Who's a feminist? the old question with new angles...

The only person we've "silenced" is one person who kept attacking another poster after being told to stop.  She was not the only voice here critical of prostitution, and no other voices have been silenced or told they can't put forth the arguments you outlined in this or the other thread.

How stark of contrast you make Michelle, as  you well know there are differeing types of silencing used here all the time....it does rabble a disservice to deny that silencing occurs here in many forms other than banning, or suspending.

 

most here, and reading, are way too intelligent to accept that kind of propaganda...

 

In fact, Loretta herself indicated such in her post, which you  over looked in your assurances that it was not happening..

 

...arbitrarily closing threads is one form...starting biased forums is another...or even your post was closed and silencing with its brooking no contest kinda talk...

 

and then there is this truthful observation of Loretta's

 

because of course we all know I am in favour of having women's rights stripped from them afterall...just because of my stance

 

so..... someone can attack me by slandering me like that, and it is all good...but let me tell you if I said that to those wanting decrim with no regulations, I would  have been warned and/or suspended, or attacked for attacking....

Yes, why was this supension (a first-time one, too) turned into a permanent ban, despite no additional offense and without explanation? And why does Infosaturated go on being smeared here, in absentia? That used to be beyond the pale, too.

 

Actually, you're right, Martin, normally we don't talk about people who have been banned.  But you guys keep bringing it up, so of course I'm going to answer.  But this will be the last time I answer about Infosaturated.  The moderators had to field many, many complaints about her behaviour over the past few weeks, and this was the final straw.  Beyond the behaviour, we just don't have the moderating time to deal with all the complaints she was constantly making about other people (many of which we felt were without merit, some of which were), and all the complaints others made about her (many of which we felt had merit, some without).  She was also clearly unhappy with the site anyhow, demanding changes that the moderators weren't and aren't willing to make.  It's a time suck.  And we don't have that kind of time.  The attacks on susan davis, which she continued after being warned to stop, were the final straw.  And it is a unanimous decision by all the moderators, backed by the publisher.

That's my last word on this issue.

You are welcome to discuss the abolitionist viewpoint in the feminism forum.  You always were.  Please do!  In fact, I would be really interested in seeing you expand on this:

Loretta, thank you for starting this thread.  I highlighted the words that particularly resonate. 

I have read all of the sex work threads but made a conscious decision not to post in any of them. 

I do not support the sex trade as a legitimate business.  I think it's repulsive and should be shut down.  I realize we've heard some articulate individuals who say they enjoy their work and I have no reason to disbelieve them.  The thing is that I just cannot believe such a point of view is a common one.  The people I see involved in the sex trade are slaves to their addictions.  I just don't see purchasing sexual services as being a legitimate need for anyone.  I haven't had a sexual partner for two years but that doesn't mean I'm interested in renting one. 

I definitely don't think that, and I know lots of women who aren't "prudes" but also have a huge problem with prostitution.

One of the arguments that hits home for me is that the sex trade in general creates an expectation that sex from women should always be available, and perhaps divides women into two categories - women who are willing to provide it on demand, and women who are not.

Hello, Loretta. Lovely to talk to you again.

 

I joined these conversations because I support the Charter challenge. It bothers me a lot to see how willing people are to conflate (no doubt important) social debates with the foundational principles and structures of democracy -- see, eg, the discussion going on in another thread about the CPCCA, aka the Commons Un-Canadian Activities Committee. I mean, that is the threat that looms if we begin to confuse our own moral and social convictions with more basic law that is necessary to protect everyone's liberty and equality. If we can enforce our politics through the Criminal Code, the day could well come when the tables will be turned on us by fascists using the same logic, and we will have opened the door to Atwood's vision in The Handmaid's Tale.

 

Every once in a while, Susan Davis gets a chance to ask why it is only her work that is hamstrung by the Criminal Code, and that's the argument I'm here to support. Like many people here, I wish we could end capitalism yesterday. In the interim, however, most of us have to earn a living, and we all know how compromised we've been in various ways, depending on the work we took up. We have other laws to address the real crimes that legitimately bother people as civil-liberties offences -- human trafficking, exploitation of minors, eg -- and it would be good to see some clearly focused attention to those crimes. 

 

But that's not what Susan or Stargazer is talking about, and that's not why people still object to what they're saying (and in fact doing). People still think that trade in sex should be criminalized somehow, even though, oh, I don't know, flipping real estate isn't. Susan is standing on section 2 of the Charter, which acknowledges her full humanity -- ie, she is as much a human being as anyone else, which means she should be free to make the full range of choices anyone else does. The Charter does not say "You're only free if you're perfect." It says you're free because you're a human bean, and that is where equality is rooted. There are lots of mediocre men around; the Charter freed women to be every bit as mediocre as men are.

