Prostitution, not a job like any other

76 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Even when their employer claims it happens daily?  Or what does "expected" mean?

It means a part of the job. Violence against bus drivers is a problem. Many use shields now. Imagine if they had to work naked and in physical contact with customers.

Few jobs require people to face gunfire or wildfires. That is why police and firefighters are honored by the public.  Regardless of whether or not other jobs are actually more dangerous the public perception is that jobs other than those do not require people to risk their safety. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
In the absence of a UTI or blood in the urine, it basically is.  At any rate, in the absence of a UTI or blood, it's harmless. 

Parents can be quite confident their babies don't have a UTI or blood in their urine. That is not the case with strangers. In any case urine is only one of the body fluids I mentioned. The core argument is still supported.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

It means a part of the job. Violence against bus drivers is a problem. Many use shields now. Imagine if they had to work naked and in physical contact with customers.

Sorry but in BC we require all drivers to wear shirts and in fact having someone touching you while driving is a form of distracted driving.

Pondering

Anything to derail a thread that points out the obvious inescapable danger of getting into cars with strangers. It just doesn't match the rosy picture of wealth generated through street prostitution you would prefer to believe. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Anything to derail a thread that points out the obvious inescapable danger of getting into cars with strangers.

VOTD already asked whether we should prevent such risky behaviour, by law.  And you responded by pointing out that men, too, can be killed after getting in a car with a stranger.

So if we're going to use the law to try to prevent something risky, would you prefer that we use it to stop people from getting in cars with strangers, or to stop them from having sex for money with those strangers? 

Or neither?  Maybe just remind everyone that both choices carry risks?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Anything to derail a thread that points out the obvious inescapable danger of getting into cars with strangers.

VOTD already asked whether we should prevent such risky behaviour, by law.  And you responded by pointing out that men, too, can be killed after getting in a car with a stranger.

So if we're going to use the law to try to prevent something risky, would you prefer that we use it to stop people from getting in cars with strangers, or to stop them from having sex for money with those strangers? 

Or neither?  Maybe just remind everyone that both choices carry risks?

Why choose? If people decide to do something dangerous of their own accord, such as get into a car with a stranger, no law is being broken that I know of. The law recognizes that money is a form of power. That is the basis of minimum wage and every other law to protect workers. 

We don't commercialize or legitimize an activity that requires workers to risk their safety and we do what we have already done. Change the law to ensure women aren't arrested for being desperate. 

You are arguing for a libertarian approach but that is a more general argument concerning the right of society to limit harmful behaviors. As per the status quo we do exercise that right subject to limitations imposed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

I support our current law(s) that criminalizes johns. Street prostitution cannot be made safe. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Why choose? If people decide to do something dangerous of their own accord, such as get into a car with a stranger, no law is being broken that I know of.

Yes, it's not currently illegal.  That was why I was asking if you think it should be.  To save lives and such.

Quote:
I support our current law(s) that criminalizes johns. Street prostitution cannot be made safe.

But we could stop people from getting in cars with strangers.  Haven't you already used that as your example of unsafe??

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Even if sex work were to be decriminalized, it would still be a crime to murder sex workers.  And the fact that a sex worker might INADVERTENTLY get into a car with her or his eventual murderer does not mitigate the fact that the murderer committed murder.

And remember, Picton got away with his crimes for years at a time when sex work was still fully criminalized and actively prosecuted, thus proving that criminalization and "the Nordic model" really don't make a difference.  If a guy in a Nordic country truly wanted to be the local version of Picton, that guy wouldn't CARE at that point whether soliciting a woman for sex was legal or not.  He'd be so obsessed with killing that nothing would stop him.  Jack The Ripper, for that matter, committed the acts he committed when sex workers were treated far more harhly by his country's laws than they've ever been treated in Canada

And once again, you're edging towards victim blaming with the "getting in the car" thing.  For the love of God(s), please STOP. RIGHT. NOW.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Anything to derail a thread that points out the obvious inescapable danger of getting into cars with strangers. It just doesn't match the rosy picture of wealth generated through street prostitution you would prefer to believe. 

So you are now also a pyshic who can read my mind from across the continent. You are truly incredible.  If you can find a quote from me that comes even remotely close to that sentiment then please post it and ridicule me because it is the stupidiest idea I have heard in a long time. 

