what is a sex worker ?

Good questions, I respect the right of women to choose to do what they want to, if it is their choice.

IMV, it should be legitimized, and legalized.

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

Um, why?

It is not as if we do not know that, and the vast majority are, and this is the feminist forum, after all.

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

Huh, regarding what unionist is correct about? No one said he wasn't.

I agree with your last statement, knowing a few women who are sex trade workers... it is not going to happen here at babble anytime soon, at least the women that I know. Though should "rabble" want to interview them, they might speak in that format.

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

When I think about solutions, real, solutions, I first need to locate myself as outside this issue, and also as a feminist who is conscious of two realities. Highly exploitative sexual realities for women (trafficking, illegal immigration for the purposes of sexual confinement, women who feel for various reasons that they have no other choice. Just three examples) as well as women who have told me, in person and through art and poetry, that they find it empowering, feel connection and compassion for their clients (see Mirha Soliel-Ross's work), feel that it's no more or less exploitative than other crappy work, for sometimes better pay, etc.

So to me, to find a real solution is to ask the women, and the women, the few voices that we do hear, don't say one consistent thing. So? So what? Maybe there are multiple combinations of solutions, just the way city by-laws and ordinances are different from city to city.

To me, finding a solution to the violence, risk, harm (inherent and otherwise) is something that our society has never cared about for women who aren't involved in sex work (that is, "worthy" women). The notion that we, feminists and sex worker advocates/abolitionists will look to this same patriarchal, abusive and violent culture for a "solution" to the issue of safety, etc. for "unworthy" women then strikes me as completely ridiculous. 

So basically I've talked myself into a circle. And I have no solutions. Sigh. 

Thanks for your input, Trishabaptie. It's probably not going to be a very popular opinion here on Babble, but it's helpful to hear from someone who's actually been in the industry and knows people still working in it.

The links (on, respectively, the closure of the Red Light district in Amsterdam (2008?); a statement from the Ex-Prostitutes Against Legislated Servitude; and from the Aboriginal Women's Action Network) are very enlightening for me; I hadn't realized there was a proposal afoot in Vancouver to legalize prostitution -- in time for the 2010 Olympics -- a fact which I find utterly revolting. Who the hell needs to buy prostitutes during the Olympics? WTF?

(ETA: sorry, I neglected the orato link, which is your own article.) 

Anyway, I hope you can stick around for some of the debates that will likely ensue, and really appreciate your concern enough to post here.

It is quite a common viewpoint in the women's movement here in Québec - perhaps because we are more in touch with women in Europe who have been fighting the evils of international sex trafficking, even in countries where prostitution is legal? Not repression against people in prostitution, but seeing the trade as a form of violence and exploitation, in the vast maority of cases.

But on this board discussing prostitution as violence gets one dismissed as "anti-sex", a "phony leftist" or whatever. And I really couldn't be bothered with an unproductive argument.

Thankyou for your contribution, Trishabaptie. I have heard this from a couple of friends who got out of prostitution. I have never heard personally from anyone who was in prostitution that they want to make it safer, or that they that it was empowering or liberating either.

I have stayed away from mentioning it on this board because I have not experienced it myself but when I read posts that are similar to the ones that you spoke to I think of my friends that felt the same way you do. I am glad that there is someone who can speak for these victims of society.

trishabaptie, thanks so much for your contribution and I really hope you stay and share more about your thoughts and your experiences.

Shelagh Day wrote last Summer a far-ranging assessment of the "harm reduction" model and its attendant discourse, for an Ontario group called Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes.

Check it out:

Executive Summary

Full report: Violating the Human Rights of Poor Women

We're facing the classic bait and switch from the industry and their politicians. It goes like this: "You want decriminalization of soliciting by women? Sure, but we only have that in the "full" version, the one that gives even more immunity to our pimps, brothel owners and other exploiters."

It's time we turn down that package deal and split that proposition!

Absolutely, abolishionists are in favor of decriminalization of solicitation and support the current decriminalization of prostitution.

Abolishionists of slavery didn't want to get rid of the people who were enslaved, just slave ownership. The abolishionists of today have the same goal.

Some prostituted women are slaves in every sense of the word, other's claim they are not. This is similar to accounts of slaves defending their masters, feeling like they were "part of the family".  Indeed some slaves raised the children of their masters and loved them dearly. They were still slaves.

Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person is dependent for a livelihood on the wages earned, especially if the dependency is total and immediate.[1][2] The term is used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor. Some uses of the term may refer only to an "[un]equal bargaining situation between labor and capital,"[3] particularly where workers are paid unreasonably low wages (e.g. sweatshops). More controversially, others equate it with a lack of workers' self-management[4][5][6] or point to similarities between owning and employing a person, and extend the term to cover a wide range of employment relationships in a hierarchical social environment with limited job-related choices (e.g. working for a wage under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma).[7][8][9]

Many people, especially those who support equality for women, consider women who are prostituted or prostitute themselves to be doing so under a "employment relationships in a hierarchical social environment with limited job-related choices".  Prostitution is almost exclusively a service provided by women for men. Within the industry human trafficking and slavery are rampant. A disproportionate number of women are from minorities. Non-minority women are also driven by poverty.

