babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
P.S. My apologies for having used the wrong terminology in this thread earlier, I think before I'd read Susan's post in another thread requesting that we use terminology that is not so problematic. I will do my best to remember, and please feel free to call me on it if I don't.
Michelle I hope it didnt seem that I was calling for you to force everyone what to say as a moderater. And there is no "official" terminology. I just think some terms are rude such as that one, and asking if we could refrain from calling people names they don't call themselves
Because Info... if things are left to a majority to decide, we don't get to advance as a society, as seen by the many states currently using their will to discriminate freely against the GLTB community in regards to marriage (and almost every other aspect of their lives).
There are many, many stated positions, by sex workers, who consider themselves prostituted people, in the documentation that Martin has provided, that clearly indicate what he stated is factual. There are even links to activists who were former sex workers that he has provided.
These are all well worth the read, if one still has an open mind about it all.
All views should be presented and discussed, and leaving portions out, or asking them to be left out, is not looking for open discourse it is looking for entrenched positions. I myself, still dance the line of indecision, and want to read all sides an positions.
Just because there are 2 live voices here stating something, does not mean that the other view points are not out there and thus are not presentable here.
As presenting other views does not abstract it, at all. Just as presenting different views of feminist thought, that may not bere presented here, by those subscribing to it, does not abstract the lives other feminist women live, under their own view.
Under Susan's own description, of who is in her model of included voices at the table, are the John's, as they are considered stakeholders too.
Long ago now, Martin made a very difficult confession about his own life as a john, and how he feels about.
Thus, I would suggest there is significant reason for his voice to be heard by those in the sex industry, and by ourselves too. As he is the voice of an ex-john than can attest to, and is willing to be truthful, and put himself out there, to expose the reality of some men's, not all men's, motivation for utlizing sex workers.
Now personally, I waiver on the edge of believing that it should be made a flat out trade, that requires education. But that does not address the problem of prostituted women, who are not in the trade because they want to be.
I absolutely agree all views should be discussed. What I don't agree with is a man defining for a woman what she should and can call herself. It has nothing really to do with a particular position, just the way the response to Just one was worded.
Martin was a john? You know, I know a lot of men who either thought seriously about using a sex worker or who have done it. I was shocked about that, but after they explained why, I can sort of understand it. But I am not a man, and I clearly have no real insight into how and why men decide to use sex workers. It is up to them to tell me. Just as it is up to the women who work in this trade (and I like that idea remind, of it being a trade) to define themselves as they wish without anyone going hostile on them. That's all.
Well then...okay....
Having read back over martin's post again, I do not believe he did that. He was indicating incorrect usage of the word "ALL", that Just used.
As he has so aptly presented here, with concrete evidence, there is no greater "ALL". In a similar vein, all feminist's are not of the same feminist thought.
Moreover, as a john, or as a former one, he does not want to be labelled thusly, as a sex worker, either. As the models Susan has posted state johns are sex worker stakeholders too.
Now this goes beyond Martin's male genderness and voicing a "male opinion" in the feminist forum, this topic relates directly to what he was, and in part why he became a feminist.
If you want to respond to me please read what I said more carefully. I could explain it again if you really didn't understand but I think I was pretty clear.
Perhaps you could have asked stargazer what it was she did not understand about your commentary, or how she got that from it, and then clarified what it was you meant, instead of assuming she was being disengenuous, as that is the charge that you are levelling at her.
And frankly, it is not very pleasant to read such an imperious post.
Thank you for saying that so eloquently remind.
just one of the... writes: ...Stella is a group you despise, because they support legal sex work and you have said so on record here.
Excuse me but, no, I have never written anything of the kind. Care to substantiate that charge?
What she said had absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said. Nothing. It like if I answered your post by saying...
Because remind, everyone has a right to speak.
How could you respond to that? You'd be like WTF are you talking about? Of course everyone has a right to speak.
If it were just this once I wouldn't mind but it isn't.
I don't appreciate having to deny things that have absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I decided to interpret it as maybe she was just skim reading or something. Wouldn't it be more insulting to suggest she can't understand or is doing it deliberately?
I have noticed that my words are not being quoted either. If they were it would be clear to readers that she is not responding to anything I said so I would be fine with that.
Maybe I worded myself poorly. So instead I will say this:
Stargazer, please quote me when responding directly to something I said so we can avoid confusion.
Fair enough, and I know exactly how you feel when you say:
"I don't appreciate having to deny things that have absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I have noticed that my words are not being quoted either."
People who have issues with people's words would do well to quote them and ask what is meant by them.
In fact, earlier I jumped to a conclusion about another's words, and should not have, but I did quote them so said person would know directly what I was speaking about. And then it was resolved.
But anyway this is a thread derailment.
I never used the word "all" once, nor anything of the sort. I personally believe that there are other feminist positions on this issue. Legalization is not the only way to be feminist, and I respect other opinions, but I strongly belive that the time has come to legalize, johns and all, and am prepared to defend that.
And Martin I am sorry for insisting that you had no place in this conversation. Your opinions are welcome and you provide a lot of research and links.
I am opposed to any legal answers which criminalize johns and am prepared to defend that, but it is good to have opposition as it keeps a person on their toes.