Pontificating should be your handle not Pondering because you do far more pontificating than pondering. I watch polite people like Meg try to explain the basics of empathy and all you do is play silly games.

Fortunately you are nothing but a keyboard warrior so you can't do any real damage to the actual women whose lives you want to control. Your attitude towards them is demeaning and arrogant. They don't need people like you to tell them what life choices they should make.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
But we could stop people from getting in cars with strangers.  Haven't you already used that as your example of unsafe??

That would be turning back the clock reverting to arresting prostitutes who are the victims. The johns are the ones with the power. 

In a more general sense it would be unenforcable. 

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
Even if sex work were to be decriminalized, it would still be a crime to murder sex workers.  And the fact that a sex worker might INADVERTENTLY get into a car with her or his eventual murderer does not mitigate the fact that the murderer committed murder.  

The idea is to prevent murder. There is no way to know either way if there would have been fewer murders under the Nordic model. Under the old laws prostitutes were arrested not johns. Under the Nordic model surveillance has switched from prostitutes to johns. I can't say that would have made a difference but it is possible. It changes the mindset of law enforcement (over time and with training).

Murder is the extreme of the abuse that they suffer not the only abuse. The murders highlighted the vulnerability they didn't end it. The Nordic model does not produce instant magical results. Neither does decriminalization. Results are notoriously difficult to measure no matter which direction is taken. Studies show mixed results depending on who is doing them. I believe that through reducing the number of potential victims we protect girls and women who would otherwise have been harmed though not necessarily murdered. 

Ken Burch wrote:
 And once again, you're edging towards victim blaming with the "getting in the car" thing.  For the love of God(s), please STOP. RIGHT. NOW.

You guys need to remember where you are and back-off. This is an extremely sensitive and emotional topic for women. Almost every woman over 30 has experienced sexual misconduct or worse or know women who have. That is the context within which we experience this conversation. Well-meaning feminists are deeply divided on the topic. 

Meg is aware of this conversation. If  she thinks I am out of line she isn't shy. She will say so. 

I'm not suggesting anyone be banned from the conversation. There aren't enough people here to keep it going and I am not adverse to reading opposing viewpoints. 

I do think that men should have to check their aggression at the door in the feminist forum. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That would be turning back the clock reverting to arresting prostitutes who are the victims.

Like Tim Bosma, to borrow your example?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
Even if sex work were to be decriminalized, it would still be a crime to murder sex workers.  And the fact that a sex worker might INADVERTENTLY get into a car with her or his eventual murderer does not mitigate the fact that the murderer committed murder.  

The idea is to prevent murder. There is no way to know either way if there would have been fewer murders under the Nordic model. Under the old laws prostitutes were arrested not johns. Under the Nordic model surveillance has switched from prostitutes to johns. I can't say that would have made a difference but it is possible. It changes the mindset of law enforcement (over time and with training).

Murder is the extreme of the abuse that they suffer not the only abuse. The murders highlighted the vulnerability they didn't end it. The Nordic model does not produce instant magical results. Neither does decriminalization. Results are notoriously difficult to measure no matter which direction is taken. Studies show mixed results depending on who is doing them. I believe that through reducing the number of potential victims we protect girls and women who would otherwise have been harmed though not necessarily murdered. 

Ken Burch wrote:
 And once again, you're edging towards victim blaming with the "getting in the car" thing.  For the love of God(s), please STOP. RIGHT. NOW.

You guys need to remember where you are and back-off. This is an extremely sensitive and emotional topic for women. Almost every woman over 30 has experienced sexual misconduct or worse or know women who have. That is the context within which we experience this conversation. Well-meaning feminists are deeply divided on the topic. 

Meg is aware of this conversation. If  she thinks I am out of line she isn't shy. She will say so. 

I'm not suggesting anyone be banned from the conversation. There aren't enough people here to keep it going and I am not adverse to reading opposing viewpoints. 

I do think that men should have to check their aggression at the door in the feminist forum. 

It's far from male aggression to be incredulous at phraseology that even partially implies that the fact that women got into cars with the men who ended up killing them are somehow partially responsible for the fact that they ended up murdered.  It simply doesn't matter that they got into cars.  The fact that they got into cars does not mean that the men who murdered them has no choice other than to murder them.  