Therefore, even though some women claim not to be ensalved, abolishing prostitution is akin to abolishing slavery.  It is the pimps and brothel owners, the equivalent of slave owners, that we want to abolish. Not the women themselves.

As is frequently noted, it will be impossible to abolish prostitution entirely, just as it has been impossible to entirely abolish slavery. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Like willing slaves, women who defend the profession and want to remain within it will be able to do it just not at the expense of the many women who have been forced into it.  Women working in the upscale sector of the industry, similar to well-treated house slaves, will be able to continue. 

The norm, however, should be equality for women, just as we must continue to fight for the equality of POC, not argue that they are in low-end jobs by choice, or that it is their "culture". 

It's really unclear how someone who chooses to be a sex worker, and who could presumably then also choose not to be a sex worker, is in any way like a slave, who, no matter how they may feel about their owner, is not free to leave.

And ya, basically insinuating that sex workers by choice are some kind of "Uncle Tom" is a bit offensive, no?

I'm not going to argue that any POC, or any sex worker, is in their job by choice. How paternalistic would that be? But if a POC or sex worker tells me that they're in their job by choice, I'm going to believe them. How paternalistic would pooh-poohing them be???

I love that metaphor - sounds like a delicious home-made soup!

All right, I'll wade in.

When I say I'm of two minds about decriminalization, I mean it.

If you have ever seen me (EVER) express any fondness for those (of any sex) who hire sex workers as employees or as "contract" workers, and make money off their work, let me know. I will do penance.

If you have ever heard me say that prostitution is a wonderful phenomenon which truly exemplifies the equality and emancipation of women, please direct me to that. I'll sue the author for identity theft.

However, the notion of decriminalizing the providers of sexual favours, but not the consumers, strikes me as perverse in the extreme. I'm not talking about employers - I'm talking about customers.

It's as perverse (in reverse) as me selling you some marijuana, and you're scot free, while I go to prison.

People have the right to agree with decriminalization without being tarred as champions of sex trafficking etc., nor as being indifferent to the health and safety of women (or others) engaged in the sex trade. If that's your argument against decriminalization, let me give you some bad news: You lose. You'll have to do lots better than that.

Sex work cannot be compared to marijuanna consumption unionist and when you make such a shallow compare, you lose, both as an argument to support decriminalization and with being a credible voice for workers rights.

Do you honestly believe smoking a joint, or even the sale of it, is equivalent to a front line sex worker's job?

Honestly, I cannot believe that you do, and thus I have not tarred you with anything, I am stating that you have not fleshed out how you can be so non-supportive of worker's rights in this instance.

Decriminalization does not protect the worker, and sometimes the consumer  and then only in a very surface way. But it does protect employers, that is for sure.

Legalization is the only way to fully protect both consumers and workers.

And in case you did not know, I have fully detailed why I am against decriminalization over here in this post,

In this thread.

My points and understanding have absolutely nothing to do with those who believe in decriminalization, and everything to do with protecting front line sex workers and society at large.

Only those who believe in decriminalization, believe that this is about themselves, I would think. And perhaps that should be left aside, as it completely distorts the subject under discussion and it is too important for that to happen.

This is about sex workers on the front lines, and not about those who believe in decriminalization. Nor even about those who do not.

My argument is to examine the outcomes of decriminalization and legalization in other countries and evaluate the outcome from the perspective of equality, social justice and the safety and well-being of women.

If we put a premium on individual voices we would all believe the many cheerful walmart associates and quit trying to force them to unionize.

Instead, we look at the numbers. We look at what really happens to them and what really happens to their communities.

Somehow when it's about prostitution the "Pretty Woman" version becomes plausible.

No actually I do not, having just made several in  the thread I linked to above. That were actual suitable equivalencies, as opposed to trivializational ones. One 2 fronts even.

You managed to slight both pot smokers and dealers by trivializing them, in compare to what happens to john's who get caught breaking the law, which is nothing in compare, for analogy purposes.

Pot smokers and dealers get criminal records which prevents them from job advancement, while johns get nothing, or sent to john school.

As well as trivialized front line sex work, to that of a pot smokers/dealers lived experience. Sexual exploitation cannot be compared to pot dealing, and it is a triple play on the insulting by trivialization department, by you.

I try very hard to find true equivalencies, for analogy, so people can understand how important this discussion is, and  so that it can be discussed from the rational brain, as opposed to the limbic brain, where dialogue, consensus and conciliation does not occur, only emotions that cause knee jerk reactions that will do no one any good.

This is not about consumer safety, as a top priority, it is about worker safety, that in turns keeps consumers safe, and the general public.

And worker's safety does not lay in decriminalization. Nor does public, nor even john safety.