 

I happen not to think that Susan or Stargazer is mediocre. I've been interested to read all the work that Susan and her group have done to address the need for regulation, if they can get the restrictions of the Criminal Code gone. That all sounds reasonable to me. And I empathize a lot with Stargazer's feeling that she's being condescended to, whether people intend that or not.

 

But it is exceptionally dangerous to have people confusing admirable social and political arguments and education with criminal law and basic constitutional guarantees of liberty and equality. I'm sure that's why Alan Young and his students took this challenge on pro bono, and that's why I hope they win.

 

 

 

 

ok, i tried not to post here but......i keep getting named so......

the employment standards WCB(which we already qualify for), occupational health and safety training( complete and funded by the health authority) working groups/ review boards (being discussed in vancouver- city staff are already working with sex workers)

did you not see our national industry association thread? 

http://rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/sex-industry-association

 

we are working on the aspects you mention. we do understnad the depth of what is required here. system wide reform.

 

also, i take exception to you stating that 50 % of sex workers are first nations- where did you find that data? please post a link to that data- i have neverheard that number before and don't believe it is based in reality.

30% of on street sex workers , disproportionate representation in survival sex work, these things i have heard. street sex work comprises 10% 15 % of our industy

i am willing to discuss these things but please stick to the facts. one of the greatest threats to sex workers and our safety and stability is mis information. if you are going to make assertions such as above, please provide a link to the data to back your assertion. same applies to all sex workers being abused as children. casting our families as pervert, rapist, incestuous creeps is completely insulting. it plays into the tired old assertion of us being too raped and abused to really know what we need. of course we think we choose our jobs, we're dillusional. that is oppressive and i will not stand quietly b while people cast us all as victims, damaged goods, unable to look after ourselves. this is the excuse always used to impose actions against our community and has had disastrous results all over canada.

are you trying to say that our plans will be taken over by orgainized crime, traffickers and pimps? well, that's nice. way to empower the workers trying to do this work. as if we are too stupid or easy to manipulate and will not be able to implement accountability. it seems as if you think we don't ave what it takes or perhaps it's because you think sex workers are too weak to make this happen. others have said the same thing. i think YOU underestimate us. we will gain control of our destinies and bring trasparency ad accountability to the sex industry.

meanwhile the criminalize the customers but decrim the workers crowd have done nothing to even begin to plan fro decriminalizing of workers. bith sides agree on that point i might point out...so what exactly is different? the swedish model will also require WCB, employment standards, occupational health and safety training and many other regulations....where arethe plans for that? oh right....no where. abolitionists are so busy trying to prove they are right, none of the work required to implement their plan has been done ...so you tell me, what exactly do you plan to do to design employment standards, etc for decrimed workers under the swedush.canadian model?

i hear alot of people slamming our plans and yet no one has any other plans to offer.

we are people, we will fight for inclusion, we will challenge people who perpetuate myths about our lives and hold responsible the systems intended to protect us.we are working on these plans every single day.

slamming canada's first sex worker cooperative as if t is some kind of art project is also very insulting. the workers from the DTES worked their asses of to meet the requiremnts for incorporataion and in light of cooperative business models success in stabilizing sex workers all over the world, you would think people would be a little more supportive. the potential f this action for stabilizing localized groups of workers all over canada is enormous as well as it's potnetial for creating alternative income sources.

you claim to want to help workers on the street yet you ignore what they have asked for and belittle their work. i'm sad to say, pretty typical. you know best right?

I will read that thread but I'm not convinced, at this point, that standards in your work can be raised to that of other workers.

I would hope that you would do the same -- please show me where I quoted such figures. I deliberately didn't because I don't know what they might be and, at present, am doing some research through contact with a professor in the realm of women's studies. I am working with that person to dig into research on prostitution done through feminist analysis and will reflect upon it and bring it to this discussion when I get it.

loretta wrote;

 

Is babble a place where, like with other "givens" (no sexism, no racism, etc,), it is now a given that we must accept the paradigm that susan davis purports around sex work/prostitution? I can get behind respecting her point of view but disagreeing with it, that seems fair. It seems very inappropriate that rabble/babble would take the position to support that paradigm for a number of reasons. Those reasons include the inherent sexism in sex work/prostitution, the fact that the poor are without true choices, the fact that many of those involved in the sex trade were abused as children and the fact that to do so would be to support a "business owner" financial model.