Fair enough you did not use nthe word "all", but you did use "everything of the sort". As follows:
In all these separate comments of yours above , you used blanket phraseology, and left no room for those we know quite clearly are prostituted people, they are not sex workers who are there by their own choosing. Thus, you are expropriating their voice, and denying their existence, in as much as you believe martin is expropriating your voice and stating you are damaged goods. When he isn't on either issue. There was nothing disrespectful in his words.
How about looking at this topic as if martin, and others, are the voices of those that are forced into prostitution, that have no voice here, because they have no access to a computer, for whatever reason, may it be drug addiction and living on the streets, or absolute control by a pimp, or something else, to let their voices be heard?
Because the reality is, they have talked to groups and orgs and martin has provided evidence of their testimony to them, here in these threads. I gave a news clip about 3 young Asian women who were rescued from forced prostitution in a Edmonton massage parlour. They were prostituted women, who did not come to Canada to be a "sex worker", they are victims of preditors.
He is not speaking out of his ass, when he says some in the trade do not refer to themselves as sex workers, because they are not, and they say they are not, as soon as they have the chance to do so.
Please read my most recent posts and nobody here supports forced sex work or human trafficking for the millionth time.
Absolutely no one said you did.
I'll re-post Libby Davies' press release of September 2002, when she was NDP Social Policy Critic. It's probably more appropriate in this thread anyway:
Federal Solicitation Laws Put Sex Trade Workers at Risk
i supports john's voices because they hold the key if we are to truely try to end exploitation in the sex industry. customers go in to sex industry businesses and seeworking conditions and potntially exploitation and abuse. customers need to be able to report exloitation without fear of criminal charges, public humiliation, etc
knowing martin was a consumer makes his position and attitudes much clearer and easier to understand. don't be so down on men martin, you are beautiful!!
Infosaturated, please get off my back. You've been on me since you started posting (or so it feels) if you have a problem, contact the mods. This is getting silly and I am quite sure people are noticing.
I am not "down on men", I am down on a culture of male privilege that gets men to act as "men," with all the attendant harm to other human beings. I talk to young men who are still resisting this choice between respect and instrumentalization of women, and I have immense respect for them, I assure you.
i would also like to comment on the term "prostituted people"
why do we have seperate terms for a person exploited in the sex industry and those exploited in other ways? seperating violence against women in the sex industry and violence against other women makes it seem as if violence in the sex industry is somehow different, less, or unimportant.
why do we need 2 sets of laws? could we not say exploited person? this kind of othering is why police services and other support mechanisms do not take violence against us seriously. i remember a female officer who i was talking to while standing on the street corner wherei worked, completely refusing to take a report of rape and assault from a fellow sex worker who approached us during our conversation.
"i just had a bad date, you wanna here about it?"
female officer "not really..."
my fellow worker burst into tears and stormed off to the hotel where we lived to clean the blood off her face and change her ripped clothes so she could return to work....
on another occassion a trans worker i know tried to report a rape and assault to police;
worker "i just got raped!" police officer "good"
in my work with provincial victims services, we were looking at the victims compensation program and barriers that exist for sex worker trying to access supports and counselling we discovered we must be able to atribute our trauma to one particular event and so do not qualify for victims compensation or counselling services. apparently, we have been raped too much. the victims compensation representative also implied sex workers were greedy and would continue to collect our $8 an hr maximum 40 hrs a week victims compensation even after we didn't need it any more, thus she would never grant financial support to a sex worker who was the victim of a crime....so biased.
the very systems intended to protect us denying us access to supports that could save our lives.
i myself tried to report a rape by the man convicted in the trial in the case of the missing women in 1991. 3 times, i waited for police and no one came to take my report. imagine if sex workers were treated equally and my assault taken seriously, how many of those women would be alive today? was 49 he claimed?
we must try to stop seperating violence against people in the sex industry as different. it is contributing to systematic failure and barriers for sex workers seekng protection.
especially if a worker was forced into the industry, why brand them a prostitute or prostituted person? doesn't it make sense to protect the from the shame and stigma associated with that term. should we not try to protect the from further harm as a result of being "damaged goods" sexually ruined.... and all the other things people think about sex workers?
whycan't we say exploited person, survivor of unlawful confinement, rape survivor? a person forced to engage in sex work is a rape survivor after all, every forced client is a rape. why is rape of a person forced into sex work different from a rape of a person not in the sex industry?
To use an analogy from labour, when wanting to defend and empower workers from exploitive conditions, it is significant to acknowledge conditions such as a sweatshop or a maquiladora and their owners/governments organization and strategy. Similarly, someone living off the avails of someone brought to sell her body is not simply guilty of intimidation; he or she is part of a complex, specific system which society has come to acknowledge as harmful and oppose - sometimes, not nearly enough. When we focus on women or youths' victimization, yes, it is essential to have rape and assault recognized as such. But if and when we come to focus on their assaulters and exploiters, it is necessary to be clear about their specific crimes and the context they have built around it. Which is why it makes no sense - except for their interests - to lump exploiters and the exploited together in across-the-board decriminalization.
Different strokes for different folks. Or as Tommy Paine often puts it: "One Law for the Ox and Lion is Oppression." (William Blake)
Since this thread is almost long enough to close, I'm going to close it and redirect everyone to this thread, where we can continue the discussion on prostitution laws.