But hey, employers are certainly protected, from everything actually. No labour code standards to adhere to, no safety codes, no pesky employee contributions, just declare something for income tax,  no providing infrastructure for worker and customer safety, and no adherence to health regulations, just to name a few benefits "employers" would get, if it was only decriminalized.

Decriminalization would give other people full control over women's bodies,  legalization and legitimization would give it to women who were willingly in the work force, but at least it is a place to start.

If  it is as you say stargazer, it is going to be around forever, as is women's inequality,  it is because it is as I say, "it is all about a man's right to...do whatever the hell he wants." and are we really willing to keep going down that path?

Frankly, I am not, not, secede my right to equality til my last dying breath. I do not have to accept male privilege, as a done deal. And I am not going to.

Thus, I cannot give a yea, to decriminalization. It would be giving a yea, to; no worker's rights, no consumer's rights, and no public safety rights.

So what's the solution? Legalization or abolishment? Realistically I mean.

So they would still be criminalized but have a job with legal status? I'm not following you here.

Okay but that's not a solution. That's expecting men to stop having sex with sex workers. I am not in favour of criminalizing two consenting adults for sex. Note I said consenting.

There are many kinds of men who go to women for sex. Not all of them are abusive assholes. Some are lonely and single, some are disabled, some need companionship....I am certainly not going to jump on the chance to have more cops on the streets preventing men from having sex with women. As if that has ever helped women in sex work. It hasn't. It has driven them to the streets.

I am committed to ending patriarchy as much as anyone, but I know that it is not going to end.

I am not following how this has to be an either or thing. A person can be for ending exploitation of women and pro sex worker's rights at the same time. I deal in the reality as it exists now. Not how I wish society to be, but how it is now. So I guess I haven't got much else to add here.

Oh I agree stargazer, as a worker with young male mental health clients, I would  love to see an industry desigination for front line sex workers, and indeed legitmization as a necessary trade.

In fact, as I have stated here  long ago, we used to take  our younger male clients to a strip club, so they could have  lunch out once a month, which we could get away with, without sanctioning. And boy they saved their pennies every month for that lunch out. And we service providers discussed the need, not desire, for  service provision for just that demographic.

But many things have to happen first, and decriminalization is not one of them. That would come automatically, once it is a recognized industry.

Realistically, in order for willing front line sex workers, to go into that area of service provision, they would need to acquire formal education, and thus just what formal education they needed, would have to be developed first. Just to name one small thing.

As it is the exchange of body fluids work activity, other training needs would have to be in place. Most likely all, to legally work in the field, would need occuptational health safety certification, would be another example.

Decriminalization, will not bring about societal acceptance, nor job safety, nor indeed job growth potential, for those willing to be in it.

Formal and legal job industry creation and all that it entails is the only way to perhaps bring those about.

I stated that right at the beginning of this discussions in respect to  a job industry. :confused:

But apparently a legal industry means different things to us.

I am not sure, thought you might know

Huh? You do not create an industry to elminate jobs, you create an industry where there are, or is, a demand for jobs.

Jobs are offical, there is laws around them.

If you have a job that is not within that legal framework, you have none of the benefits coming from that legal framework. Any customer, who purchases good or services, or indeed employer, who has employees, outside of the legal framework are breaking the law.

Believe it or not public bake sales are actually illegal, if the baked goods are not cooked in a certified kitchen, by someone who is certified in food safe, and held by a registered charity, or org.

Consumers of bake sale goodies, who get sick from them, have no legal recourse, if they knowingly purchase goods that are illegally made and sold.

are you not against business owners and customers and for the swedish model? we are completed our occupational health and safety training .....

it just seems you are describing the exact mechanisms we are trying to create.....we aren't looking fr spcial excepmtio , we want equal rughts and protections. of course we would be subject to the same rules as other industries. but beung a nurse is not part of the criminal code.

we want accountaability under labor law, the criminal code is not where these laws should be. we have labor laws and workers rights, why 2 seperate sets of laws and why are criminal code provisions being used to govern an industry? this is what decriminalization stands for, not a big free for all as is being portryaed here with traffickers and pimps laughing all the way to the bank.

we are not criminals, we are workers. take us out of the criminal code now!!!

I think it's an important distinction to make when looking at sex work. I'm not sure how helpful it is to the conversation to group everyone in the sex industry as slaves because I fear that the "willing versus unwilling" argument would obscure the importance of fighting against human trafficking in all of its forms now, as a major priority (not that different battles can't be fought on different fronts simultaneously). That so little is known about human trafficking is proof to me that distinctions need to be made. 

I think that we are only having this tired old "willing vs. unwilling" argument because - as it used to be with domestic violence and rape - the discussion is being steered away from the people with power and substantive choices: the consumers of sexual services and the people and corporations raking in billions from the renting and trafficking of people to serve this market. We know for a fact that these consumers, pimps, brothel owners and corporation are 100% willing. It is their choices and privileges that abolitionists don't want to see escalated and made legitimate, with even more exploitation of the impoverished and the racialized. This is what is up for discussion in a Toronto courtroom with the notion of lifting constraints against them - using the plight of criminalized prostituted folks - so the exclusive focus on the agency attributed to these prostituted folks needs to be acknowledged as a mere red herring.

