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
That can apply to employer and employee, but sex work does not fall into this categorization for the majority (remember, that 80% here by choice, indoor workers, left other lucrative employment to do this instead, and so on. a million reasons as many as people doing the work, not a statistic or an assumption). Sex workers are owner-operator, self employed, for the most part, including the street workers after all. More lawyer-client than a power differential. The lawyer depends on the client to pay the rent, but they are not defined by the client, nor do they feel less worthy than the client even tho it is the client who decides to engage their services.
Rather than make assumptions based on dubious news stories (see susan davis's comments on her words being grossly misquoted and misinterpreted elsewhere) and movies and so on, if anyone really wants to know something, just ask. If you have a question that you would like many (like dozens or a hundred or so) to comment on, I will forward your query in the appropriate areas to get their POV and come back and let you know. Just as I did when I asked and 126 indoor sex workers replied to let us all know that the under 18 age "statistic" is grossly misrepresented in public reports. Actual figures based on survey put the % of those who started sex work under 18 at less than 16% -- an overwhelming 84% were all over 18. A surprising over 16% started at 35+.
All of those surveyed spoke for themselves. Some work via mps, most independently or with a colleague for safety. None forced, none trafficked, none feel unworthy, most feel empowered and love what they do, many feel that their self-esteem is higher after they started than before. You can ignore the facts, or adapt to them, as you wish, when forming opinions. But I will take issue when someone who has no real experience makes an assumption based more on what they should think about sex work rather than what actually occurs.
I should also say, a big thanks for the concern and consideration people have for the street workers and beyond. That I would prefer that the needs of these women and men be your main focus, and not whether or not tomatoes are coming out of my vagina.
....drew the parallel snert by likening the use of the words "ejaculation response" or "vagina" to the use of the word "spawn" for "child"
Indeed, your point had everything to do with stating to women that perhaps we had no right to use the word vagina in respect to commodification of penus access to it. Apparently had no problem with the use of the word "mouth".
I didn't see snert's post as even remotely offensive nor referring to women using the word vagina.
whom was he referring to using it then?
Surrogacy for money is not legal in Canada, neither are the sale of eggs or sperm. Not a valid comparison.
we are talking prostitution, and not workers in non-genital contact activities.
choice is relative.......
not that it matters, because really of concern with me is the status of all women....
i love this....
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/ickaprick/2009/11/real-work-sex-work
Yes, it is a warm fuzzy feel good piece, isn't it?
however, body massages are skin to skin, not genital/mouth/hand to genital....
having partaken in both areas of contact several times in my life, I understand the 2 cannot be confused as the same...even though some apparently are trying.
I don't think the comparison between physiotherapy or massage therapists and prostitution holds, given the power and social location of phsyiotherapists/massage therapists in comparison to most women forced into prostitution through lack of options.
Also, this article is written from the point of view as someone who makes the comparison between what the services offered might look like, as a recipient. It strikes me as the author is saying, "It feels so good that I can relate to the people who purchase prostitution services". I doubt any of us here don't get that men who purchase sex feel good as a result, otherwise what would be the point? Is that the measure of whether women are better or worse off through complete decriminalization?
Thanks for the link to the article Susan.
Women have a right to choose what they will do with their bodies.
We most certainly do in leisure time pursuits...and when there is an actual choice available....or a choice that is not skewed by an overwhelming foucus on patriarchial privilege.
Once again, women have a right to chose what they do with their bodies regardless of whether or not you think their choices are skewed by patriarchy, this argument reminds me of the abortion debate in that within that debate there was one side that clearly thought they should have the right to choose for all women.
I don't know how meaningful the concept of choice is when you're addicted to drugs and have no other way to feed your addiction.
Hmmm, doesn't remind me of that at all, actually, and again I go back to actual choices, that ECE women do not have to make...
....am reminded of the reality that feminists recognize that one act of violence against women, like that which is coming up in less than a month, is an act of violence against all women.
And about the reality that when a man murders/batterers his wife/partner/girl friend it is an act of violence that benefits all men in a patriarchial society.
