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
quotes or not, the ends do not justify the means....i appreciate that it was unintential though. thankyou.
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.
wow, .....yup....you nailed it on the head.....that's exactly what it is....a glossed over version of what is "really"happening and a remind....it's mrs.....i know you may find it hard to fathom but i am married.
if we were all abused as children, then it stands to reason our parents were either diddling us or were so bad of a parents that they allowed us to be abused....it is a very slanted perspective that dinishes us as all damaged goods.
how is the international carter of human rights non sensical? are you suggesting we don't qualify? are we not human beings and citizens of this country? you can not seriously believe your arguement about the rights of one group out weighing anothers rights...that is indefensible to use your own words. the charter specifically states that no provivions within are intended to superceed the rights of one group over another.
i am a middle/ upper class daughter......? what makes you think middle/upperclass daughters are not sex workers? just because you are upper/middle class does not make you imune to falling into poverty, facing challenges in your life....
your othering of sex workers as some seperate sub class that just somehow materialized from some other world is outrageous.until you all stop trying to paint us all with one brush, you will never truely accept us as human beings. why is it so hard to accept that sex industry workers are as diverse in back ground as any other community? were all women abused as children? i mean c'mon.
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.
i agree, we should be working towards better choices for all, but in the meantime while we try to eradicate poverty does it not make sense to stabilize peoples safety? or are you subscribing to the idea that no matter the cost- in terms of human lives- we must move forward and pretend as if we WILL eradicate poverty and to hell with those caught in the middle?
no comments on the coop, or the links to data i provided you? or the idea of a sex workers first customer being a sink or swim situation?
my statement were ment to adress remind in the post you are referencing. i answered your post above. what about comments on our industry association and occupational health and safety training? policy procedure reforms for systems in charge of our protection? the fact that WCB recognizes us as workers?
what about the system wide reforms needed to adress barriers facing us that will be necessary no matter the outcome....sweden or decrim?
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.
... because?
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".
Unionist, what remind said, "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?
Doesn't it reinforce the notion that every sperm is not sacred? My take on the "every sperm is sacred notion" is that ejaculation should only occur with hetero, married sex with no birth control.
Could you definite "leisure time ejaculations"? This does not even mention or imply that any commerce is involved? As long as there is CONSENT, the state has no business saying anything about what adults do sexually in their leisure time - male or female.
There are human rights involved. It is the right of a an adult to make decisions about her own body with a consenting adult. As long as the adult she or he is hoping to consent to sexual acts with is criminalized - then she may as well be too.
remind: 2,000 years? The human species is a lot older than that and I would say patriarchal control goes back to the beginning.
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.
I have stated this elsewhere that this would be the model I prefer, since I believe it best reflects the charter right of women's equality. There is no right to have sex nor is there a right to contract for it.
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 would have to disagree with this, since Prostitution is legal in this country, by definition people in this country over the age of 18 have a right to contract for it.
The swedish model of criminalizing the client has been proven elsewhere, by the Swedish government and police services themselves, to have failed in its intent. Why not choose something that actually gets the results you desire, if what you desire is to make life easier for street workers with drug and past abuse histories? I think, because those issues have little or nothing to do with prostitution per se, and the solutions are unrelated to that work.
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?
Loretta, this question has been addressed several times elsewhere. Non-consensual sex is assault, and we have other laws that can prevent the state from pressuring anyone into sex work. We don't even need to mention sex work: no one is required to volunteer for assault.
I can hardly believe you wrote that. The Charter doesn't say you have a right to eat or take a pee either.
No one bestows rights upon anyone else. We have rights by virtue of being human beings. The Charter is there to make sure that no one attempts to take those away from us.
If you are a human being, you eat, excrete, and like all other animals associate freely with other human beings. You need food, clothing, and shelter. The Charter doesn't single out most of those basic functions, although it does guarantee freedom of association, which, again, is a basic animal function, and it would be a pretty horrific society that denied it. (There have been such societies, unfortunately.)
Our animal life precedes all law, and all democratic codifications begin with a recognition of that fact. One of the great glories of animal life is to curl up with another living body of one's choice, and it would be an ugly tyranny that presumed to interfere with that choice and that joy.