Remind, I think I'm beginning to understand the "decriminalize vs legalize" perspectives better (and abolitionists) after reading several of these threads. And my mind isn't made up with any of these three positions.

One of the striking things about "Call and Response" is that overt slavery also exists in military and industrial/agricultural sectors (although not in Canada) where there are supposed to be rules (even if they're weak). I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that a lot of abuse can still take place in regulated sectors. My main point is that I wouldn't want to see the concept and reality of modern-day slavery lost in comparisons and analogies. While soldiers in the military are "stuck" until their term ends and many workers face bitter consequences if they leave their jobs, I don't see that the same way as the outright buying and selling of people. 

To personalize it a bit, my son has African, European Jewish and North American roots. Whether on the Caribbean plantations, Ontario farms or the nazi slave factories, there is a common history of slavery not too many generations back. I would never suggest to him that there's a blurry line between owning someone and employing them. 

I am not sure where you get that impression from in this discussion?

Your son sounds like my daughter, heritage wise, but you know, I never factor that into my considerations too much.

As my activisions and decisions are an individual basis, I can not action and make decisions, through the lense of my daughter's heritage. It is her heritage and I cannnot  expropriate it.

And example of that would be, knowing that her heritage puts her at risk, of being  treated by some, as one of the lowest members of Canadian society, I would want everything abolished, only to try and protect her. Thereby robing her of her own agency, for herstory.

Thus, when deliberating on things, that could have strong impacts upon her agency, I must only think about it in the frontal lobes, and not the emotional limbic brain, a really strong due diligence against impinging on her agency, if you will.

Or boundaries get crossed everytime, as the mother, of an adult child whose genes dance through the waves of historical oppressions.

All I can do is understand that women, were chattal property, just 80 short years ago, and project that knowlege into my deliberations, on things that could effect her.

Women, who were not born chattal property, can identify, the differences in those who were born chattal property, or shortly thereafter, its demise. Or at least some can.

For a long time, I could not put my finger on why it was a certain age group of women were "that way", and then I realized, they had no idea what it was like NOT to be born chattal property, until they took it for themselves, by the rejection of patriarchy.

Then I watched for it in other women, so I could get to know their "herstories". Finally, a few years ago, when my grandma was 92, and still living on her own, I got the courage to ask her for "Herstory".

I have not  yet had the courage to read the transcripts.

All I know is, I do not want women back in a position where they were/are, for all intense purposes, again chattal property.

Weakened regulations, indicates, we have allowed slippage to our rights and freedoms, and nothing more. No one else's fault, but our own.

So, IMV,  there is no reason to keep on compounding that area of slippage.

Create a job industry that makes front line sex work regulated, no matter how poor the regulations are at first, at least there will be some, and a place to move forward from.

Decriminalization means NO work standards, nor any other.

And why would we as a society do this?

  I understand your perspective on it too. Some words are very loaded.  Like references to Hitler have to be very carefully made to ensure that the Holocaust isn't minimized.

Edited to correct misspelling

The reality is, polunatic2,  for most in sex work, needs being met only factor into the equation, not interests.

When they do factor together in sex work, great, and there should be a industry designation for it, with regulations that are part of the social contract we recognize.

Not to do so, is "othering" and say it is okay for them other there to supposedly "work", though with no regulations and job protections and no access to the  worker's social safety net, it can hardly be called work, and it is definitely not a choice, that an individual choose.

Society in Canada would have made the choice, that they get to "work" without regulations and benefits, that everyone else has.

What a needlessly pugnacious statement, Unionist.

One of the first things I learned on the Net was that sloppy analogies to nazism minimized the Holocaust. I think Infosaturated's point about avoiding such minimization with the use of "slavery" was well-taken. We need to be clear that some of the women and children being prostituted are indeed enslaved, others are indirectly throttled by debt bondage, threats against their family or drug addiction. And then, some are not,  or not yet so.

decriminalization does not mean no rules and a free for all. it means industry standards and regulations. not criminal code provisions. legalization excludes sex industry workers from inclusion in processes that affect us and is a government conrtoled system. we want inclusion as an industry n any decisions that affect us and no criminal code provisions for sex work.

exploitation of youth remains illegal, slavery remains illegal. why do people insist on ignoring the fact that we already have laws to protect people from these types of crimes.

why do we need 2 sets of laws to protect people? it others us and makes violence against us seem less, unimportant or different from violence against non sex working people.

To be honest, I'm confused (while still learning quite a bit). I know this is because this not an area with which I have familiarity and it is pretty complex on several levels. Sometimes I think people are saying the same thing, but then they disagree with one another, leaving me scratching my head.

