what is a sex worker ?

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pride for Red D...
what is a sex worker ?

I've been seeing allot of action on the list serves around sex work it seems of late- for and against.  Firstly, what is a sex worker ? How can any one be against sex work but not be against the women who do it ? With regards to the abolitionist position, are the abolitionists including women who did sex work, or are they mostly women who are against it as an extention of the objectfication and commodification of women ? The later is what seems to have happened somewhat at the Rebelles conference. How can a proffesion/exploitation so old be abolished- after all, when a woman's choices are limited, she's still gotta pay the bills. Shouldn't sex workers be the ones empowering themselves, with support from others ? Isn't that the feminist thing to do? I realise this is a large general questions. I'm not a sex worker, and I don't work around these issues but they've been batting about my brain of late.

Michelle

1. Anyone who works in the sex trade (whether prostitution, pornography, dancing at strip clubs, phone sex, etc.)

2. I can't imagine.  Neither can a lot of sex trade workers.

3. I'm not sure, but I think it's probably both, not to mention religious and/or "feminist" men who are into telling women what's best for them.  But there are also many sex trade workers and feminists who are for decriminalization and the legitimization of their work.

4. I doubt it'll ever be abolished.

5. Yes, absolutely, if you ask me.

6. Yes, absolutely, if you ask me.

remind remind's picture

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"

Unionist

Since PRD is asking questions, I just thought I would point out that not all sex workers are women.

remind remind's picture

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"

Maysie Maysie's picture

Unionist is correct, however the vast majority (sorry I don't have actual stats) of customers of sex workers, and consumers of the work of sex workers, are men. 

Hearing from the voices of the actual sex workers themselves is not happening on babble/rabble anytime soon. It would be great though. 

remind remind's picture

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"

Pride for Red D...

You're right, not all sex workers are men. But in feminist debates, the concerns are mostly around women. Legilisation is probably the best way to makeit safe, but then I think back to the 19th century where it was for periods of time regulated, and the way the prostitutes were treated- not welll at al, the emphasis was onthem with regards to matter of heatlh tests, etc Althouhg, are sex workers who are not prostitutes already regulated somehow, given that things like stripping are legal ?

Maysie Maysie's picture

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. 

remind remind's picture

I echo Jas's words, and thanks.

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

lagatta

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.

Unionist

lagatta wrote:
But on this board discussing prostitution as violence gets one dismissed as "anti-sex", a "phony leftist" or whatever. 

This question is raised in the opening post:

Quote:
How can any one be against sex work but not be against the women who do it ?

I think trishabaptie's amazing intervention shows that there is room for discussion on that point.

trishabaptie

As a former prostitute for 15+ years I thought I would wade into the debate. First off I have never met a sex worker, I believe the name stems from the movie Pretty women.. it also comes from the people who support and benefit from the comodification of women. I know prostituted women and was a prostitute and we were there out of poverty, racism, classism, sexism and a myriad of other reasons. I would have argued it was empowering and liberating and a great way to make money, I had too how else could I live with myself?Prostitution is a funny thing I thought all of those things, yet was always so sad to see a new girl enter into the “trade” and let me tell you I know of not one hooker who wants their daughter going into the horrific soul sucking industry that is prostitution. Whether I was in it to finance the “high life” or to feed my addictions at the end I was always greatly aware of the divide between me and the rest of the world.

I am against sex as work for it affects not only the women involved in it but all women and how we interact with the world.  We also need to realize that the conversation affects women globally, globally women are trafficked here(Canada, Vancouver) to feed the demand. Globally women are forced, coerced, beaten and tricked into it. Globally the face of prostitution is brown and poor.I want  ALL women to be free that is why I am against the sale of women to be used as masturbation toys.

http://orato.com/current-events/2008/12/16/challenge-prostitution-laws-will-not-be-heard

Quote “She’s gotta pay the bills” seriously that is why we should allow the exploitation of women.. how about we provide them with education, opportunity, dignity, guaranteed liveable income,  go after fathers for child support,  make sure kids in government care have the tools and recourses they need when they live in care and move out of care the list of ways we can help just goes on and on.My friends who are still involved in prostitution know what I do, they know I am working towards making sure men cannot buy them anymore.. .they all support what I do. Even the ones who work to make their lives as a prostitute safer for they know they want no one else to enter into this lifestyle. So they work to make sure they are “safer” and I work to make sure the men are arrested before they buy them. I used to be beaten by my man, when I was beaten let’s say because the dishes were not clean enough no one said let’s go buy a better dish soap to make sure it does not happen again. They said “What he did was wrong” had him arrested and thrown in jail.  That is the same argument we are having by trying to make prostituion "safer" it is the very act of prostitution that is the violence you cannot make it "safer" So let’s do that as well with men who buy sex let's punish them throw them in jail, let them know they cannot do that. For what they do is rape, the money appeases their guilt. Do we really think all men are capable of doing is orgasming on demand? Will they really blow up if they do not orgasm? I think not.. at least none of my partners have. I am not anti woman nor am I anti man, I just do not understand why we want to institutionalize the worst in humanity. We live in a pornified culture that comes from a patriarchal view of women what if we live in a culture that did not demand women to have sex ALL the time, have surgery to make our breasts bigger to rip out all our pubic hair, to tower on 4 inch heels... what if women were allowed to be women with all of our beautiful differences and flaws? As a former prostitute I am sad to see just how much of society is based on women acting like hookers.  