Och, Rousseau -- where are you now that we really need you? *cue chorus of "Born Free"*
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".
These have been discussed ad nauseum as to why they harm the sex worker and no one else by preventing her from working specifically in ways that are safer (like from home, which is considered a "bawdy house" or with security which is considered "living off the avails" or with family (also "living off the avails"). How anyone can think that the solicitation laws do not affect the sex worker, particularly the street sex worker, in a negative and harmful way is ludicrous. How can it be better to jump into a car and drive away from the street to discuss rates and services (which, by the way is perfectly legal to do unless you are standing on the street). So instead, you would have her get into the car with someone she has no opportunity to talk to with for a bit, to judge his character or seriousness, to find out even if he is prepared to spend what she is charging.
Let us suppose that your miner goes to work, uncertain as to whether or not he will actually get sent into the mine today, and when he does, only then does he get a chance to tell them what kind of a wage he had in mind, then they tell him, well, since you are here anyway, why don't we pay you half of what you want and see what happens?
And, btw, ignoring the fact that susi's organization has spent a lot of time, energy and thought into coming up with regulations and work standards is pretty insulting. Just proves my point. Posting without actually reading enough to make a direct comment on the post being commented on
Essentially, you are saying sex workers do not deserve or merit regulations and unions, etc, due solely to the nature of their choice to work in this legal occupation. Well, many, as I say, are self employed so unions would not apply, but on the other hand when the absolute minimum fee for this sort of work is at least 50/hr, you might have a hard time lobbying for high wages. Working conditions in massage parlours, or through agencies, yes. There would be a lot of support for that, because currently there is no real regulation and an agency can dip into a workers earnings through the intial percentage of the call, then charge extra for drivers, advertising, and fine the worker for being late, not showing up, and so on. Such fees could be more reasonable than what they are, for sure. Perhaps you should be working for this, instead of trying to increase unemployment stats.
I do appreciate however that you said used "most" rather than "all" when referring to those who aspire to be prostitutes. You would be surprised at how many actually did aspire to these, when younger or choosing it at a later age after serious consideration. Yes, some people do aspire to this. It can be glamorous, it can allow people the freedom to pursue other interests, it can simply be that they enjoy men and sex. Last time I checked, there was nothing sinister about being in touch with one's own sexuality, as an adult.
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
Exactly Loretta...
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.
Yep....beneath all the spin and rhetoric that is exactly what they are saying...too secret, too much to demand that men be accountable for their actions and body excretions as if somehow it is, and they are special. and above all things......in a normal work place scenario.
and denying that it would set up a "he said she said" situation for sexual assaults to boot...is mind boggling
there is a reason why feminists have succeeded in getting prostitution recognized as violence against women....
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?
How does one discuss (negotiate) with another that cannot ???
Is this not restraint of trade ?
One minus one equals zero, that is the intent, correct ?
Refering to the title of this thread,
I am a feminist.
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?
Last job I applied for, We discussed wages, hours etc. I CHOSE to accept.
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...
There is something about describing women in this way that is disturbing to me, disturbing because it is a stereo-type and I don't think any of the women here presenting themselves as sex workers in any way reflect that, rather I find intelliigent women who are stating clearly that they are making a free choice.
I wonder why that is so difficult to accept, certainly as society we are twisted regarding initmacy thanks to a lot of negative conditioning but I don't think it is that. I think it is because when we buy into the idea that we are powerless, that we have been victimized then we don't acknowledge our own power and responsibility.
I found some years ago that I diverged from what seems to have become dogma in some feminist circles when I realized that the most powerful people in my life were women and that men were equally imprisoned and in a way that seemed to limit them far more than I found women to be limited.
I began to ask myself why women were so determined to demonstrate their equality by proving they could do what men could do rather than celebrating the fact that women give birth which no man is capable of. It seemed to me that by referencing our success in regards to the definitions men had made we were trading our true power for well, for what, for what men have made of the world, not for me.
I wonder that any woman who calls herself a feminist can tell another that she is not, that seems the very antithesis of respecting of women.
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