With all due respect, would it not help to try and find out (in a new thread perhaps) what the common ground, if any, is between advocates of "abolition", "decriminalization" and "legalization" and then try to define and work through the differences? The most obvious potential agreement might be that change (of some kind) is needed. Or has this been done already on another thread? Or has everything already been said at least once already with mostly entrenched positions (resulting from long-standing struggles that people have been engaged in)?

no , i think you are right, we do have consensus on some stuff....no exploitation of youth, sex workers must be decriminalized...it would useful to be able to identify where we do have agreement on all sides.

what countries in europe are decriminalized and reversing it? none....legalization has been tried and to my knowledge only germany and sweden are re evaluating their approaches......

new zealand is de criminalization, they are not reversing it.....

legalized is what people here, such as your self are proposing.....that model is being seriously re examined.

you can't just say decrim has failed....where?

i have never supported forced sex work, why can't it be in both our interests to see it ended through a trasparent system that allows us to more easily see traffickers and exploiters?

we will see them more easily, they will still need to run ads and promote their activites, any business operating outside of the system of governance we are proposing would be easy to identify. no trade mark, no industry association membership? it would make it easy for police to seperate the good from the bad and allow them to focus efforts on protection of youth and exploited or trafficked people....

susan davis: "what countries in europe are decriminalized and reversing it? none...."

As I wrote here, Iceland decriminalized buying and selling sex in March 2007, but quickly went back to criminalizing the purchase of sex two years later, in 2009, in order to stem an escalation of trafficking that followed their 2007 reform. The people of Danemark, who had instituted full decriminalization a decade ago, are considering the same option.

CLES (a Quebec abolitionist group that includes formerly and presently prostituted folks) has reported here that the Dutch government "totally lost control over the situation and is now attempting to close down most of Amsterdam's red-light district, taken over by organized crime." Many people have posted here that the Netherlands concede that the full decriminalization instituted in the red-light area of Amsterdam has been a failure for a number of reasons. They how have to buy back brothels from owners in order to try and stem the problem of organized crime trafficking illegal workers in the area: "In September 2007, the city of Amsterdam spent $15 million Euros ($22 million U.S. dollars) to purchase and shut down one third of the brothels in the red light district...". ("Trafficking & Prostitution in San Francisco")

And one can find here a 2007 critical assessment of how the situation hasn't improved in Germany after decriminalization.

so no links or lists of countries with decrim in europe.....?

i already stated i , and other workers i represent, support government/sex worker support services/ sex workers iclusive review boards......

we want inclusion, not self regulation......

I'm not meaning to take this off-track at all, but I think it's really important to remember that many women with experience within these industries are abolitionists. They and their allies are not 'ostriches' or lacking in sanity. They have a valid perspective, and the desire to end the sexual oppression of women within our society. It isn't fair to dismiss that.

To be clear, I don't think that you have to have experience within the industry to have a valid critique. But, if we are going to try to differentiate, it should be as accurate as possible. I often feel like the split of 'sex-workers' versus 'abolitionists' is so false and misleading and it ignores the hard-won voices of so many women with experience in prostitution who have found incredible validation through abolitionist feminist analysis.

Susan, when I read your posts, I often see you promote this false idea. I just thought I'd bring your attention to it. You act as if you represent all women with 'experience', and you simply do not.

Susan, no one is trying to promote fear here: the issue is whether woman and youths will be furher harmed or not in a situation where pimps and brothel-owners, among others, would cease being restrained by legislation.

Now first you tell us that so many countries have decriminalized prostitution and things are going fine there. Then, when it appears that no, things aren't that fine there - to the point where their politicians are acknowledging mistakes and rolling back hasty decisions, as in Iceland and the Netherlands - you turn around and say, no no, that wasn't decriminalization, it was legalization, presumably because the State remained involved with controls. That's a bit like switching the goal posts in mid-discussion.

The difference between decriminalization and legalization is disputed anyway (Prostitutes Education Network, 2007). Insisting on it seems mostly like a strategy to convince liberals - and the occasional libertarian - that it would be progressive to push back the State somewhat in a sexual domain. But, as remind has shown, concern for women's lives and welfare would dictate that health and safety controls be applied to prostitution as to any other health-related job, even more in fact given the lethality factors involved, esp. male violence against women. A government that has been pouring millions in harm reduction strategies can't be expected to suddenly turn its back on the people and the values involved. And then there is all the money to be made taxing women's income.