Who gets to decide who is making a free choice and who is making a choice out of desperation? It seems like you have decided that you do and within your decision no one else has a valid right to even suggest that some women might have a right to disagree. LOL
I have heard no-one say that they support women being forced into being sex workers.
As to this idea that every sex act that takes place between a sex worker and client is an act of violence it is disrespectful of the voices we have heard here say clearly that it is not. Perhaps the world is more complex than your view, perhaps you could treat the sex workers who have spoken here in favor of sex work as truthful and respect that they are speaking from actual experience.
How about the sex worker herself? Does she even get a say?
Yes, I believe that the drug addicted, while addicted, do not have the capacity to exercise free will. I said nothing about anyone having or not having a right to disagree. Try to stick to arguing what people actually say.
Can we have a new rule? Can we only use LOL if the writer actually laughed out loud? It's got to be the most obnoxious internet mechanism around.
We've also heard selling sex referred to as practicing love (or a similar phrasing). Doesn't make it accurate.
Sure, it's perfectly possible that Susan Davis and some others absolutely love their work. So what? I'm sure you could find some telemarketers who love their work. The fact is both industries are a blight.
Have you read my posts? What do you mean, "How about the sex worker herself?" I find it offensive that you insinsuate that I am not listening to all the voices expressed. I have said no woman should be forced into sex work, is that not clear enough for you? Is that how you think you win arguments?
If you feel that strongly perhaps you could put some energy into a thread on telemarketing. .
As to LOL, hey sorry you find it all so offensive but believe me I am laughing. I have to laugh or I would be cursing or crying at your absolute unwillingness to even entertain the idea that you don't know it all. So enjoy your point of view, I won't be wasting my time engaging in this thread any longer.
No, I win arguments by falsely attributing opinions to my opponents, claiming to find humour in the patently unfunny, and then leaving in a flounce when I'm not being engaged on the terms that I decree. I call it the Debating Trifecta and it's a beauty.
LOL
Full quote that shows the context and your distortion. Perhaps it is not clear to you that you misrepresented me when you said, "How about the sex worker herself?" Now either you aren't reading my posts or are incapable of comprehending that I can be opposed to any women forced into sex work and still support the women who choose it.
Ennir, I was thinking about this all day today, because for the life of me I cannot get over this need to control women's vagina's and sex. I thought immediately of the abortion debate. I think that is an excellent analogy.
And G.Pie, we have been listening to sex workers voices here. I'm not sure who you think Susan, fortunate and a few others are or do, but they are stating they do it by choice. I chose to believe them. Maybe you chose to think you know what is better for them . I do not.
As to your drug addict reference above, think about what you have said there...that someone defined a a "drug addict" (a woman) does not have the capacity to make her own decisions and again, I am floored by the infantilizing of women in that statement and in almost all these threads.
Who defines who is a "drug addict"? You? men? Society? Who? And who are you to say that someone who does drugs does not have the capacity to consent? AA and NA considers anyone an addict who screws up once under the influence. Are methadone users addicts? And again, because they may be addicted the state has a right to step in and control them because they, according to you, have no capacity to think for themselves?
I think this is going way too far into state control, morality and an intense focus on women's sexuality. I am not the state I do not want anymore intrusions by the state into my private life or the lives of women.
Even more puzzling to me are those who appear to think it would be impossible for a woman to enjoy having sex and get paid for it.
I still have yet to hear how the abolitionists side would protect women? From themselves only? Because that is what I am getting from some of the comments here. How about focusing on the actual reality? Do you think criminalizing women further will be a good move? I want an honest answer, because that is exactly what abolition does. It makes women criminals. It destroys their home lives, puts their children in jeopardy of being wards of the state, it strips women of autonomy over their own bodies.Prostitution is NOT going to stop because you wish it would. Believe it or not, it is a viable work option for many women. Not just drug addicted street walkers. It helps pay for school, puts food in their mouths and allows them to set their own hours.
We have repeatedly said that exploited women need help - exit strategies, economic opportunities, daycare, drug or other counselling, yet you guys go far beyond this. You want the choice taken away from women in sex work who chose to do this.
