Should the advertizing of sexual services be better regulated?

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Struggling
Should the advertizing of sexual services be better regulated?

Hi everyone. I would like to know your thoughts on the regulation of the advertizing of sexual services. When we consider all the regulations and educational campaigns that go into the advertizing of nicotine and alcohol, why not the same for the advertizing of sexual services? To take an example, if you visit the adult section of backpage.com craigslist.com, or the website of individual escorts, though you will find many ads offering sexual services, you will find not one single ad on the same page advertizing sex or other therapy, Sex Addicts Anonymous, chastity devices or keyholding services, or any of a myriad of other services, organizations, or products that could potentially help to cope with potential or already-established sex addition or other sexual or other problems. We should consider too that at least some men who seek such services may be doing so in response to a recent traumatic experience, depression, or an already-established sexual addiction or other ailment.

We could ask ourselves for example whether there could be a social benefit in requiring all of these websites to set aside at least the first half of each page advertizing sexual services to also advertize the potential benefits of sex therapy, Sex Addicts Anonymous, chastity devices, keyholding setvices, and anything else that could be of benefit along with their potential drawbacks, or some other form of advertizing along these lines.

What might be some pros and cond of such or similar rrgulation of the advettizing of sexual services?

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
Struggling

Another possibility would be for a quarter of a page being devoted to that, the other quarter to various services to help sex workers who want out to get out.

Struggling

There could be safety benefits in such an idea too by increasing the possibility that a person who could potentially pose a threat to a sex worker is more likely to seek help.

Pondering

I don't post in this forum but I hate to see people left hanging. I think the reason you are not getting much in the way of responses is that the new Canadian law dealing with prostitution has made it illegal for publications to advertise. I won't respond again. I just wanted to let you know that.

Struggling

Thanks, Pondering.

If it's illegal, enforcement is seriously lacking. It's easy to find online. If it cannot be properly enforced, then the logical next best option would seem to be public education aimed at the target audience, and that would be right on those same supposedly illegal sights that operate quite openly online.

Struggling

Thanks, Pondering.

If it's illegal, enforcement is seriously lacking. It's easy to find online. If it cannot be properly enforced, then the logical next best option would seem to be public education aimed at the target audience, and that would be right on those same supposedly illegal sights that operate quite openly online.

Struggling

You would also think that finding every means of dealing with the demand side would be an effective way of fighting prostitution.

 

As a sex addict myself I would totally support fines for hiring the services of sex worker. But what are the chances of being caught? Education concerning available help would be a wise strategy too.

susan davis

yup, no safe indoor sex work for us, we should  be cast out into the street where we deserve to be. and hey, if we die, all the better, less temptation for sex addicts....

ugh.....get a grip

susan davis

this forum is for discussion about sex work from a sex workers rights perspective.

as a sex worker who is facing the impacts of the new laws i am not interested in hearing speculation about how people might further jeopardize our safety and income through the loss of advertising spaces or any intereference for any reason for that matter with how we meet our clients.

i am sorry you are a sex addict but this is not a space for discussion about that.

as for "fighting prostitution", again, this space is for discussion from a sex workers rights perspective, not for those who are eliminationists or abolitionists. this space was intended for sex workers and their allies to be able to discuss these issues from our perspective.

so, thanks for being blind to our fight and for having read nothing in this forum. perhaps you should think about our side and read a bit before making moronic suggestions that will lead to further harm of my community.

Unionist

Thanks for the reality check, susan.

Struggling

You are correct. I had debated whether to start this thread here or the disability issues section . It might have been more appropriate there.

Struggling

I should mention though that I do not remember saying that prostitution should be criminalized, or even that prostitution itself should be regulated.

Also, I do not see how such regulation would affect escorts themselves. For example, an escort could advertize on backpage.com as he does now, no change on his end. Backpage.com would be the one responsible to change its advertizing policy. Potential clients would search like they do now but would be exposed to alternative advertizing at the same time. Many clients might be trying to get out of the industry but have false ideas about therapists and might never have even heard of SAA, chastity devices or the existence of medication to calm libido, or other possible solutions. So in fact this would be regulating the advertizing industry, not the sex industry.

Struggling

Also, should the rights of one group clash with those of another? How do we balance the rights of happy sex wokers and happy clients on the one hand with those of sex workers with financial or other difficulies and clients who suffer addictions, compulsive habits or other such problems on the other?

 

Must the rights of sex workers and those with compulsivity, addiction, and other such problems necessarily clash?

Gustave

Struggling, contrary to alcohol and tobacco, sex is not dangerous at all, quite the contrary. I would be against using public fund to promote the ideological concept of sex addiction that has no basis in science. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhTPYMso5fs

This forum may not be the good place to promote your moral panic.

Struggling

I just watched the entire video and it was ideological propaganda all the way. I know what compulsive behaviour is. It began about a year after my divorce and a bout of depression and two suicide attempts. Compulsive sexual behaviour and increasingly risky compulsive sexual behaviour followed over the years that followed including increasingly disturbing thoughts of self-harm and other thoughts I cannot bring myself to mention even in anonymity.