So let's not play semantics: it would be unfair if, because of a State that is in fact being appealed to by decriminalization promoters, full decriminalization of men's agency in this industry could remain shielded from examination in terms of its fallout for women.

quoting farley again i see.....

how about themillions spent on trials of our murderers? or millions being spent on enforcement? no canadian government program has spent $500 million- trial in the case of the missing women- or even $164 million- VPD annual budget on sex work or the safety of sex workers.

instead more and more money pours into creating jobs for others such as prison guards, police, judges, lawyers, victims services workers, sex worker support services......but nothing changes on the ground.

you talk about it as if our gvernment is doing something....any thing....barely. in majore cities we see some progress but every where else people ae still treating sex wrkers as criminals who must be gotten rid of....

i am asking to be not treated as a criminal. i am not a criminal.

the difference between legalisation and decrim is those criminal code provisions. we are not looking for carte blanch and a free for all. labor laws and workers rights in canada could support sex industry workers safety and criminal code provivions related to violence, kidnapping, extortion already exist. why 2 sets of laws?

should all jobs, professions, industries have special criminal code provisions? i don't under stand why people can't grasp this

section 220- criminal code of canada- it shall be illegal for any person to exploit a nurse.any person trasporting a nurse to a hospital to treat patients is guilty of a crime

any person found in a hospital who cannot make a good account of them selves is guilty of a crime

any person accepting money or gifts from a nurse is guilty of the crime of living of the avails of nursin

sextion 239- criminal code of canada- it shall be illegal to force any person under the age of 18 to become a logger. any person trasporting a person under the age of 18 to a logging camp is guilty of a crime.

again for the thousndth time, we are not looking for special treatment, we want an open an accountable industry.

and martin- legalisation and decriminalization are very different. if we are going to talk about different models it is important we stick to facts. legalisation is encountering problems all over the place. but to label these countries as decrim is not really acurate. crimanal code provisions still exist in those countries.

to be clear, i do not support exploitation of youth or represent traffickers as i am sure will follow this post. i agree we should hold men purchasing services of trafficked or underage people accountable. i am an independent active sex worker and support choices and safety for workers.

I represent myself. I live as a woman in this society and that I have spent my life in poverty as such, and all that that entails. I have known and worked with women who have experience in the sex industries for over 20 years.

I agree that your voice is just as valid as mine or anyone else's. I didn't say your ideas are false. I said that to imply that you represent women with experience in the industries and that abolitionists do not, is false.

I know many women who are abolitionists, and many who are pro-decrim and on both sides there are women with experience; I have met many ex-prostitutes who are against the industry and see it as terrible, and I have to say that most pro-decrim folks I have met do not have experience. So, what I've seen is that pro-decrim is the mainstream, and most often proposed by people who don't have lived experience within. You of course, are an important exception to that.

I think many people who are aware of the slaughter of prostituted women feel passionately for or against the idea of decrim exactly because none of us want more women killed or harmed. It's just that we disagree on what will bring about safety.

But the desire to end the institution of prostituting women does not come from those detached from the reality of violence at all - it comes from women with experience, women who work in shelters, etc. That's my point.

I really think the idea here is to debate ideas, and I'm sorry if it seemed to you that I was trying to make you look like a liar. I know that so many of us as women struggle to be seen as having value for our ideas, and I eally don't want you to think that I'm trying to make you look bad. I think responding to your post means I DO notice your perspective and want to debate or discuss part of them. You have a very powerful voice in Vancouver and Canada, whether you acknowledge or feel that or not, and many people believe what you say at face value because you are a sex-worker. I, on the other hand, see you as an equal, and see your ideas as fair to challenge.

No, I don't think it's ridiculous. If your personal safety and wellbeing, and that of your children and community is affected by something then I absolutely think it's okay to add your voice to the discussion. Prostitution doesn't exist in a bubble, it affects all of us, those of us who are doing it, have done it, and those who live in a world where it's accepted.

I don't think my comments undermine your credibility. I think it would strengthen your credibility quite a bit if you were clear that you represent some sex-workers, and that others disagree with you.

Now...I am bringing a most excellent observation of Stargazer's over here from the sex worker's rights forum, as I do not want to interrupt the flow going in that thread, between those who have lived experiences, as I feel that this point needs addressing in a societal contract way and I bellieve  that is what Stargazer is stating she wants to happen to.

Stripping does fall under the term sex worker, it is a legal occupation with an Industry of Canada number, they pay taxes and access the social safety net.

In BC there are no lap dances allowed, or touching, or even blowing in public venues.

To allow this to happen, would mean that health and safety regulations are NOT being met in public settings. Nor labour codes for that industry sector.

As such, should disease transmission occur, by physical contact, and exchange of bodily fluids, the employer would have allowed WCB, and health regulations to be broken, and they would be liable for fines, and law suits. And of course would face business closure.

Thus exotic dancers and strippers in BC, do not have to do the things they do not want to do, indeed they are not allowed by law, correctly so,

Breaking health and safety laws is not allowed in any other job sector, nor should it, nor will it be, in this sector.

It can't be.

This the distinction, between prostitution and exotic dancing, and you outlined it excellently, Stargazer.

So this brings us back full circle, to  what front line sex work/prostitution is, and how it is different from non-exchange of body fluid, sex work.

And we can see that  it is actually, the aspect of the exchange of body fluids.

Once that dynamic is in play, everything shifts legally, into a differing frame.

