argument about people's rights and lifestyles. As a man who has never and would never pay for sex this is not really about me but I would like to see that women in all jobs get protection from work related injuries. I really distrust arguments that sound like Xian morality.
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
i never have unprotected sex, so no risk of infection....many men as pointed out in other htreads abstain from full service/vaginal sex for just this reason
and did we not see the post from peace guy, a customer, stating he had not had an intimate partner for 20 years?
another man. his wife a survivour of sexual abuse, did not want to force her to have sex and she was not comfartable having it. should he be denied human contact?intimacy?should he divorce her and seek a partner who meets his intimate needs?
or the infirmed young man, 22 yearsold. unable to get out of bed with a prysically delapitating disease. alive inside, it was not a mentally destructive disorder. never going to experience intimate contact- unless you suggest he should roll down to the local pub in his hospital bed where the many willing women would offer him love an companionship....
yes companionship, i have known some of my customers for 20 years...are people really this blind the vulnerable men among us?or are we all buying into the all men are potential rapists?
another man, blind and unattached.
another man, bless his heart, so physically unattractive but a beautiful and shy person none the less, my friend...and lover.
happily married men do not access my services, they have no need. generally men who cannot find a partner or who's partner is ill/unable to be intimate this way.
you are all buying into the streo type of our customers as some un controlable pervert, pedphile, rapist. this simply is not true.
i am sure i will be upsetting some of you with these statements but you must understnad these men are my friends and in some cases i feel love for them, in particular my long time customers. it is extremely difficult for me to hear their struggles and pain diminished in such a way. they are also human beings with feelings and needs....why is that so hard for people to accept?
in terms of decriminalization opening gaps for abuse.....it is our intention to work coloboratively towards filling all gaps. the abolitionist side seem to believe that simply decriminalzing workers will be the answer to all the issues facing sex workers and that criminalizing customers and business owners will somehow erase prostitution.
i fear this is short sighted and that we must do much more than just decrim workers and criminalize customers and business owners. we must intiate a system wide change to inclusion and protection.
criminalizing business owners contradicts our culture and puts new workers at risk- without the benefit of the knowledge and expeirence of a madame-former worker- a new or inexperienced worker does not have the tools to make safe decisions about their work. if we could put in place a system of accountabiliy for business owners we could more easily identify those business owners operating outside of the accepted standrds of society-traffickers and pimps.
we are looking at the bar licensing model. in that every phone call made to police by a bar is a mark against their license renewal as a bar owner has a responsibility to protect patrons and maintain the peace. too many calls to police and you loose your license as clearly you are not adequatley protecting people. we feel this model is easily adaptable to the sex industry. also a complaints process by committee, as described in the proposed terms for a sex industry working group/review board thread to ensure balanced scrutiny of licnese applications and renewal occurs.
the abolitionist side have proposed no means for better finding the traffickers and pimps but seem to think that adding a few lines to the criminal code will work on its own. i think this is short sighted and ignores the systematic barriers faced by sex workers as a result of our work being deemed criminal activity.
we all agree that workers should be decriminalized. we are working to ensure a balanced system wide shift away from punishment and towards protection.
the only way to weed out the exploiters is to shine a light on our industry and illiminate every corner. we need decriminalization and transparency and accountability in our industry.
It's the work you do, Susan, that I'm opposed to. I respect you as a human being no matter what you do for a living.
That sure sounds like "love the sinner but hate the sin." A very slippery slope for any argument about people's rights and lifestyles.
I hate the sex trade. What's at the bottom of the slippery slope?
By saying I respected Susan, I really wasn't making an argument. Just clarifying. Don't know what any of this has to do with Christianity.
Loretta, are you accusing Susan of manipulating the feminists on this board? Are you also asserting that Susan, as a representative of the sex trade industry, is therefore not a feminist?
I am questioning that, really, based on some things she has said, aside from particulars on sex workers.
The question has to be asked: Who benefits when, instead of recognizing the diversity of feminist positions on the issue of sex work, a group of self-identified feminists attempt to exclude another group of self-identified feminists from the feminist community because they are unapologetic sex workers?
I started out on this issue by being open to full decriminalization. In listening to the evidence presented either way, I have found myself adopting a different position and find myself wondering, what if? Just because someone claims to be a feminist, does that mean they are? What happens when someone's actions (based on what is being presented here, which is all we have to go on) don't seem consistent with their words? For example, as was cited in another thread, how many feminists here would stand up in support of women in the Canadian Forces?