My last two statements.. as for the myth that women like to sleep with dozens and dozens and dozens of strange men why is it in men we would call this “sexual addiction’ and get them help and in women we just exploit it?

Also why are women the only ones required to get health checks to make sure we are “clean” for me to buy and abuse? Why do we not make the men get checked to keep the women safe? I try to stay away from the individualistic agenda of "choice" and try to focus on the global argument that is recognizing the lealization of prostitution is an abysmal failure. There is no way to separate prostitution for organized crime, human trafficking, drugs and a myriad of other criminal activity.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/109373   

 I will end with a link to a satement by a group of ex-prostitutes that speaks volums as well as a link to a statement made by aboriginal women 

 

http://xpalss.org

 

http://www.womennet.ca/news.php?show&6300

jas

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.

Refuge Refuge's picture

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.

Tommy_Paine

"How can any one be against sex work but not be against the women who do it ?"

By not being willfully blind. Willfully blind to the role so called "legitimate" businesses like Pay Day Loan sharking outlets, pawn shops, the pharmacuetical companies and your oh so professional and caring G.P., or the helpfull psychiatrists who will treat addiction and prostitutes with electroshock therapy and other quackeries, play.

Every check your mutual fund for investments in any of those enterprises?

What's in your wallet?

But then, money is an intimate subject, how tactless of me to bring it up. Let's talk about sex instead...

 

It's tempting, and righteous from the starting point of any perspective on this to say "go after the johns". I, for one, am all for seeing them charged with rape if the woman involved is an addict. Clearly, consent is not present under those circumstances. However, that prosecutorial angle is reserved for the protection of the right kind of people's daughters. And, going after the johns means introducing more police to the arena of vice-- historically problematic for all of society, even if it is profitable for many officers. And lawyers-- a profession inordinately over represented in our legislatures.

Funny that.

It's difficult for me to say use the law to tackle this problem, when it's the law that does so well by the perpetuation of it.

The sex trade, legal or illegal, is already institutionalized.

Fight the patriarchy. So long as it doesn't hurt my portfolio too much, or denies me that super cheap, I'm sure wasn't stolen snow blower at the pawn shop that certainly didn't get pawned to even up someone's drug debt before he or she was finally reduced to selling themselves on the street for oxycontin, which has done oh so well for my Perdue shares.

 ...it's in your neighborhood, is what I mean.  You can do something about it, don't kid yourself.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

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

Slumberjack

Addictions, entrapment, economic destitution, being beaten up. Why not prosecute all johns for rape? The patriarchal society is the pimp. The street level pimps work on behalf of the society, which needs to be deconstructed and reconstituted far differently than that which exists. The society chooses to direct it‘s efforts and resources toward finding solutions to issues that are detrimental to itself. Entire ministries have been created through which billions have been funnelled toward such things as bank bailouts and the military industrial mafia.

The victims of prostitution should not be seen as criminals, because they are marginalized and exploited, with few to no choices. The provision of choice, through dedicated and sustainable programs funded by the state might be an answer, in the form of addictions counselling, viable income support, educational opportunities, protection of the courts from further exploitation, and employment assistance measures through the public service, or private sector placements sponsored by government incentives. In the meantime, the structures and individuals involved in the abuse of women for sex need to be prosecuted through a full range of charges including rape, accessory to rape, sexual assault, forcible confinement, human trafficking, etc.

martin dufresne

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

Unionist

remind wrote:

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.

Decriminalization might be a good start - though I'm still of two minds on the implications.

 

martin dufresne

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!Wink

 

remind remind's picture

Still harvesting old threads to stir the pot unionist?

My response is still that, as I am not in favour of decriminalization, it would be full legalization, or nothing.

Decriminalization is just exploitation of women, while affording them no protections of full status employment laws and regulations.

Which is what I call entrenchment of the already marginalized, into a life of  servitude and no job safety and protections. Truly a dream for employers and customers, a industry that can legally exploit women, without fear of criminal charges, and where no job regulations have to exist.

As you well know, I have been making this distinction in other threads.

And as you are someone who believes in regulations to protect people from themselves, and one who bellieves in work place safety regulations for worker's I am having a hard time decerning, why you would be supportive of work, that was not really work, it will exist in a neither world, and solely geared for the exploitation of women.

Infosaturated

Unionist wrote:

Decriminalization would be a good start.