Giving someone a safe place to discuss their point of view in this matter is one thing, it's another to ban those who don't agree and challenge it.

i thougt you had stated something about first nations but i guess i was wrong...sorry. the point remains about calling our parents child molesters......

i also have stated over and over that our plans a geared to empower workers with rights, not business owners and how in our culture older, more experienced workers become madames and share their knowledge with less experienced workers.

do you subscribe to the sink or swim model? all workers must be isolated from each other, have no mentoring or security on their first date with a customer and not be allowed access to critical information about their work in the form of an ex worker become madame?

this casting of all business owners is why we have no where to work, and are forced onto the street. WE NEED JOBS!!! and we need those jobs to be safe work environments. we will be inspected and scurtinized as other industries, no one is asking for carte blanche brothels. in my opinion this is a scare tactic by abolitionists to confuse the greater public as too what decrim  means.

decrim means i am not a criminal. labour law, employment standards act protect workers all over canada, why will it not work for us? why do we require seperate laws? it casts us as different, violence against us as different/unimportant/less, and allows enforcement agencies to apply the law in anyway they see fit including "getting rid of that prostitution problem". we know how well that is working....sex workers are gone. they're dead.

let's not do the typical "quick and dirty" that the canadian government is so famous for. let's do the hard work and do what is right creating a legacy of safety for canadian sex workers. abolitionists seem to think that the swedish model is some how some instant and perfect solution. don't kid yourselves, it will take as much work as full decrim, maybe more. in addition to creating labour standards  and all the other infrastructure required to decrim workers only, you will need to come up with laws and penalties for criminalized comsumers and business owners.

in sweden they get a fine.....or 6 months in jail.....do you think that's going to be an effective deterent? that's pretty much already the sentence in canada now under communication provisions, it doesn't seem to be working now.....

susan davis, I didn't do that either. I said that there is a disproportionate number of those involved in exchanging sexual intercourse for money were abused as children and I didn't name it as sexual abuse. This is what I've read from numerous sources however, I will include that question with those I'm asking of my contact in the women's studies department.

Unionist, it would depend on whether we're talking about now or if and when laws are changed.

peasant woman, did you call my cohorts and i hookers? please refrain from using language we find offensive. we are sex workers or prostituted people as is prefered by some ex workers here on babble. no where did i see any current or former workers say, yes, call me  hooker, i find it empowering.....

try to be respectful.

numerous sources such as ben perrin and melissa farely? becuase that data is skewed and biased. we know that those sources of data were never subject to research ethics review board scrutiny and only represent workers entrenched in the street level trade. one cannot compare canadian conditions to cambodian conditions, or a war zone in africa to conditions in canada. the numbers will be skewed and misrepresentative of the true condtions existing within the canadian sex industry. it has been proven that working conditions improve in indoor sex work venues and that indepent workers enjoy the safest working conditions off all- that's why we support worker owned and controlled, cooperatively run sex industry businessesbrothels.strip clubs,adult film companies.......not the coporate support the business owners enslave us all ..... i don't understand how people can ignore the potential of cooperative business models to adress many issues facing sex industry workers.... Contrary to popular perceptions about prostitution and violence, more than two-thirds of off-street sex workers who participated in a recent SFU study say they don't experience violence while working.   http://www.sfu.ca/sfunews/Stories/sfunews06280710.shtml   Sixty-three cent of the study participants-who work in massage parlours, for escort agencies or independently out of their homes-have never experienced violent behaviour. Those who did said the majority of incidents were related to a client's refusal to pay or to wear a condom. School of Criminology grad student Tamara O'Doherty, who conducted the study, says her findings suggest that the off-street sex trade is safer than it is for the 10-20 per cent of prostitutes who work at the street level. "The lack of violence as shown in this study doesn't reflect what many people typically fear about prostitution in general-that it is a dangerous profession," says O'Doherty, who surveyed 39 off-street sex workers and conducted in-depth interviews with 10 women involved in the sex industry. The women were mainly Caucasian, aged 22-45, and earned an average of $60,000 annually working four days a week. Ninety per cent had some post-secondary education and more than a third had a university degree. O'Doherty says the findings suggest that potentially violent men target street prostitutes. That "should be no surprise," she says. "Street sex workers, forced to work in isolation with little or no protection from police, are ideal prey for violent men." http://lib-ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/9250

This thesis explores women's experiences working in off-street prostitution venues in Vancouver, BC. The victimization experienced by street-based sex workers has led many people to conclude that prostitution is inherently dangerous. However, street-based workers form the minority of sex workers in Canada. The question remains, can their experiences be generalized to other types of prostitution? Consequently, this thesis examines whether female off-street sex workers face the same degree of victimization as female street-based sex workers, and asks if the experience of prostitution always entails violence. The research contained two components: a) a victimization survey examining interpersonal violence and other forms of victimization of off-street sex workers (n=39); and b) in-depth interviews with ten off-street sex workers exploring their working conditions, safety, stereotypes of prostitution, and law reform (n=10). While violence and exploitation do occur in the off-street industry, this study indicates that some women sell sex without experiencing any violence.