I do wonder if it is feminist to stand up in support of a diminishing of human rights for women, which is how I see this issue. If that makes me not accepting of diversity and less a feminist, I guess it does. I doubt I'm alone in wondering that, though.
have you read the international charter of human rights?i have- it clearly states that no provision in the charter may be used to superceed the rights of one group over another.
for me, a woman and feminist, i question whether abolitionism is in fact feminist. does it not oppress women in the sex industry, diminishing our voices as if we are so victimized we don't know what is best for us? does it not smack of the same reasoning behind why women didn't need the vote- what could women possibly know about politics?they're just women?they need to be protected from themselves or any uninformed descisions they might make?not knowing of course anything about politics?
i just can't understnad why anyone who claims to be a feminist would harm any woman- in my opinion, denying us our voices and agency does just that. it harms us. how is that feminist?
unless of course you see us as less than women and i won't even go there......
It's the work you do, Susan, that I'm opposed to. I respect you as a human being no matter what you do for a living.
That sure sounds like "love the sinner but hate the sin." A very slippery slope for any argument about people's rights and lifestyles.
I hate the sex trade. What's at the bottom of the slippery slope?
By saying I respected Susan, I really wasn't making an argument. Just clarifying. Don't know what any of this has to do with Christianity.
hate is always a slippery slope....what would you have us do?round everyone up and put us in camps? this is dangerous territory.
what is it about us you hate so much?i mean if you hate the sex trade by default you hate us too.....even though you are expressing respect, it doesn't really seem that way based on your other statements....
Respectfully, I do not believe that is a fair depiction...
When it was indicated what it would take to bring about those standards, it was rejected out of hand as non-doable. Hence the advocacy of "self-regulating", which actually means no regulations.
Other countries, as it has been shown over and over, have already realized what no regulations has meant to the status of women in their country and are back-peddling, quickly.
what is it about us you hate so much?i mean if you hate the sex trade by default you hate us too.....even though you are expressing respect, it doesn't really seem that way based on your other statements....
What the hell are you talking about, Susan? Now all of I'm sudden I'm a Nazi?
Which of my "other statements" would lead you to believe that I hate you?
i never said no regulations remind, i merely suggested that your proposed customer screening before being grated access to our bodies in what would have to be a government run, secure compound(prison) so the government would be sure no dirty customers got through.....may not be a realistic solution.
we have always agreed that health standards will be paramount. i do not support the mandatory testing model as i do not feel it will work. in order for it to work we must test the entire population....
where did the sex workers get the didease- the customer-
where did the customer get the disease- secratary?wife?
where did the secretary/wife get the disease?- the milkman?
i will however submit to testing as i do regular tests already, but feel like this is just playing into the tired old stereo type of sex workers as the vector of disease- it is unfair- discriminating and untrue.
we need to be given the tools to make safe decisions about our work in the form of occupational health and safety training- already complete and to be presented at the FIRST- feminist for decrim forum as mentioned in the sex worker rights forum.
i also like new zealands approach of making condom use law- this empowers workers to refuse unprotected service.
what is it about us you hate so much?i mean if you hate the sex trade by default you hate us too.....even though you are expressing respect, it doesn't really seem that way based on your other statements....
What the hell are you talking about, Susan? Now all of I'm sudden I'm a Nazi?
Which of my "other statements" would lead you to believe that I hate you?
your hatred of the sex trade is hatred of me...or was i not clear? i never said nazi- more that just the germans have put "hated or undesirable populations" into camps....the canadian government for one.......
Respectfully, I do not believe that is a fair depiction...
When it was indicated what it would take to bring about those standards, it was rejected out of hand as non-doable. Hence the advocacy of "self-regulating", which actually means no regulations.
Other countries, as it has been shown over and over, have already realized what no regulations has meant to the status of women in their country and are back-peddling, quickly.
Either way, condoms are not 100% effective.
what is it about us you hate so much?i mean if you hate the sex trade by default you hate us too.....even though you are expressing respect, it doesn't really seem that way based on your other statements....
What the hell are you talking about, Susan? Now all of I'm sudden I'm a Nazi?
Which of my "other statements" would lead you to believe that I hate you?
your hatred of the sex trade is hatred of me...or was i not clear?
You're clear but you're wrong. I actually can respect you and loathe your work at the same time.
Oh, that's much better. I'm just a residential school sadist or perhaps a Japanese internment guard. Phew! For a second there, I thought you were going to insult me.
i have never had an STI in my work, ever in 23 years and 30,000 clients.....clearly proper use of condoms does work.......you would put us at risk over 0.001%? dismissing the protection offered by condoms is risky too. sex work must not be decriminalized because sometimes condoms break?
i am not insulting you gpie, or i am not trying too.... but when ever i hear "hate" or dispise"i am afraid....it is a slippery slope.