I, as a nurse, do not get to run around wilfully exposing patients, whom I am providing care services to,  to any infectious disease I might have, just because I am allergic to latex gloves. Either I wear gloves, or I do not work in that field. I would be stripped of licensing, union certification and most likely sued, if I lied and said I did not have a infectious disease, did not take the necessary industry standard precautions and gave it to someone else.

Moreover, if I do have a infectious disease, I am also restricted to what types of care I can provide to whomever, even if I do wear  gloves. There is no working with in neonatal units, there is no working with compromised immune systens, and there is no working in surgical units. The risks to other's safety is too great.

ALL people have the right to expect to be given societal contract rights, that ALL others have.

Therefore, making prostitution legal means, that ALL, health and safety standards for public service provision must be adhered to, as well as industry job descriptions.

It cannot function as a state sanctioned industry otherwise,  unless of course it has been falsely recognized as non-regulatable. I say false because it is easily regulatable, and it has to be.

Why?

Otherwise, society is stating that some people, not all, can be compelled to give their lives into the service of others.

As that is what no health regulations means, someone can legally and literally give a front line sex worker a life threatening disease against that person's will, and indeed consent.

Men fall under testing restriction on their lives all the time and still manage to adhere to them, why should they not in this cause to?

They have to pass piss tests, hep tests, TB tests, AIDs, measels tests, adding STD tests to that is no big deal.

I think it is disrespectful to men, and  treating them like children, to insist that they can't and won't.   And therefore shouldn't have to be tested, like they are in every other area of their life, to ensure  health safety regulations are being met, just for starters.

Are there lawyers who post to babble? There must be some.

I think this discussion could use a cool-headed articulation of the differences among constitutional principles, levels of statutory law, industrial and other regulations, and public-health powers, which in limited circumstances (a pandemic, eg) can become quite draconian.

There are claims being made here about the universal applicability of industrial regulations that seem less than believable to me, but I am NAL. I'm just sending up the caution.

It sounds to me as though Susan Davis has already worked her way pretty far through this thicket but others haven't. That's why I ask.

Snert: I know that some health care workers are obligated to get regular TB tests. But are all patients similarly obligated?

Health care authorities are indeed entitled to enforce obligations on patients. For instance, you will currently be quickly sent home if you present to a hospital with symptoms of a highly contagious disease, e.g. the A(H1N1) flu.

Besides, the analogy between would-be buyers of elective sexual services - because of their disposable income - and truly needy health patients is a bit far-fetched. I don't think anyone needs to elaborate.

The element that constantly gets swept under the carpet in this limited - allegedly pragmatic - perspective of prostitution as work is the fact that the demand for paid access to women's sexuality is quite elastic, and that we are entitled to discourage it - as has been done in Nordic countries - when it is found to create substantial harm to individuals and society.

Conversely, a maximum openness policy has been seen to multiply that (male) demand exponentially, as has happened in economically devastated countries taken over by sex tourism activities and corporate investments, such as Thailand, where up to 70% of males have become consumers over the last few decades.

So, inevitability arguments just don't seem evidence-based. We can and should take responsibility, and not treat prostitution as some necessary evil that "isn't going anywhere". It was devolved in the countries where the women's movement worked with all parties to create a better consensus than the decriminalized free-for-all that the industry was pushing for. Other social ills have been checked in the past: there is no dearth of historical models of standing up to an oppressive system, even when it argues disadvantaged minorities' "consent".

Well, as anyone who had close contact with the SARS epidemic in Toronto knows, that varies with the circumstances.

Depending on how bad things get, the hospital may decide to close its doors and keep you indefinitely. If public health kicks in, anything may happen. I called it draconian above, and I meant that. I came *this* close to losing contact with my husband for three months in 2003, and neither one of us had SARS.

Public-health departments are not your friend. They are necessary (if clunky) in emergencies, but they are an obvious offence in the sight of democracy, and they need much more strict policing than they get now.

Given that strip clubs can openly flout the law I don't see how legalized pimps and brothels would be controlled especially as other countries have shown their inability to impose controls.

http://www.martiniboys.com/Vancouver/The-Cecil-nightlife.html

Welcome to Showgirls mania. You can find Elizabeth Berkley wannabes going crazy on stage, taking off their clothes, dancing on poles and giving lap dances all for a price, of course.

http://www.yelp.ca/biz/number-five-orange-vancouver#hrid:SBb3mwJ0UKpEwim...

The beer is a little expensive, but the price of bare breasts needs to be offset somewhere. Incidentally, a lap dance goes for $40, but if you wander the neighborhood you can probably find more for less.

http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Robert-Pattinson-Falls-For-Stripper-493104.h...

Forget Kristen Stewart or Nikki Reed, Robert Pattinson has reportedly fallen under the spell of an exotic dancer called Kendra.

When he's not filming Twilight sequel New Moon , the actor has been enjoying the view at Brandi's Exotic Nightclub in Vancouver, it's claimed.
Apparently he has taken a shine to one dancer in particular, a curvy stripper
who gave him a private lap dance on his first visit.
An inside source tells Star magazine: “She’s very pretty and...

http://www.paramountgirls.com/

Our upscale atmosphere and grand dimensions make the Paramount like no other in British Columbia and Canada. Most strip clubs prohibit any form of contact but because of the Paramount’s unique situation you can get a true lap dance.