That's the last thing I'll post in this thread, out of respect to the forum in which it is occurring.

MegB

Ken Burch wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
Even if sex work were to be decriminalized, it would still be a crime to murder sex workers.  And the fact that a sex worker might INADVERTENTLY get into a car with her or his eventual murderer does not mitigate the fact that the murderer committed murder.  

The idea is to prevent murder. There is no way to know either way if there would have been fewer murders under the Nordic model. Under the old laws prostitutes were arrested not johns. Under the Nordic model surveillance has switched from prostitutes to johns. I can't say that would have made a difference but it is possible. It changes the mindset of law enforcement (over time and with training).

Murder is the extreme of the abuse that they suffer not the only abuse. The murders highlighted the vulnerability they didn't end it. The Nordic model does not produce instant magical results. Neither does decriminalization. Results are notoriously difficult to measure no matter which direction is taken. Studies show mixed results depending on who is doing them. I believe that through reducing the number of potential victims we protect girls and women who would otherwise have been harmed though not necessarily murdered. 

Ken Burch wrote:
 And once again, you're edging towards victim blaming with the "getting in the car" thing.  For the love of God(s), please STOP. RIGHT. NOW.

You guys need to remember where you are and back-off. This is an extremely sensitive and emotional topic for women. Almost every woman over 30 has experienced sexual misconduct or worse or know women who have. That is the context within which we experience this conversation. Well-meaning feminists are deeply divided on the topic. 

Meg is aware of this conversation. If  she thinks I am out of line she isn't shy. She will say so. 

I'm not suggesting anyone be banned from the conversation. There aren't enough people here to keep it going and I am not adverse to reading opposing viewpoints. 

I do think that men should have to check their aggression at the door in the feminist forum. 

It's far from male aggression to be incredulous at phraseology that even partially implies that the fact that women got into cars with the men who ended up killing them are somehow partially responsible for the fact that they ended up murdered.  It simply doesn't matter that they got into cars.  The fact that they got into cars does not mean that the men who murdered them has no choice other than to murder them.  

That's the last thing I'll post in this thread, out of respect to the forum in which it is occurring.

I understand, but would rather you continued posting here.

NorthReport

 

Just another way to abuse women!

'Hot Girls Wanted'... For a month or two

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/feminist-current/2015/06/hot-girls-wante...

MegB

Pondering wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
Even if sex work were to be decriminalized, it would still be a crime to murder sex workers.  And the fact that a sex worker might INADVERTENTLY get into a car with her or his eventual murderer does not mitigate the fact that the murderer committed murder.  

The idea is to prevent murder. There is no way to know either way if there would have been fewer murders under the Nordic model. Under the old laws prostitutes were arrested not johns. Under the Nordic model surveillance has switched from prostitutes to johns. I can't say that would have made a difference but it is possible. It changes the mindset of law enforcement (over time and with training).

Murder is the extreme of the abuse that they suffer not the only abuse. The murders highlighted the vulnerability they didn't end it. The Nordic model does not produce instant magical results. Neither does decriminalization. Results are notoriously difficult to measure no matter which direction is taken. Studies show mixed results depending on who is doing them. I believe that through reducing the number of potential victims we protect girls and women who would otherwise have been harmed though not necessarily murdered. 

Ken Burch wrote:
 And once again, you're edging towards victim blaming with the "getting in the car" thing.  For the love of God(s), please STOP. RIGHT. NOW.

You guys need to remember where you are and back-off. This is an extremely sensitive and emotional topic for women. Almost every woman over 30 has experienced sexual misconduct or worse or know women who have. That is the context within which we experience this conversation. Well-meaning feminists are deeply divided on the topic. 

Meg is aware of this conversation. If  she thinks I am out of line she isn't shy. She will say so. 

I'm not suggesting anyone be banned from the conversation. There aren't enough people here to keep it going and I am not adverse to reading opposing viewpoints. 

I do think that men should have to check their aggression at the door in the feminist forum. 

You're out of line here Pondering. There is no male aggression, just opposing views and I'll ask you not to use the feminist forum to shut down dissenting voices, male or otherwise. And, for the sake of clarity, what the hell are "well-meaning feminists"?

6079_Smith_W

NorthReport wrote:

Just another way to abuse women!