1. genital contact commodification is not a bar, and thus cannot follow the "bar model"
2. what the bar model does is keep the bars from bothering the police, as they know it is a strike against their record....thus we are seeing gun fights and knivings these days in bars, and then when someone is hurt, or killed, it is just their "first strike". It is not a model or a regulation, it is the city's way of saying to the bar owners; "don't waste our community policing resources on drunken brawls"
3. if coitus is commodified and given an industry Canada number, there is no committee groups needed for anything, it would be regulated and mandated like any other business and industry. It does get special status that other businesses do not have. The businesses either comply with the regulations or they do not get any of the licensings that they need to operate.
4. that brings us back to the business model, as there will be no independant apartmental work allowed, there can't be, nor can there be street work allowed, there can't be. the required regulations would not be being met. So again those not complying would be getting arrested and charged, not much different than today eh? or they would have to go work for someone else.
5. which brings us to the madam model, which is completely nondoable as proposed, as it could never be sanctioned by society, it would have to move into the educational model, where sex teachers require certification, and thus students have to pay a fee to learn...and then go through practical experience testing, etc etc...
After we have spent all this money on creating a sex commodification industry, is the plight of poor and marginalized women any better? The evidence from other countries shows quite clearly the answer is NO. Nor is the status of women in the rest of the country.
i have never had an STI in my work, ever in 23 years and 30,000 clients.....clearly proper use of condoms does work.......you would put us at risk over 0.001%? dismissing the protection offered by condoms is risky too. sex work must not be decriminalized because sometimes condoms break?
As stated previously, I support legalization with proper regulation (as opposed to decriminalization). I also never said that you had any diseases and I have no doubt in what you say. I simply noted that condoms are not 100% effective even if used properly.
violence against sex workers in new zealand has stabilized....i don't understnad how you can choose to just ignore the facts.....
just as in the gay rights movement, stigma is not erased over night. the fact that violence against sex workers in new zealand has stabilized- ie not getting worse as it is in canada- speaks volumes of the success of decriminalization......need i post the link.....again.....
even in countires where legalization was embraced, workers say they are safer and feel safer than under a criminlized regime....
remind, are you just a fatalist who sees no solution? are you still supporting the decriminalization of workers under the swedish model?if so? how do you propose to license and regulate those workers? what sort of testing will be necessary?what sort of training and support for new workers?....none?
having no arguement is not an arguement, saying noting will work, is not helping. please, share with us what plans you have for decriminalzing workers as we have all agreed must happen.....
Respectfully one can a trade and still not hate the persons engaging in it.
Really hate the fish farming industry, but that does not mean I hate the workers at the fish farm. The same can be said for those working at the tar sands or in a support indiustry, absolutely loath the dirty oil industry, but not the workers in it.
Thus socially justice minded people work to change society overall, so that we all have a better one to live in.
legalization implies seperate criminal code provisions for the sex industry....othering violence against us diminishes it and makes it seem less important. why can we not agree that labour law and standards and existing criminal code provisions can be apllied to us and our work? why must it be a criminal matter? wy is kidnapping a sex worker different from kidnapping or unlawfully confining a nurse?
it just seems to me it will mean an out for police- they will see violence against us as different and unimportant( as they do now) and we will see the same complacency that allowed 50 women to be murdered on a pig farm.....
we are not looking for no regulation or carte blanche to operate how we see fit in spite of people trying to confuse the issue. we are not looking for special treatment, we simply want equzl treatment to other canadian workers and equal protetion under the law.
i am not sure why people think decrim means no regulations. it doesn't.
Respectfully one can a trade and still not hate the persons engaging in it.
Really hate the fish farming industry, but that does not mean I hate the workers at the fish farm. The same can be said for those working at the tar sands or in a support indiustry, absolutely loath the dirty oil industry, but not the workers in it.
Thus socially justice minded people work to change society overall, so that we all have a better one to live in.
should we criminalize the people who own the fish farms or buy the fish?to protect their emplyees i mean, from having to engage in the horrible and degrading business of fish farming.....
we don't undermine the family unit- our customers go home, we provide intimate contact for men who would not other wise find a partner....
ive worked for ages, why just last night and yes both dates last night of them were in relationships. i would say 85-90% r in relationships. just trying to shine the light on the truth on what we r deaing with. yes we do undermine the family unit he is havin sex behind his partners back and spending money that should ahve gone to his family. if he wasnt paying me he would actually have to work things out and how does he explain the money he gives me????
again no prob with what i do or other pro's do but let's not create some ridiculous arguments that over inflate what we do that is how we loose credibility by makin it seem we are social workers in a negligee.