 
 

30% in Vancouver.

We are not talking the whole sex trade here, we are talking genital contact sex.

 

Please do not obscure this by trying to merge all types of sex trade  activities together.

 

90% in PG, if not more, close to the same for Kamloops, Kelowna, Terrace, Smithers, FT St John,  and Prince Rupert, are of FN heritages.

 

Then we have all those who are the marginalized poor taking up  most of the rest of the spaces,  and they have been abused by our classist society too. And then they move along to being exploited and abused more, in order to serve the instant gratification needs of the classist society.

 

do refrain from trying to kid us that rich people's daughters, or even middle class ones, are choosing genital contact sex, in the majority of cases in the remaining percentile, as a career choice.

 

 no one said child molesters until you did susan, please also refrain from trying to build conceptual frameworks that were never there.

 

In respect to what is posted in the labour forum, thread by Ms Davis,  it is but a glossy overview of what  things on the surface should be done.

 

Reading that thread, and what was posted regarding the regulations and certifications they were allegedly advocating, made me delve into the reality applications of what those very very surface statements meant. As I have direct experience knowlege, it was easy to break it all down.

 

when that gloss was removed, by my detailing the reality facets under the gloss, it was stated that none of those things were feasible to do, and to impliment them would drive  prostitution back undergound and out into the streets.

 

Which lead me to realize the only thing really being advocated for was decriminalized and unregulated genital contact sex.

 

Trying to also gloss it up as a human rights issue is nonsensical, as Loretta clearly points out above, and I have detailed elsewhere.

 

But for those needing to have it repeated, I would be happy to do so.

Unionist, I would say arrest the prospective customer.

susan davis, sex worker is not what people are, it's what they do. We don't have the freedom to do anything we want in our society. We are a group of individuals who live in a larger community. Yes, we have rights and freedoms and those must be balanced with the rights and freedoms of the others in the larger community. Freedom around identity issues is about what people are, in terms of qualities that make them who they are, they are not about what people do.

You are all human beings and I have no problem believing that you come from diverse backgrounds. I have no idea what that has to do with anything. However, I still believe that this work is something that disproportionately is made up of people with limited choices, whether or not they come from a middle-class background. There's no shame in having limited choices and our larger community should be working toward supporting those in that position and expanding their options.

If we move in the direction of legalizing prostitution, we will never have a reason to work toward improvements overall. After all, how could someone apply for welfare when work is available in the field of legalized prostitution? You're an abused woman who needs work -- there it is. After all, it would seem as though the demand by men for the use of women's bodies is a never-ending demand/market to be tapped into by enterprising folks in the business and, while I appreciate the co-op concept, in reality, "the" business won't be made up of women's collectives who have the power in how their business is run.

So what if you are married susan davis, it plays no part in this discussion. Nor do any of the other numerous, too numerous to count, let alone address, red herrings and misinterpretations in that last post of yours..

I detailed just a few of the  laws and regulations that would have to be made and put in place, as well as all the regulatory bodies needed to oversee, that you gave points on, as supposed things you and others  planned upon doing, in the linked thread to the labour forum above.

You, yourself, and others, immediately dismissed those required industry regulations, as nondoable, so making claims that the industry business people, such  as yourself, want to do those regulatory things and have looked into it all,  fall a bit short of being actual reality. In fact, they appear to be feel good fluff, without substance.

~

As a feminist my first priority is fostering the well being of women. My actions in life flow from that place. Why?

 

men have been fostering their own well being at our expense, for over 2000 years, they know how, and most are not willing to give up that 2000 year old history  in just a mere  80 short years.

 

Women have not even recovered from how our chattal stature for 2000 years has warped our sense of self yet. And it is going to be a few generations yet I suspect, before we do.

 

Meanwhile, this feminist understands that there are no human rights involved in decriminalizing john's, pimps and procurers, as a man's right to have leisure time ejaculations is not a human a right and is just another version of the old patriarchial propaganda  of "every sperm is sacred".