'Hot Girls Wanted'... For a month or two

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/feminist-current/2015/06/hot-girls-wante...

Not that I don't get the analysis in theory, but this kind of cherrypicking really isn't much more helpful or relevant than these boneheads, who are trying to sell porn as "cheating":

https://fightthenewdrug.org

If one seriously wants to make the abuse argument, there are better ways to do it than resorting to sensationalism. Problem is most people want to fall for the simplistic and false arguments rather than honestly trying to deal with the far more complex reality.

These arguments are about 20 years out of date, and not just because craigslist shut down their personals earlier this year (creating a whole bunch of new problems).

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Despite purporting to be discussing "amateur" porn, the article is really about porn for money, even if the women who act in this haven't chosen to make it their full-time job.

But there are lots of people producing "porn" and simply giving it away.  I'd love to see an analysis of that, though I suspect that it would have to revert to the ol' "brainwashing" theory or whatever.  How else to explain someone getting naked for no money?  Certainly not by acknowledging that this might actually be fun for some.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

The idea is to prevent murder. There is no way to know either way if there would have been fewer murders under the Nordic model. Under the old laws prostitutes were arrested not johns. Under the Nordic model surveillance has switched from prostitutes to johns. I can't say that would have made a difference but it is possible. It changes the mindset of law enforcement (over time and with training).

Murder is the extreme of the abuse that they suffer not the only abuse. The murders highlighted the vulnerability they didn't end it. The Nordic model does not produce instant magical results. Neither does decriminalization. Results are notoriously difficult to measure no matter which direction is taken. Studies show mixed results depending on who is doing them. I believe that through reducing the number of potential victims we protect girls and women who would otherwise have been harmed though not necessarily murdered. 

Many sex workers and social scientists say that the current law that criminalizes sex work has made sex work more dangerous and that the law hasn't reduced the amount of people doing sex work. Many sex workers and social scientists are saying that decriminalization would make sex work safer. Why ignore these informed voices and perspectives? 

Pondering

JKR I appreciate the manner in which you question my position on this sensitive topic. I would like to answer but I can't do it in this thread in which I will be belittled.  

 Meg, you ask what I mean by "well-meaning" feminists on both sides. 

It means feminists who support the legitimization of prostitution do so because they believe it is in the best interests of women.

It means feminists who oppose the legitimization of prostitution do so because they believe it is in the best interests of women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Tears_murders

Poverty and a lack of public transit has forced many disadvantaged Aboriginal women to turn to hitchhiking as a cheap means of transportation along Highway 16.[35] Many of the Highway of Tears victims were last seen or reported to be hitchhiking before their disappearances. ...Oppal's public inquiry report into the Robert Pickton case demanded urgent transportation improvement along Highway 16. Like the Highway of Tears Symposium Recommendation Report, Oppal's report also suggested implementing a shuttle bus service along Highway 16 to deter young women from hitchhiking.[42]

It is not victim blaming to recognize the inherent danger in getting into cars with strangers. The parameters around DTES women entering vehicles with strangers are different but the danger is no less.

It is unconscionable to use the Pickton murders as a reason to legitimize street prostitution when that is exactly what put  the lives of those women in danger just as it does on the highway of tears.

It is unconscionable to use accusations of victim-blaming as a shield against that argument because it doesn't fit with the popular opinion (here at least) that street prostitution is liberation.

As some man noted, I am primarily an "armchair warrior". I vote. I attend some demonstrations. Beyond that I am toothless. How lucky I am that a man is present to tell me how useless I am. Another man "shouted" at me. Apparently in this "feminist" forum that behavior is acceptable, even encouraged.

I will never again start a thread in this "feminist" forum because it lends it a legitimacy it doesn't deserve not that it matters given my insignificance.

Have no worries Meg. You have soundly put me in my place. 

MegB

Pondering, I have been moderating babble for more than seven years. I've been a participant for nearly 17 years. I've been a feminist activist for much longer. I think I have a pretty clear understanding of the history and mandate of the "feminist" (love the scare quotes) forum. Sadly, in your five years here in babble, you have not managed a nuanced understanding of its mandate and your decision to not start any future threads here, while unfortunate, may be for the best.