If I'm not mistaken, similar was said about Demon Whisky prior to prohibition. Alcohol was seen as a destroyer of the family unit, with men spending money on booze instead of shoes for the children, etc. In my opinion, I'm not sure how we can blame anyone but the men who make that choice. Nearly anything that isn't the family unit can undermine the family unit: gambling, drugs, booze, golf, a cult, obsessive collecting of baseball cards, etc.
i meant that to blame the men, we cant be blamed for what he does didnt write it so well.
spanks i am sorry you do not enjoy your work, but 85% of my customers are not in relationships...and even if they are....i too find your arguement smacks of the tired old steroe types.......
the customer who just left here was not married....and i take some offense to you calling me ridiculous. i am a 23 year vetran of the sex industry. just because you don't "like"your clients and treat them with disdain, doesn't mean some of us don't take our work seriously and care about our customers. if this is truely how you feel, perhaps you are in the wrong line of work. men can be vulnerable, are beautiful and do have needs emotionally and physically. i am greatful for knowing them all.
Timebandit, in response to your point that making a choice doesn't make it feminist may certainly be true, my friend in Hollywood driving a Cadillac, wearing minkand drinking champagne was making her choice based on seeing that her body was the most valuable commodity she had, was it a life that led her on a downward spiral, yes. I don't think she was making a feminist choice but when a woman says to me I am a feminist and I am making this choice then I respect that.
Further on you said, "it diminishes all women by putting a price tag on our physical selves" and that evoked a long forgotten memory of myself at fifteen trying to leave home and the kindly old man at the corner restaurant offering to hire me and to help me get my social insurance number, I think I had just turned fifteen. So, on the way to get the number he said he had to stop for a moment and I should come up, being a child and trained to be compliant to adults I did though it felt weird. Upstairs he offered me money for sex, when I stuttered that I did not do, had not done, would not do, he doubled his offer, it was a lot of money. I hid in the bathroom, he realized that I was unwilling and I was fortunate because then he took me and I got my social insurance number and I never went to work for him. He had moved up the from the states and it left me with the lasting impression that people from there thought money could buy anything but it did not leave me feeling diminished or shamed or less.
You also said, "some choices are not inherently feminisht", by whose definition?
Snert, I appreciated your reference to Pride Parades and the division that exists within the gay community.
I can't imagine it for myself but then I know I am equally incapable of being a dental technician or hairdresser even, I just don't want to get that close but I know there are people who are much more at ease being physical with others and so I find it plausible that there are women who choose this and are not disempowered by that choice.
Susan, thank you for sharing some of your experiences.
Respectfully one can a trade and still not hate the persons engaging in it.
Really hate the fish farming industry, but that does not mean I hate the workers at the fish farm. The same can be said for those working at the tar sands or in a support indiustry, absolutely loath the dirty oil industry, but not the workers in it.
Thus socially justice minded people work to change society overall, so that we all have a better one to live in.
should we criminalize the people who own the fish farms or buy the fish?to protect their emplyees i mean, from having to engage in the horrible and degrading business of fish farming.....
Good question, a socially and ecologically just society would make fish farms illegal and prosecute the owners, and charge the purchasers of the illegal fish, with purchasing an illegal food product.
would it be in the criminal code ?or part of a consumer, industry regulation?
thanks to you too ennir foryour continuing efforts here!!
Respectfully one can a trade and still not hate the persons engaging in it.
Really hate the fish farming industry, but that does not mean I hate the workers at the fish farm. The same can be said for those working at the tar sands or in a support indiustry, absolutely loath the dirty oil industry, but not the workers in it.
Thus socially justice minded people work to change society overall, so that we all have a better one to live in.
should we criminalize the people who own the fish farms or buy the fish?to protect their emplyees i mean, from having to engage in the horrible and degrading business of fish farming.....
Good question, a socially and ecologically just society would make fish farms illegal and prosecute the owners, and charge the purchasers of the illegal fish, with purchasing an illegal food product.
Wow jailed for eating the wrong kind of fish. I don't think I like your Brave New World. Are you for arresting all drug users as well or only fish users? How about oil sands workers, should we arrest them because I tell you they are far more destructive to the planet than a few fish farms. How about those living off the avails of the oil sands project? How many prisons to you think we will have to build to accommodate all the perps?
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
Kropotkin that is a bit overblown, I take the blight of fish farms seriously, they are destroying ocean habitats and salmon stocks.
Just as poaching endangered species carries a criminal charge, so should the destruction of a fish species.
People are charged for having a bear gall bladder or a foot, so too for farmed fish species who are destroying natural fish stocks.
Nothing brave new world about it.