It is only recently that I started thinking more seriously of seeing a professional due in part to my lack of confidence in its usefulness and due in part to fear of ridicule. I will be seeing a psychologist who specializes in 'sex addiction'. I don't know if 'sex addiction' is the right terminology they ought to use but that is what the profession uses. I would just call it compulsive sexual behaviour. I will see him this coming week and getting a blood test the next day just to be sure since I want to try to turn my life around. The situation is so shameful for me that I have already typed out what I want to tell him because otherwise there would be no way I could tell him.

You may see nothing wrong with purchasing sexual services, yet I am well aware not only of the harm it has caused me personally in terms of feelings of guilt, shame, self-disgust, depression, thoughts of self-harm, etc. but also the risk to which I have exposed them. The other factor that finally led me to see a therapist was when I had taken an escort by surprise by making a request of her that could have put me at physical risk of death. It was as if I wanted to play Russian roulette and have someone else pull the trigger to my head, and was only half conscious of what I was really asking. Naturally she refused. Once she realized I was serious, she even went so far as to explain what I had just asked of her and suggested I see a therapist. We actually never ended up having sex. Instead she decided to just have a long conversation and I went home with lots to think about. She'd even offered the money back in the end but I refused. Strangely enough the conversation alone made it worthwhile.

I should qualify that she was still very kind in the way she addressed the problem to me and I appreciate that. It's only then that it dawned on me just how disturbing my request was. She was just a regular escort, not into femdom or anything of the sort, yet once she explained it to me I realized that even someone into femdom would have found such a request to be disturbing.

Of course none of it is rational. It is a combination of factors including a desire to escape from depression and suicidal tendencies initially, followed by habit reinforced by a regular dopamine fix. Sex calms the mind for a while before depression sets in again, with always an ever growing compulsion for ever riskier behaviour or more masochistic thoughts.

JulieG

The question is insulting from the start.  The poster compares sex work to carcinogens.  Tobacco and alcohol are substances.  Sex is exercise. 

I advertize on backpage every day.  C36/PCEPA just hugely diminished my ability to advertize in paper publications.  Most have stopped hosting sex-work ads because they can be criminally charged now.  90% of sex work is indoor and we need to advertize to support ourselves.

Does it matter to anyone that many of us are having to hit the street for the first time and are losing our apartments because this new law dimishes our incomes by criminalizing anyone who carries our ads?

The initial question presupposes a  bunch of negative stereotypes about us and the clients.  I don't know how Susan tolerates this.

It's why I usually can't be bothered to participate in sex work discussions @ rabble. 

We are people providing a service to people who want to purchase a service and we should be able to advertize like any other service providers. Right now we can't, but your concern is about one of the last venues that will carry our ads.  Thanks for the concern.

Unionist

JulieG wrote:

The question is insulting from the start.

Correct. It's why everyone essentially ignored this thread. Just one person venting rather offensively. Not sure why you felt the need to revive it after three months of inactivity?

Quote:
It's why I usually can't be bothered to participate in sex work discussions @ rabble.

Susan intervened briefly, and to the point, to put this in perspective. That's all it takes. There are in fact lots of discussions about sex work which (IMHO) are useful and educational for those who want to be allies and listen. I don't think it's fair to brand all of babble with the quirks of one poster.

 

onlinediscountanvils

JulieG wrote:

The initial question presupposes a  bunch of negative stereotypes about us and the clients.  I don't know how Susan tolerates this.

It's why I usually can't be bothered to participate in sex work discussions @ rabble.

Thanks for posting.

Some of us do appreciate the perspective that Susan and others bring to babble.

Even if it doesn't always seem like it, some of us are listening. 

Brachina

JulieG wrote:

The question is insulting from the start.  The poster compares sex work to carcinogens.  Tobacco and alcohol are substances.  Sex is exercise. 

I advertize on backpage every day.  C36/PCEPA just hugely diminished my ability to advertize in paper publications.  Most have stopped hosting sex-work ads because they can be criminally charged now.  90% of sex work is indoor and we need to advertize to support ourselves.

Does it matter to anyone that many of us are having to hit the street for the first time and are losing our apartments because this new law dimishes our incomes by criminalizing anyone who carries our ads?

The initial question presupposes a  bunch of negative stereotypes about us and the clients.  I don't know how Susan tolerates this.

It's why I usually can't be bothered to participate in sex work discussions @ rabble. 

We are people providing a service to people who want to purchase a service and we should be able to advertize like any other service providers. Right now we can't, but your concern is about one of the last venues that will carry our ads.  Thanks for the concern.

 

 I care, I would have commented sooner, but the Sex Worker Forum is usually unactive so I rarely check it.

 

 I totally agree with you JulieG, its pure hypocracy on the part of babblers, you have my full support and understanding. This law is pure shit, its a human rights violation.

 

 And I agree that sex workers and clients are unfairly potrayed on rabble, and most places by SJWs, who know nothing about the average client or sex worker and somehow think that they have the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

 I really wish I knew what I could do to help.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

JulieG, while I don't agree with Susan's perspective on a lot of things (and possibly you) and have been in a number of heated discussions over the issue of sex work, I still don't think someone's personal compulsions are a reason to limit someone else's speech and communication/advertising of services.  Struggling's issues are just not relevant to the larger discussion of what should or shouldn't be allowed.  Not a good enough reason, IMO.  So on this, I do agree with you.