 

 

So you would change the law to allow a sex worker to discuss terms of a contract with a john (that's illegal right now in a "public place", including a car parked at the mall), but have the john arrested if he participated in the conversation?

One step further: Would you be ok with the john having that conversation with her over the phone? Or in her home?

 

 

I do see a deliberate attempt to misunderstand what is sex work due to this rigid "definition" that it is meant to include all sex related work -- webcam, dancers, prostitution, etc, so then it can be used against the poster to say oh, my you are obviously talking about all sex work  so your stats (proven and peer reviewed) must be wrong, so I am going to "fix" them for you. 

You may not like it, but it is legal.  The laws that criminalize the activities around it (it being prostitution for the rigidly impaired) are only 25 years old.  The majority of sex workers work indoors, the overwhelming majority of 80+%.  This is a fact, please do not attempt to dismiss it.  The majority of all sexworkers therefore do not have tragic pasts, violent encounters, drug addictions, and forced entry to the business.  If by "poverty" you mean that many many people in Canada need too work to "escape" poverty, then sure go ahead and use it for the "main" reason for people choosing sex work.  It does seem that the fact that some people choose and enjoy it, in spite of what others think of them, seems to rub people the wrong way.  But get over it, people.  Prostitution is legal, therefore it is a legal option for work in Canada. 

The real world is out there, for anyone who can see beyond the ladies who work on the street.  Bringing up Craigslist of all things, lol.  The majority of high end indoor service providers do not advertise there.  They spend hundreds and thousands monthly on their business, which ultimately keeps them out of public view and away from censorship and social stigma.  They own and operate their own business, they have post secondary educations, often funded through this work.  They have an interest in communications and customer service, and they do not view sex and sexuality in that old style feminist view that all sexual acts are anti-female, or that no woman in their right mind could possibly enjoy sex and sexuality.   By stating that women are not capable of making this decision themselves, by themselves for themselves, you are effectively silencing them, marginalizing them, discounting their voices, infantalizing them.  In fact, no better than the judge who rules the 3 year old girl was "provocative" or the wife who acts in self defense was premeditative, or the teenager who was raped while walking home from school was "asking for it".

I really see no difference between those examples and the statements I have read that tell me what I am and what I think.

Yes, I have a problem with people who think that they have the right to decide for me, a grown woman, and if I won't cooperate, they will make me do it their way. 

I haven't ever stated that this is what I'm talking about. I am talking about genital contact sex work.

If that's the case, what's the fuss about challenging the solicitation laws? Sure, most people work to avoid support themselves and therefore avoid poverty. There is a difference in that most people don't aspire to being a prostitute, or sex worker, if you prefer. Most end up "choosing" it for lack of other options.

The bolded statement is entirely inappropriate and not at all what's being said. Please do not get into personal attacks. Neither is this about my sex life and what I enjoy or don't enjoy -- that comment is not worth responding to since no-one has said that women are to be denied freedom as sexual beings.

Let's look at this another way -- why don't we just assume that all workers can decide for themselves what wage they need and in what conditions they will work? Why do we need laws of any kind to restrict business of any kind? Hell, those miners can look after themselves -- labour laws infantalize them, let's get rid of them. In supporting labour laws, you are discounting the voices of those who say they don't want a union so why don't we let them decide what's going to happen?

great post, skadl - it definitely bears repeating. I have been trying to formulate an adequate response to the assertion that "no one has  right to have sex". 

absolutely not true. ghislaine have a browse through the  isles of history, but patriarchy would have you believe so...and not even really true for everywhere in the last 2000 years either.

Egalitarian societies certainly were not....and early celtic (simplistic term) most definitely not.

and what I meant was Ghislaine, it is always supposed to be about a man's dick, the new version of the focus is the selling of  leisure sex as a commodity, as opposed to the former one of male sperms needing release because they are sacred.

 

this is the end result of the objectification of women and girls, commodifying our vaginas as a conmmodity work place product, and convincing some it is human rights....

 

yep always wanted  my daughter and granddaughter to be a live version of a blow up doll....ffs

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, for now. If it became fully legalized and regulated, what's to stop that from happening? If some can legally sell it, what would stop the rest from having to? I see this move as perhaps improving life for some women in the short term at the cost of diminishing it for all - it's a green light to those who wish to commodify our bodies for their own interests, not ours.