Unless of course you believe everyone has a right to have a bear gall bladder, or a rhino tusk...
remind, i wonder how you feel about this as a big proponent of mandatory testing........
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48800
LILONGWE, Oct 10 (IPS) - It was, Malawian police say, a routine sweep for criminals at one of the country's busiest border posts. They were looking for criminals.
But when police arrested 14 prostitutes as part of their search, and then allegedly forcefully tested them for HIV and charged them for "deliberately trading in sex while having a sexually transmitted disease", human rights organisations had to step in.
The forceful HIV testing of the sex workers was a violation of the women's rights, human rights organisations say. But Malawian police have claimed that it was nothing more than just a routine part of their of job
hmmmm......should I get human rights to fight for my right not to be TB and rubella tested, and to ensure that i do not have to notify if have Hep, or HIV?
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/04/01/sex.workers.prefer.remote.screening.sexually.transmitted.diseases
Researchers at the University of Westminster have used a simple and convenient method for screening female commercial sex workers (CSW) for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) without the need for them to attend clinics. The women were given tampons that they could use to collect their own samples and post them to the laboratory. The results showed that the women in the study found self-collection of samples very easy and much preferred this method of screening for STIs and in addition the testing methods used proved to be more accurate than traditional tests. Dr Patrick Kimmitt who presented the group's findings to the Society for General Microbiology meeting in Harrogate today (Wednesday 1 April) pointed out that despite their risk of exposure to STIs, female CSW are reluctant to attend clinics for regular screening for these infections. This may be due to unsuitability of opening times, fear of stigma or the false concern of the possibility of being reported to the police. "Point of care testing" delivered at their workplace is more attractive to this patient group.
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/04/01/sex.workers.prefer.remote.screening.sexually.transmitted.diseases
Researchers at the University of Westminster have used a simple and convenient method for screening female commercial sex workers (CSW) for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) without the need for them to attend clinics. The women were given tampons that they could use to collect their own samples and post them to the laboratory. The results showed that the women in the study found self-collection of samples very easy and much preferred this method of screening for STIs and in addition the testing methods used proved to be more accurate than traditional tests. Dr Patrick Kimmitt who presented the group's findings to the Society for General Microbiology meeting in Harrogate today (Wednesday 1 April) pointed out that despite their risk of exposure to STIs, female CSW are reluctant to attend clinics for regular screening for these infections. This may be due to unsuitability of opening times, fear of stigma or the false concern of the possibility of being reported to the police. "Point of care testing" delivered at their workplace is more attractive to this patient group.
So how do they know that the sample belongs to the person it's supposed to belong to? Couldn't they submit a surrogate sample from someone else? I'm not sure the honour system is a good idea.....
Article 6
Not to equate both jobs but I doubt that the Charter of Human Rights would justify the right of a paid assassin to work. I don't think this argument holds water.
Last time I checked, murder was illegal in Canada, even according to the Charter of Human Rights I suspect. Prostitution is legal, but points for trying to link murder and prostitution, and therefore the people who do sex work as akin to murderers.
was hoping that someone would step in and provide the midway point, that it has to be made sustainable in a "environmentally" just world, through rules and regulations, and all their attendant aspects.
used rhetoric to make my point, of course, but given the rest of the romantic heroine rhetoric going on here, why not....
Further thread drift as I can't figure out how to hook this back to the thread - Grescoe has nothing good to say about BC Pacific ocean fish farms.
Agreed it isn't, and it could not be and won't be....should coitus ever be made into a commodity industry.
That example is about a country where it is illegal, thus they do not want to attend for regular testing....
In a society where it would legal and regulated, it just means mandatory compliance, just the same as everyone else in other fields of endeavour that are high risk health risk occuptations.
spanks i am sorry you do not enjoy your work, but 85% of my customers are not in relationships...and even if they are....i too find your arguement smacks of the tired old steroe types.......
the customer who just left here was not married....and i take some offense to you calling me ridiculous. i am a 23 year vetran of the sex industry. just because you don't "like"your clients and treat them with disdain, doesn't mean some of us don't take our work seriously and care about our customers. if this is truely how you feel, perhaps you are in the wrong line of work. men can be vulnerable, are beautiful and do have needs emotionally and physically. i am greatful for knowing them all.
I think she needs to do better screening and possibly raise her rates. No one respects someone who does not show they respect themselves by properly valuing their services. Most people who do this have better sessions in general. But allowing the first person who calls you up, and providing services at lower than standard rates, tends to attract an undesireable client. I have yet to hear a real complaint from an sp who charges 400-500 per hour about the people they see lol. Or someone like us who build a rapport with potential clients to ensure they are suitable.