Nothing posted in this thread violates the feminist forum's spirit or mandate (though the condescending use of "well-meaning" feminists and the use of scare quotes around "feminist" comes pretty close). A participant in this forum does not have to be a feminist, or idenify as a woman, but they do have to argue from a pro-feminist position, even if that position is at odds with you or any other woman or person identifying as a woman or feminist. Feminist thought and theory is diverse and in this forum we strive to recognize that, and encourage those who have a limited understanding of feminism to educate themselves accordingly. This applies to all of babble, but most particularly to the feminist forum.

You've encountered strong opposition from people who identify as men in this thread. That, in and of itself, is not a violation of the forum mandate. It rather points to the disturbing fact that almost all of babble is dominated by participants who identify as members of the most privileged sector of society - heterosexual white men. The reasons for this are many and historical. I won't go into detail here but will happily provide context to anyone who reasonably requests it.

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Magoo.

Well that's the thing - there is no one absolute truth, especially when you have stats showing women using porn in comparable numbers (and in some studies more violent and degrading porn in greater numbers than men).

On the other hand while it might not be "brainwashing" - that is, yes, people made a free choice, and some honestly enjoy it - it is also true that systemic ideas about women, and economic pressures also play a role in it in some cases.

And that what people honestly desire doesn't always make rational sense. And it gets even more complicated when you factor in those outside pressures.

Whatever the various motives for those who "give it away", it gets a bit more complicated when someone else decides to use it against them. That's part of the reason why we now have laws against revenge porn and other unauthorized use.

And the wave of "non-violent" bans in some countries like the U.K. (and similar de facto policies here) which have been largely used not to limit mainstream porn, but against alternative, LGBT and queer porn. And, ironically, women:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/02/uk-porn-law-sexist-female-ej...

So not that I want to quash a discussion of abuses and problems. But "porn is bad because vomit and racism" really hijacks that discussion. For that matter, we see similar problems with trying to talk about prostitution and other sex work. The absolutist and dogmatic arguments always seem to be get in the way of dealing with the issues.

 

susan davis

i just would like to say, i don't think anyone is trying to legitimize "street" sex work....

at least for me and my cohorts....the idea is to create an environent in which there are enough safer indoor sex working jobs that people are not forced to choose the dangerous street level industry...

historically, brothels have been closed under criminalization and forced people to have to find other ways to meet clients....like when they closed 22 show lounges (strip clubs) in vancouver....

the excuse was that police et al were trying to get at the "gangsters"...they went into clubs, IDing and harassing both workers and patrons even taking a worker outside the club in her costume during rush hour traffic....

the net result was that there were not enough jobs for exotic dancers any more and so some were forced to choose full contact prostitution via escort and massage....and as the exotic dancers entered the escort job market, it was also stretched...there were not enough jobs/ places to work for everyone...so some ended up forced onto the street.....and of course, the violence they experienced at the hands of police during this "get the gangsters" action did nothing to increase trust in police or encourage sex workers to report crimes/ violence... when they experience them

we can see this everytime an action to punish or save us is taken....the numbers of murders increases, the number of workers on street increases.....because of uninformed actions which while well meaning...or not....actions that were taken without any consideration for or consultation with those affected....sex workers...

so, while it has been declared in this thread that decriminalization is intended to legitimize streets sex work, it is not....

this idea is to stop the forced flow of workers into the dangerous street level trade, to ensure that workers are given accurate information about their health and safety so the can make informed decisions about their choices and to support those brothel operators who provide safe and ethical work spaces and jobs for people who do choose to do sex work....

we cannot force workers on street to come back inside, we can try to support them in doing so but force is never a good idea when it comes to this issue....but we can try to ensure that people are not put in a position where they have to choose between safety and food....

i feel like there is a total disconnect when this issue is discussed, people cannot see the big picture and are focused solely on the visible and dangerous street level industry with no understanding of why workers are on street in the first place....because of criminalization, because of closure of brothels....claiming that sex work is inherently dangerous ignores all the historical actions which caused the destabilization of our safety...claiming that decrim wants to legitimize the net result of abolition/ criminalization - street level work- is simply not true....

the "nordic"....criminalizes brothel keeping...and as such continues down the same path as the old criminalization scheme and will continue to force workers onto the street due to lack of safer indoor jobs....so, continuing the disasterous failures of the past and continuing to force sex workers to choose between safety and food....