I see we have gotten pretty much no where on this debate.
and remind, you were for decrim prior. What tripped you over to the abolitionist side?
Thank you for your post Stargazer, I agree.
here, here stargazer! and ennir!!!!
This sounds like libertarianism at its finest - perhaps you can clarify if that's not what's meant.
I don't think anyone's disputing the likelihood that some women enjoy having sex and getting paid for it and certainly, I don't see anyone rejecting that position from the women on this board who do so. The objection is that many women who are getting paid for sex do not have the power to control their circumstances like the women who post here do, for any number of reasons. So, the dispute is over whether or not is accurately portrays all (or even most) women's experience.
Not wanting to speak for other participants on this thread but I have made it clear that decriminalizing women who get paid for sex is the position I take. I don't see how that translates into making women criminals or puts them at risk of losing their children, or strips them of autonomy over their bodies.
In my view, in the absence of those programs already in place, full decriminalization or legalization removes the true choices from those who are trapped. Once properly set-up and funded programs are operating, then the women who remain are truly the ones making the choice from a place of freedom.
Nowhere meaning that those of us who don't support full decrim haven't been persuaded that this is a good move for marginalized women or, in fact, all women? I think it's an argument put forward by the privileged to absolve us of our responsibility to each other, myself.
No, I stated quite clearly that I do believe them. I don't think, however, that they represent the majority.
While you're under the influence of your addiction, you don't enjoy capacity to make your own decisions. Just like when you're insane you don't. Rail against what you call this infantilizing all you want but you're not going to change the cold, hard, scientific and legal facts.
It's not a difficult concept. A drug (or alcohol) addict is somehow who continues to use whatever substance in such quantity and with such frequency that their life becomes dysfunctional. If you're buying crystal meth and, as a consequence, you can't afford to feed yourself adequately, you're a drug addict.
The criteria isn't "doing drugs." It's being a drug addict.
Never been a fan of the twelve steppers, myself.
Yes, of course. The advantage of methadone, however, is that you don't have to sell yourself or rob someone to get it. It's provided to you because society recognizes that it's harm reduction.
Never said they couldn't think for themselves. I'm saying if you're needing to support a $200 a day heroin habit, your "choice" to get that $200 via prostitution isn't really a choice at all. It's a biological necessity that will never end until you break your addiction.
Who thinks it's impossible? I haven't seen anyone claim that.
I think a good move would be shutting the sex trade down. That's my honest answer.
shutting it down......what job do you propose we do? where are the livable wages for women? has poverty evaporated? this idea is the reason things are as messed up as they are.
Any legal thing that you choose to do for a living.
I suspect they're everywhere. Full-time work at minimum wage will buy you a modest though adequate apartment in many, many towns across Canada.
Did anyone say it had?
Right. It's the people who hate the sex trade who are fucking our society up.
What would it matter if I were a libertarian? I'm not sure why this is a focus of yours. I'm actually pro choice and pro women's rights. That doesn't make me a libertarian and if it did does that somehow discredit me? Why the need to pigeonhole me? Is that for your benefit? How does it help you or me?
There were a lot of people who inferred, assumed and stated that Susan and those who choose sex work just didn't know what they were doing. I'm am not going to pull all those quotes out of the many many threads we've now how on this topic.
Loretta, you're no an abolitionist. so my post was not directed at you.
All of those strategies are already in place. How many groups who are against decrim have come on here with their outlined projects, ones that are already in place. Let's not pretend that there are no resources for women who are exploited, we have a long way to go but there are many organizations out there right now who assist women in getting off the streets. The project susan and others are working on would further enhance these programs. I see that as a positive.
I am privileged now? Thanks. I'll have to check my bank account, my background and my current living situation. I had no idea I was privileged or elitist. You know nothing of me and I will not disclose anything else personal on babble. If you've been here long enough then you know I am far from privileged. I resent that only "privileged" people can somehow take the position I am. BTW, I'll bet you dollars for donuts that you hhave far more privilege than myself, so let's not go there okay? It is insulting really and makes your argument look weak.