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/04/01/sex.workers.prefer.remote.screening.sexually.transmitted.diseases
Researchers at the University of Westminster have used a simple and convenient method for screening female commercial sex workers (CSW) for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) without the need for them to attend clinics. The women were given tampons that they could use to collect their own samples and post them to the laboratory. The results showed that the women in the study found self-collection of samples very easy and much preferred this method of screening for STIs and in addition the testing methods used proved to be more accurate than traditional tests. Dr Patrick Kimmitt who presented the group's findings to the Society for General Microbiology meeting in Harrogate today (Wednesday 1 April) pointed out that despite their risk of exposure to STIs, female CSW are reluctant to attend clinics for regular screening for these infections. This may be due to unsuitability of opening times, fear of stigma or the false concern of the possibility of being reported to the police. "Point of care testing" delivered at their workplace is more attractive to this patient group.
So how do they know that the sample belongs to the person it's supposed to belong to? Couldn't they submit a surrogate sample from someone else? I'm not sure the honour system is a good idea.....
I'm sure you must be joking, right? As far as I know, testing is not mandatory, or something they are trying to circumvent to avoid prosecution or something lol. Of course the only reason they are submitting the sample is because they actually want to know the results, for themselves. Seriously, that is the weirdest thing I've seen yet, in spite of the fish farming debate, which is also pretty weird.
i know, dude i was pretty shocked when i came across it too!!! lol tampons.....it states that it works really well though....weird.....
also, time bandit....why .....do sex workers have no honor? .....nice.....
Testing would have to be mandatory, if there was a legal industry created....and it could not be self regulated. WCB, and EI, for 2 examples of the worker's social net, could not be accessed.
Also, for reasons such as the following public health breach below, we cannot have a state sanctioned industry, that has potential to harm so many, if there were no regulations.
Fact: Increased public access means increased consumer participation, and increased consumer participation means larger portions of contact sex workers, and society at large, would be affected by any potential breaches. And keep in mind Hep C, is the biggest concern, and it is not even classified strictly as a STI.
“We found out in March this year...that she was the woman who between 2001 and 2004 infected two men here with HIV. The men then infected their partners. So we launched a search for other clients of hers to discover the whole network. We want to make these people start treatment, but mainly to stop the infection from spreading further into the population.”
Drawing juxtapositions of loving the people, hating the profession/business, is very valid...and extending the metaphor into regulations is just as valid.
.... this all comes back to me, as a eco-feminist, as a waste of public resources and money, when the most vulnerable, will still be left just as vulnerable.
People who make 500/hr, in any profession, are not vulnerable, and in need of social justice assistance by society at large, IMV. Nor do their rich customers.
But maybe that is just me....
remind, we already qualify for WCB and EI ......i don't know how many times i have to remind you.....
i do not make $500 an hr nor will i discuss my rates with you. your complete dismiss of empowered sex workers as not needing social justice is a single dimensional as always.
a $500 an hour sex worker is only as stabile as the current legal frame work allows her to be. all it would take is one over zealous police man and her life is upside down and over...criminal record, loss of housing.....when she finally hits the street, then will you consider her worthy? when she takes up drug use out of a sense of desperation will she then be worthy? or does she have to be trafficked, rescued and repent the evils of sex work or "selling coitis" before she is worthy on your eyes?
i find it ridicualous that sex workers are blammed for the impacts that criminalization have had on us and that those having not yet experienced those harms are vilified as "a list" or "not vulnerable"...."not in need of social justice".....you really just don't get it ....we are all linked by the stability of the others....is that so hard to grasp?
the high end escort is the drug addicted street entrenched worker.......the drug addicted street entrenched worker is the high end escort........
Well worth repeating susan. Thanks for that post.
"a $500 an hour sex worker is only as stabile as the current legal frame work allows her to be. all it would take is one over zealous police man and her life is upside down and over...criminal record, loss of housing.....when she finally hits the street, then will you consider her worthy? when she takes up drug use out of a sense of desperation will she then be worthy? or does she have to be trafficked, rescued and repent the evils of sex work or "selling coitis" before she is worthy on your eyes?"
genital contact sex workers/prostitutes do not qualify for WCB and EI, other sex workers do....which is why I keep repeating to you, that you do not.
yes i do get linked by the stability of others, which is why i do not agree with the further commodification of women's and men's organs
yes i have posted friggin links before....we do damn well qualify, all you are required to do is pay in......? we are even mentioned by profession- escort i one spot. i included a link to self employed wporkers in BC.........
http://www.worksafebc.com/claims/worker_benefits/wage_loss_benefits/pop_compensation/default.asp
Frustrated Mess: I think that begs the question.