ETA: I just re-read the thread on industry standards, etc, and realize that the discussion is about complete decriminalization not legalization at all. To me, this means that "the industry" is looking toward doing whatever they determine is OK without input from those outside it -- can someone clarify this for me? If that's the case, what are we talking about here? Full on, do whatever in terms of work hours, pay scales, public health, safety standards...I don't really see reference to this at all in terms of what it means for the rest of us outside that industry in the linked thread. What I see is a proposal for the industry to be self-regulated, period. I'm not sure if there are any other industries that have this degree of freedom but I highly doubt it. And, I doubt most of us would want that.

What's to stop what from happening, exactly?  Are you implying that decriminalizing the activities around the legal activity of prostitution is somehow going to legalize non-consensual sex?   I don't get how you make connections between things that have no connection at all.  This is typical of some of the "research" I have seen referenced here.  These things have been discussed and debunked elsewhere.

The regulations and policies have been clearly examined, explored and presented by susi elsewhere.  Refusing to read them doesn't mean that nothing has been done, or that there is going to be some sort of free for all.  The links to the rules and regulations set up by the New Zealand government on this topic have also been provided.  I am not going to hold people's hands and lead them to it, since it is clear that some would prefer not to read the comments and posts that surround these links for fear they might learn something that contradicts their strongly held beliefs. 

I realize that it might be awkward to be challenged constantly and directly with facts and statements and corrections, but is that not debate?  Let us assume, for a moment, that the definition of sex worker is one who does "genital contact work" shall we, since it seems so confusing although it has been discussed.  There is another category, sex industry worker, that  includes sex worker, dancer, films, etc.   Altho, can you separate actors in films (genital contact) from sex workers?.    Are you able to deal with the female clients of male sex workers at all?  I am finding it difficult to see them being defended, and who, in the end, is going to be defended and protected:  the male worker or the female client??   Have you thought about whether or not their is a victim in the case of male sex workers who have male clients?  Are they both aggressors in this legal activity?  Can't be victims, since they are men?   I am failing to see any of this included in the concerns and comments.   Does anyone care that the indoor sex worker is by definition forced to be a criminal by working from home?

One doesn't because that is not the way work in the real world is undertaken and it is not a restraint of trade...

 

and this is the statement of the truth of that from above

 

so should we just chuck 100's of years of worker's rights fights away, so some men can have on demand leisure time ejaculation responses?

and you did so in the framework of having the whole of the labour code supporting your actions, as well as health and worker's comp...

 

obviously you chose to accept an amount over min wage...aren't you fortunate in your class position....millions are not....

 

blue collar union workers are even forced  to make the same wage as everyone else in their job description, no individual bargaining allowed...

 

 

Good, and thank you for the affirmation, as I used it to be disturbing, and it is not a sterotype

 

you got daughters?

You got a daughter that could be tipped into marginalization  and exploitation because of her heritage quite easily, as we live in a racist and classist society?

 

 

Which women?

The 2 that declared they were choosing it,  or the 5 prostitutes that stated they were forced into it?

Which is pretty much representative of real life, a handful choose, the rest are forced into the personification of a blow up doll...

 

women and young girls have been objectified for a reason after all....once we believe ourelves to be objects commodification of genital sex comes shortly thereafter...

 

 

Well.... if men are equally as imprisoned, as women, then I want some of that prison.....sorry the poor men meme wore off on me long ago...

 

Odd thinking, given a woman cannot give birth without the male component, to say the least...look let's not make all this giving birth all mystical, or romance novelish, it is biological functioning contained in all species...it is just as bad as thinking every sperm is sacred.

 

i choose to celebrate whatever i can do well, at any given point in time and believe it me it varies, and beyond that appreciate what my partner of 30+ years can do better than i at any given time,

we have taught each other much over the decades....sexually and otherwise...

 

Well....shall we start calling sarah palin a feminist then? or Ann Coulter? or Rachel Mardsden? how about REAL women? how about Barbra Kay, or Kate McMillian?

Shall i call Harper a progressive too while i am being all fair and  respecting?

 

another example would be:

being tolerant does not mean tolerating intolerance

Women are not receptacles.

Remind, I found your response predictable.  I don't think you actually understood much of what I was saying and I have little confidence that whatever I say will find any receptivity with you.  Generally I have found your behavior on these threads horrifying and you are one of the main reasons I am even bothering to speak up, I felt ashamed that my silence could be taken in any way as support for your views.

I think what we are hearing from some women is that they do not feel this way, I don't dispute that many women feel that men treat them that way.