Pondering

Meg, without you, babble might even shut down. It isn't a given that anyone else is willing to moderate for more than a couple of weeks in a pinch. You only get paid to moderate for a few hours. It isn't your main job or even a significant part of it. I'm not claiming I could do any better. None of that means I have no right to be critical.

I think there are many reasons there are so few posters. I do think moderation policy has something to do with it.

You asked me….

"And, for the sake of clarity, what the hell are "well-meaning feminists"?"

Read the entire paragraph:

"You guys need to remember where you are and back-off. This is an extremely sensitive and emotional topic for women. Almost every woman over 30 has experienced sexual misconduct or worse or know women who have. That is the context within which we experience this conversation. Well-meaning feminists are deeply divided on the topic."

I ask you, for the sake of clarity, what the hell do you think I mean by "well-meaning feminists"?" What's the alternative interpretation? What is confusing about my statement within the context of the paragraph?

I say:

I'm not suggesting anyone be banned from the conversation. There aren't enough people here to keep it going and I am not adverse to reading opposing viewpoints. I do think that men should have to check their aggression at the door in the feminist forum. 

To which you reply:

There is no male aggression, just opposing views and I'll ask you not to use the feminist forum to shut down dissenting voices, male or otherwise. 

Like it would be possible for me to shut anyone down much less babble men. I  said I welcome opposing viewpoints so but you address me as though I said the opposite.

In the thread on elbow-gate you took a sentence out of context and accused me of saying REB wasn't hurt when I was saying the exact opposite. That she was hurt, but it had nothing to do with her being female. If Trudeau had stepped on her foot or elbowed a man his behavior would be equally objectionable. Had you read the post you would have understood that therefore the only explanation is that you are skimming with bias.

Reading my posts in this thread I make it abundantly clear that I do not blame the victims. Even if I did so inadvertently and indirectly It is only by taking my words out of context that you can be accusatory towards me, on a topic I just said is extremely sensitive and emotional for us all. That includes me. 

In another thread Kop accused me of trolling because I used to support Trudeau and now I support Singh. I didn't bother responding or reporting. It wasn't worth the trouble. Maybe you didn't read it but if I accused someone of trolling you would have banned me in an instant.

You don't read my posts you skim my posts looking for something you can interpret in the worst way possible.

If anything your experience makes you more biased not less. A stranger with moderation experience would be even-handed. Who said something or what their viewpoint was wouldn't matter. 

Personal attacks, excess profanity, oppressive and aggressive behaviour are prohibited. Instigating arguments in a disrespectful way is also prohibited.

It would be more honest to just say "the moderators will use their personal opinions about posters to decide who is and isn't out of line."

The right people can be profane, disrespectful and aggressive because you decide what's "excessive" and what's "disrespectful". Some people are allowed to be disrespectful as long as their target is someone you don't respect.

I put  feminist in quotes because I don't consider this a feminist forum anymore. Just putting "feminist" in the title doesn't make it one.  This is a private site. You have absolute power. It would be much more honest if babble just said the forum is pro sex work decriminalization/legalization instead of pretending to be even-handed. Just own it.

P.S. The sticky about behavior in this forum (pinned by Catchfire) is insulting even if it is well-intended. It implies that feminists in particular have to be told how to behave. I think Catchfire is a terrific moderator. It doesn't mean he is always right either.

P.S. Susan, I don't agree with you on solutions but I respect the way you are approaching the topic. 

quizzical

pondering though many of your comments usually don't ring with me i think you're on point in this thread even down to appreciating susan davis's last post.

i stopped commenting and participating in this thread because of what i perceive as disparaging and aggressive responses by the men in this thread.

the support of this by a moderator indicated to me those who are against prostitution are considered to be unworthy of consideration to the point of contempt.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering,

i think that you expressed yourself very well and that what you wrote needed to be expressed.

I don't think that the men were being aggressive with you. They were presenting a difference of opinion.  However, it needs to be pointed out that if a bunch of men all post a barrage of opinions  that are critical of your opinion it can definitely come across as aggressive behaviour and make you feel like they are all ganging up on you. If I were in your shoes, I would have perceived their posts as being aggressive to me as well.

i don't comment in prostitution threads because I know so little about it.

I do like reading Susan Davis because she offers such meaningful insight that challenges me to look at things differently.

Pages