Specials . . .

If you see a girl that you like ask your waitress to send her over.

Lap Dances are $25 each

Or

Five Dances for $100

If you see two girls you like and can’t decide then take them both

Duo Show - Two girls for Two songs $100

VIP Platinum Room

• Half hour with your favorite girl $200
• One Hour of pleasure $300
• Half Hour Duo $300

Is hardcore pornography a form of prostitution? The actors (perhaps "performers" would be a better term) are paid to have sex. The only difference is that it's filmed.

Is this teaching, or learning....or perhaps a bit of both?

It is  pertinent in my view because people want to discuss it as if it is already  "job", and regular "work" like any other "work" is "work", as if there is a "worker" there is "work". More than that, some want it decriminalized,  with no regulations, while others legalized with job industry designation.

In order for something to  be destigmatized, legitimized, or abolished, if seen to be not worth the effort. Then all those cards should be on the table being looked at.

We need to know what that "work" is and indeed if it is work, or can be work.

Where it fits, how it applys to similar work, is all part of the examination process to see; where/if it fits into our agreed to social contract, how it could fit better and what it takes to make it fit.

We can't have legally accepted work, that in reality compells people to give their lives into the service of another, because there is no regulations, that everyone else has to follow in order to assure personal autionomy is met...in accordance with our Charter of Rights.

There are no blank slate consumer rights.

People can't kill bears for their gall bladders,  because people want to buy them for their health benefits.

Do we as a society think  some have a right to risk other people's lives, no matter how willing they are, so that they can have an ejaculatory response in public and private, without regulations?

Is a bear worth more than some human's lives?

Officially granting some greater civil liberties than others is wrong headed. And there is no job or gender equity in that direction.

Things can't stay the way they are, people are suffering, and dying, over ejaculatory responses, for god's sakes, solutions need to be found. Yesterday.

Now that was quite the gender polarizing personal experience clarification, with barbed oblique aspersions too, good editorial job. :D

I stand corrected!

Anecdotal info is just that though, subjective to our human biases and indoctrinations.

As a nurse, I have met many a stupid Dr, and even stupider patients and family members, willing to jeapordize other lives, for their whims, in sometimes a criminal way.

For example, while I was nursing in one hospital, a mother had to be locked in with her daugter who had TB, because she refused to gown up, or refrain from visiting. She went in, undressed for quaratine, and then let her daughter stroll about the floor,  because quaratine was unfair to her daughter. 

We were furious with the stupidity of it all. And that we had to force her now to stay at the hospital for the good of society at large. That has slanted me a bit against the "everything is our right to do if we want",  civil liberty crowd, I must admit.

...usually they believe they should get their civil rights liberties, at the expense of those not in their class elite.

So...really, our personal experiences are not a measure of much , unless  they can be placed in  verifiable context, such as laws on human rights, labour codes, and public safety regulations, that we all know about, or should, and  exist within.

As one who raised that issue of compulsory safety measures associated with a pandemic (post #90), I would like to look into that case. Could you provide links to some of those places, skdadl?

Hmm, okay, I see your point.  It would be interesting to figure out how this would fit into rights against sexual harassment.

remind, I'm not sure why you keep posting comments like this aimed at skdadl, but it would be great if you could stop doing so.  I've noticed this a few times now, here and in other threads.

i know stella very well and i believe you are quoting them out of context. stella, as all organizations i am in contact with- are alarmed at how un safe sex practices are becomig the norm. fear of being murdered on the street has driven workers to seek employement at any cost indoors.

some workers cannot operate as an independent from home(children-husband) and need places to work. but because of ever increasing enforcement, numbers of jobs indoors are limited and so highly competed for. it takes power from workers and puts it in the hands of business owners. workers are not given the facts about safe sex and unprotected contact and only know that workers offering such services are making more money.

thus our occupational health and safety training in order to give workers the facts.

in new zealand, condom use is law- customers asking for these services are reported by workers and fined $2000. people will now go crazy stating it will increase the consumers seeking services from youth on the street and i agree that is unacceptable.

but if we were to decriminalze adult consentual sex work we would free up maney and time/resources/man power for police departments to really go after these guys, predators....

a specialized section could emerge from what was formerly known as vice division and be specifically related to rescuing youth or people exploited in the sex industry.

clear policies and procedures for fair treatment of victims of exploitation could be implemented as opposed to the current throw everyone on the floor, point guns at them and arrest every one approach. supports could be provided, plain clothes on officers so as not to intimidate, guns concealed so as not to intimidate. gentle entry into suspect premises rather that the standard kicking down of doors....

stella is run by sex workers, they deserve to be funded just as any other organization doing this work. they have done amazing things pioneering the sex worker rights movement in canada and have inspired us all.