I would hazard a guess that a labour activist is someone who supports the right of labour to organize in order to promote and defend the interests of labour. That seems to require a commitment to unions in some form or another. Now, that's not to say that every labour activist will agree on a single definition of the interests of labour, or how to go about advancing those interests in an organized fashion. Furthermore, a labour activist could condemn features of the union movement in particular times and places...such as mob infiltration, collusion with managerial elites, etc. A labour activist could very well condemn certain unions and certain practices of unions and remain a labour activist.
At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth, I would hazard a guess that a feminist is someone who, by definition, supports organized action to promote and defend the rights of women. What exactly those rights are, however, and how to go about organizing to promote and defend them, seem to me to be up for debate among feminists.
The problem, as I see it, is that there's a temptation to foreclose debate by imposing a premature uniformity upon the feminist movement. A labour parallel might be the attempt in early 20th Century to impose a definition of labour activism that explicitly excluded Communism from the American labour movement.
This is not to say that a strong case can't be made against decriminalization; indeed, I think a number of strong arguments have been made to that effect. However, I have not seen any argument that would justify excluding the proponents of decriminalization from the feminist community.
Beyond all this, however, I am concerned that Susan is, apparently, being accused of attempting to "divide and conquer" the feminist community on Babble on behalf of the sex trade industry, and that she is being defined in such a way that places her outside the feminist community. This strikes me as being unfair.
So I can't be a labour activist without being pro-union, but I can be a feminist without being opposed to the commodification of the female body and mind. Okay. Now, can I be both a labour activist and represent and promote a company union?
and here we are named specifically;
EA 761021 Massage Parlour,Steam Bath,Escort Srv 0.84 0.89 6.0% 22
http://www.worksafebc.com/publications/newsletters/assets/pdf_bod/20031021_01.pd
f
Thread drift alert
FM it really is a slippery slope. We all might agree that CLAC is a company union but after that there are many labour activists who would see certain "mainstream" unions as nothing more than company unions. Can you be pro union and a syndicalist is the question I wonder about because as a syndicalist you are the company.
Since I am not really interested in jailing people for selling sex I worry about a regulatory regime that is very intrusive. To be anything more than a joke it has to have enforcement mechanisms that eventually lead to jail otherwise it will be laughed at not complied with.
Your 2nd link does not work.....your first just indicates that someone, anyone, can apply to be covered, if you are self employed, but you would have have an industry designation to be self employed in, first, and then your application would have to be approved..
and no, I do not believe those classifications you mentioned cover genital contact and coitus, because said activities have no Industry Canada designation, and they can't, because communicating for the purposes of selling coitus and genital contact, as a commodity, is illegal.
So if you listed your self as an self employed escort, you cannot be performing coitus, or genital contact, and you know this.
In BC, even tatoo parlours have a health industry designation.
also, time bandit....why .....do sex workers have no honor? .....nice.....
Like most people, it probably depends on both the individual and the situation. Not that it has anything to do with the discussion. Nice use of the "red herring" fallacy, though.
i find it ridicualous that sex workers are blammed for the impacts that criminalization have had on us and that those having not yet experienced those harms are vilified as "a list" or "not vulnerable"...."not in need of social justice".....you really just don't get it ....we are all linked by the stability of the others....is that so hard to grasp?
the high end escort is the drug addicted street entrenched worker.......the drug addicted street entrenched worker is the high end escort........
How so? Just repeating a claim over and over doesn't qualify as evidence for it.
I realize I am dealing with some heavy hitters here with years of practice.
(by the time I have formed a comment, the thread is closed)
I posted hear after reading "Framing the Debate" , "Who's a Feminist" and thinking I could contribute.
But I keep getting this, men are not welcome here, impression.
? Should all men butt out of this forum,
even if they believe they support feminist goals, and wait for it.........buy sex
(under a very narrow set of rules).
So I can't be a labour activist without being pro-union, but I can be a feminist without being opposed to the commodification of the female body and mind. Okay. Now, can I be both a labour activist and represent and promote a company union?
It's pretty easy to define a union, but it's rather difficult to define the commodification of the female body and mind in such a way that doesn't automatically exclude every form of labour in a capitalist system. Are female bodybuilders commodifying their bodies? Are women who so scientific research for corporations, nonprofits, and governments commodifying their minds? If so, then should feminists automatically be opposed to female bodybuilding and performing scientific research? How about construction work, boxing, auto repair, or military service? The problem is that under capitalism everything we do is commodified. That's the nature of our economic system. Sex work doesn't commodify women more than any of these examples.
And who are these men who would never find an intimate partner?