As to Remind's question of which women do I find intelligent? All of them.

ennir, as for my  behaviour it is not like i have been making personal attacks, like yours, with your falsely accusing  me of behaving badly, when i haven't been.  and even trying to ascribe "shame" to me.

 

how many prostitutes have you known in your real life?

 

not expecting an answer back, as i take it you have no daughter's, seeing as you did not answer my honest question and chose to be attacking and snide instead.

 

Of course i "understood" every thing you said, so apparently you do not find all women intelligent, and  moreover i have heard it ad naseum over the years...

 

You can be intelligent without understanding another's point of view.

You don't think that you have behaved badly towards Susan?

And do you seriously think a woman has to have a daughter to feel for young women and want to see them respected and cared for?  No Remind I am not going to answer that question, I think the question is offensive.

please stop making personal attacks ennir, it is discomforting, in the feminist forum especially

I guess we disagree on this, I don't feel I am attacking you, I am telling you how I feel, you are free to do whatever you want, I am not calling you names, I am saying I don't think you listen to me.  I said that I found you behavior horrifying, I am not telling you what you should do I am telling you how I feel.

Wow.  Been staying out of these threads for a variety of reasons, one being not enough time...

I see sex workers saying that no one should have the right to tell them what to do with their bodies.  I agree, no one has that right.  You can have sex with whomever you like, in any number and with any variety of acts.  None of our business.  However, that's not the part I am concerned about.  What concerns me is the commodification of the sex act and what repercussions that has on the world and social order that I live in and that I will send my daughters out into as young women sooner than I'd like.  And I don't see any positive effects from a feminist perspective.  I also find the dismissal of progressive concerns for the most vulnerable of the sex worker cohort intensely disturbing from both a feminist and humanist point of view.

So there has to be input from the rest of the people.  Even if we're not connected to sex work, because you're changing our social landscape via the business of sex, not sex itself.  We expect a level of input on other industries as well.  We don't get enough, but we do get some.

selling genital contact-

fuck you guys are insulting. this so diminised my work and the life i live...i am not a fuck doll or a receptacle.....any more than you are a baby factory remind. this type of discourse s disgusting. i do not remember any sex workers or former sex workers saying that was appropriate language for describing my life and work.

i have heard rape, prostituted, sex work......

i just love how youall uselanguage to belittle, diminish and oppress us.its pretty sad.

i would also like to say that sex work has been around a long time, in the oldest piece of writing on the planet- "the whore of babylon story" from 6000 years ago- has a sex worker in it...this is hardly new or some kind of addition to our "social landscape". we are here. we are part of the human experience and we will claim our rights as human beings.

Susan, I agree that people have to be more sensitive about the words they use to describe sex workers.

My feeling, though, is that they're talking from a feminist point of view about the way male society (not all males) view sex work and sex workers.  I think that the feminism forum has to be open to this kind of analysis of the sex trade - that many men DO see buying sex as "buying genital contact".  Many feminists believe that the sex trade doesn't just commodotize sex trade workers, but also all women when they can buy sex either in person or on a screen. 

Just as many people believe that the capitalist class does not see the humanity of the workers, and considers them cogs, or widgets in their machinery, there are a lot of feminists who believe that the patriarchy uses prostitution and other trade in sex as a way of reducing women to mere sex objects, simply in place to satisfy men.

That said, I also think it's extremely disrespectful to call sex workers "receptacles" or "blow up dolls" or to even imply that they act like it.  It may be true that this is how some men see sex workers (and perhaps other women as a result of the sex trade which some feminists believe encourage this view of women), but I think we have to be really clear that we are talking about patriarchal attitudes towards sex workers and women, instead of ascribing that status to sex workers ourselves, when we use inflammatory terms like that.

Exactly why, I first used  it in relation to how male society would/will/does see my daughter and granddaughter. To make the clear point I was speaking about ALL women, and even  to the point of personalizing it down to my family, so people would get what I meant by its use...

 

When something is commodified, it no longer remains what it was.....and it becomes disposable...just like all other gadgets, toys, and games...for leisure time activities...

Okay, Lee and Stargazer - unless you'd like to apply for the volunteer mod positions ;) then how about leaving it up to the moderators to determine who needs to apologize to whom.

Thanks.

selling genital contact-

fuck you guys are insulting. this so diminised my work and the life i live

Abolitionists are clear that prostitution is an institution. Critiques of that institution should not be painted as persoanal attacks on people. Are we diminishing prostitution itself? I wish... it's a thriving, billion-dollar industry. As for Babble, if a member of the Canadian Armed Forces were here as such and telling us that we are diminishing his work lifestyle by criticizing Canada's war on Afghanistan, if he or she were to attempt to control our words to speak of it, e.g. "fuck, it's a peace effort!", would we let that silence us?