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". 

Stargazer

That whole part about "willing slaves" is not exactly going to help your position.

 

 

Snert Snert's picture

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?

Quote:
not argue that they are in low-end jobs by choice

 

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???

Michelle

I think it would be a lot easier to debate this issue without acrimony if people would accept each other at their word.  There are lots of women who say they're not in the profession by choice.  There are also women who say they are in it by choice.  There are others who say that their choices are constrained (as everyone's are), but they'd rather be doing prostitution than doing something else (like a minimum wage job).

Why speak in absolutes?  Everyone's reality is different.

Unionist

remind wrote:
Still harvesting old threads to stir the pot unionist?

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

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.

RosaL

lagatta wrote:
... 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.

Yeah.

(Although I'm happy to see triciabaptie here.) 

remind remind's picture

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.

 

 

Unionist

remind wrote:

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

You have trouble with the concept of "analogy", so I won't bother any more.

 

Infosaturated

Unionist wrote:

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.

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.

Stargazer

Infosaturated, it appears you're the one who keeps implying we all subscribe to the "Pretty Woman" version. Not one person here has denied that there is no exploitation, trafficking etc.Not one person has stated it is an ideal job. Not one.

You have been the only one who dismisses susan's reality by equating her version with fantasy. Well it is her reality and the reality for others as well.

Why can you not see that there are grey areas? That you have no control over what people wish to do with their bodies? Why does it seem to upset you so much to read someone likes doing her job?

If you'd like people to give up control over women's bodies, perhaps you should do the same by not trying to control them and infantazie women.

There is a lot of common ground here. You just don't seem like you want to acknowledge that.

remind remind's picture

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

You have trouble with the concept of "analogy", so I won't bother any more.

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.

 

Stargazer

How can you say that remind? Susan addressed almost everything you've stated in your last paragraph. Why can there be no labour codes, employee contributions, EI, day care, exit startegies, etc.? There can be, and that is what people are trying to do. The bottom line is they are workers. They need access to the same things we all do.Why not help them acheive that?

Decriminalization certainly does not mean a complete lack of any standards of care. In fact it could lead to enforced standards such as those you have posted up.

remind remind's picture

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.

Infosaturated

Stargazer wrote:

How can you say that remind? Susan addressed almost everything you've stated in your last paragraph. Why can there be no labour codes, employee contributions, EI, day care, exit startegies, etc.? There can be, and that is what people are trying to do. The bottom line is they are workers. They need access to the same things we all do.Why not help them acheive that?

Decriminalization certainly does not mean a complete lack of any standards of care. In fact it could lead to enforced standards such as those you have posted up.

You need to read up on what decriminalization means. 

I like discussing theory too, but if you are going to discuss practical aspects I think it helps to look at existing examples to see how that has worked out for others including "sex workers".  We don't have to just guess what would happen.

There are examples to examine to see if workers have become safer or not.

There are examples to examine to see if workers make more money or less money.

There are examples to examine whether or not it has contributed to destigmitization.

 

Stargazer

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

remind remind's picture

No she did not stargazer, and I stated  that back in those threads and again in recent ones, please do reread them.

Decriminalization WILL NOT, I repeat will NOT make front line sex work a legal job that has legitimate industry standings, to access the social safety net.

It can't, it is not legalization, it is decriminalizing bawdy house laws, communicating for the purposes of, and john's ONLY.

Giving front line sex work legal status as industrial work, is something completely different, than decriminalization.

 

 

Stargazer

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

remind remind's picture

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

The solutions lay in how committed we are as a society to keeping men's dicks happy.

And how committed we are to people's equality rights,  worker's rights at large, and public safety.

We need to decide which comes first.

Pun intended.

Stargazer

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.

remind remind's picture

No, no one would be criminalized, it would become a legal industry, fully regulated, for public consumption of products and services, and worker protection.

Once the industry is legalized, and the infrastructure set up, to support that status, the other, what are now  labelled crimes surrounding it cease to exist as illegal activities.

Remember prostituition itself, is fully legal, nothing surrounding it is though.

The illegalities of  it, are  what society once thought would be useful to protect women  and society ar large, as there is no other protection, as it is not an actual legally designated industry. See here what has to happen for it to be such.

Making it an actual industry, was, and is not being considered by some. For very different reasons of course.

 

remind remind's picture

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.

Stargazer

That last senetnce is really something I can get behind. A legal industry.

 

I'm glad we can both agree that people with disabilities can benefit from sex workers.

remind remind's picture

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.

 

Stargazer

How so?

remind remind's picture

I am not sure, thought you might know

susan davis

exaclty how do you legalize an industry and yet eliminate all jobs? make customers into criminals?

remind remind's picture

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.

remind remind's picture

Actually, I should have stated no public official culpability legal recourse, i suppose they could try and sue the org or group.

susan davis

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!!!

Pages

Topic locked