I am totally aware we all frown on anecdotal shite here, but....
Young man I know very well. Overweight, horrible case of adolescent acne which left scars. The weight plus the pimples made him a bullied beat up scared young man for all five years of high school: he withdrew. Capital W. Lived online, gamed and chatted, where he could be whoever he said he was. Somewhere around 22 years of age he decided he had to join the real world. Step outside his Moms basement. Get a job. He had zero idea of how to be a real-lifer (his words not mine). Socially inept to be nice about it.
It was pretty awful for him.
He got a complex about boy-girl stuff (again his words). He wanted to reach out, to make friends, to date, to hit the holy grail of one day getting-laid. Had no idea how. His uncle decided for his 21st to "buy him some fun".
This is where susan comes in (okay not susan but someone like susan, who likes men, even young unattractive men.) I can't and won't ask for details, but the result was a changed man. This woman, and I send my anonymous thanks, convinced this young man that he was funny and desirable. (And he is, and was. But no-one else would tell him that!) It was a one-nighter, bought and paid for, but it made a difference. He admits happily that his first was a birthday present, and he doesn't seem to mind. She really was good for his self esteem.
Does it seem tacky to talk about it? Well, ya. But I also know that this kid was talking suicide on his forums, that he was in the "no reason to stay" category. He had been turned down and joked about for all his formative years, and it had turned him into a sad lonely person. Sure his self esteem was bought and paid for, but I shudder to think what might have happened.
A woman's body is hers. She can make her own decisions as to what to do with it.
She can indeed. As another poster put it, whatever a women does with her body, including sexual activities of all sorts, is completely up to her. When there is an exchange of money, this transaction enters into the public realm and is legislated and regulated.
I think the Charter Challenge has legs and will stand up. I am NOT in favour of criminalizing women who do sex work. What will we accomplish for our fellow sisters by doing that? It is not going to disappear so make it safer for the women doing it. I think that is a big priority.
Women are already criminalized and I've said here and elsewhere that I support decriminalizing women in this position. I do not support decriminalizing their pimps, customers and all others who stand to profit. This drive is all about unfettered capitalism, in my opinion.
I'm still confused by your opening post Loretta as I feel that it is directly about susan and can be interpreted as her trying to divide and conquer. In fact, I can find no other answer for your opening post except that.
I do wonder about that -- that's what the thread is about. I don't find anything particularly feminist in her views, not just on this (which is a matter of discussion) but in other ways -- sympathy for single fathers and support for business deregulation are two examples, without even considering the issue of sex work.
Lest we forget the porn business, which is rife with exploitation and it is entirely legal. So why are the anti-prostitution crowd not addressing this? Instead the focus is on why, how or when a woman can do what she likes with her vagina in prostitution/sex work.
The subject here, because of the posts that susan davis initiated, because of the court challenge and because of the complete forum in support of a position, is decrim/legalizing prostitution.
i welcome your perspective rework!please stay!
time bandit.....lol i knew it was a red herring am just jokin...re:honor
evidence of what; that remind said highend escorts don't require social justice? i know wokers on street who are former feature exotic dancers....we are all contected and the lack of jobs drives people to work in areas they are uncomfortable with as well as forcing some into the dangerous street level trade.....
or do you believe closing 20 show lounges has had no impact in vancouver? and the raids and closure of businesses else where has had no impact? if you were an auto worker and they closed the plant where you worked what might you be forced to do? work that is more dangerous? work beyond your comfort level?perhaps even sex work?
loss of jobs always affects workers.....i guess you missed the statistics of numbers of murders of vancouver sex workers by year increasing parallel to actions imposed against thhe sex industry...
Research shows that the Communicating Law has had little impact on reducing levels of street-based sex work in Canada, and in fact contributes to the impacts on sex workers, residents and businesses (Lowman, 1989). The number of homicides of sex workers in Canada between 1960 and 2000 reveals an escalation of violence since this law was enacted in 1985.
YEARS
NUMBER OF HOMICIDES OF SEX WORKERS
1960-1964
0
1965-1969
0
1970-1974
0
1975-1979
3
1980-1984
8
1985-1989
22
1990-1994
24
1995-1999
55
1975- the year supper clubs were no longer allowed to "tolerate "the presence of prostitutes in the club
1985- law revisions leading to legal frame work we see today
1991- workers not allowed to rent hotel rooms in the DTES by the hour
these are facts. the loss of safe work environments has completely destabilized the safety of sex workers.
i did post evidene of WCB.....?
it is a little frustrating to have to repeat this stuff over and over. perhaps if people would browse previous posts or posts in the sex worker rights forum i would be less of a repeating of posts.....
Long thread.