Nonsense.... you are selling access to your vagina, it is genitalia,  as is a man's penis, covered or not, and condoms break....

 

Your vagina is a commodity...that you are choosing to sell...

 

spanks a prostitute had a lot to say to you in another thread about trying to dress up fancy what prostitutes do.

 

Indeed, in another thread you felt it was okay for fortunate to obliquely call a woman a bitch, and yet here you are complaining about hateful words, when they are merely formal words describing exactly what is going on....

Sorry, Susan, but that's a dodge, and I'm pretty certain you know it is.  The assertion that you sell coitus is not hateful, it's a fact.  However, if you feel that fact is oppressive, we might just be getting somewhere.

ETA:  It's possible, Susan, that Vancouver is not the ROC.  remind's point was that the cultural and racial diversity in large centres probably isn't reflected in smaller centres and more outlying areas of the country.

I'm looking here at this thread and seeing lots of straw men lurking about. I don't think  it matters whether there are 30% Aboriginal women in street-levle prostitution or 90%, we all agree they are over-represented and that this is a shameful indictment of our society. We all agree that many women are damaged by men, yes? men who use rape, physical assault, harrassment and economic sanction to maintain power over women. I don't understand why it is so difficult for some people to see the connections between women's inequality to men and the fact that it is men who buy women in prostitution. Granted, I don't really care to argue this point, I know you cannot convince me that prostitution is in any way good for anyone. Be that as it may, just because I think that prostitution as an institution is oppressive to women, it does not therefore follow that I do not have regard or respect for women who are in prostitution. Quite the opposite, and I see that respect and regard articulated by other people on this list who are critical of prostitution. Women (and men) deserve so much better than a life of prostitution (even a day of prostitution) can possibly offer.

questioning the wisdom of choosing prostitution, or saying that support for prostitution or pimping is anti-feminist, is not at all disrespectful or insulting. To call this stance that, is to refuse to engage with the ideas and the activities that might take us a little closer to freedom and equality. I don't think that agitating for women to be able to kill people in the military is a feminist fight, either, and women who are in the military cannot be feminists, far as I can figure. That doesn't mean I am rude or disrespectful to them, or that I don't have an understanding of the ways that the institution itself upholds male power at the expense of the women also in that institution (all women, in fact, as well). It means I am interested in working to end that institution. same as i am interested in rendering prostution unthinkable.

Okay, apparently we must again go back to the actualities of body parts and functioning so that we can get on the same page....

 

Genital = of, relating to, or being a sexual organ

The reason why genitals  are referred to as  sexual organs is because they are an organ in the body physiology sense, which is what I have been stating....repeatedly

Genitals are not feet, backs, hands,  or  minds, they are actual "organs" in the sense that livers, hearts, and kidneys are vital organs. They are muscous membranes that absorb and secrete, and provide  distinct and important body functions beyond that of the sexual act, coitus they can be used to engage in.

Rest of Canada Susan.....

 

regardless of condom use, it is genital contact.

 

For instance, if a man uses a glove to hold his genitals, he is still holding his genitals...

Awesome, Lee. Exactly on target as far as I am concerned and committed to those precise values. Thank you! It is a significant step forward that social workers - who don't put much truck in rhetoric but do help impoverished and abused people day in and day out - came to see it your way. We are on the way to beating back the "business model" of human rights.

The point of decriminalizing the workers, and offering comprehensive and varied exiting services is to dismantle and end systems of prostiution. So, no, actually, licensing and sti testing and any other thing that would regulate the trade in women's bodies is not helpful to anyone but the fellas buying, or renting those women's bodies. the best way to reduce the harms of prostitution is to interfere with the source of the harm, that's the men who buy and sell and rent women's bodies. Arrest the men. Even the "good guys". Even the guys who call the escorts, or who go to massage parlours, or who reply to the craigslist ads, or whatever. Stop them. If you are a 'good guy', who thinks it's terrible what some men do to women in prostitution, then stop it. Even, in fact, if you think that some women 'choose sex work' and they should be able to make a living that way, stop it. just give her the money maybe, but then, tell your friends to not buy women. in prostitution or in pornography. Not regulate, or set standards, or develop criteria for respectful relations with sex workers or whathaveyou, but stop buying or renting women's vaginas, mouths, anuses, etc for your use. that would be very pro-feminist and humane of you.

Okay, this is over a hundred posts, so I'm going to close it.