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
I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but like many others I do have friends and acquaintances who have been in the business, and have seen people driven to work in dangerous and difficult circumstances, sometimes by policies that were designed to "clean up" the problem.
I think the first and main concern has to be harm reduction. If in some circumstances that means allowing it to happen in exchange for better safety, it certainly seems better than having more people murdered, raped, assaulted and robbed.
Most of us recognise harm reduction as a better policy than a war on drugs when it comes to addiction.
Of course the issues surrounding the sex trade are different in some ways, but whatever one's moral stance on them, I would argue that they are similar in that neither is going away anytime soon.
Protect these workers. Dudes, i work where I have to. I wish I could be a prostitute. How much for my ass taste?
DP
you are not a looser revolution please, thanks for sharing. it takes alot of balls to put that out here, thankyou. solidarity!!!
love susie
like the savlavtion army....?let's not go there... what often? please justify these statements that have been proven to be exaggerations over and over again. where were the 40,000 women and girls to be trafficked in vancouver for the olympics? still no apology from the aboltionists who protested human trafficking, demanded police action, incited a series of raids, drove migrant sex workers under ground and ultimately resulted in the murders of 3 sex industry workers and countless deportations.
i like how the "anti trafficking" recovery house the sally ann fund raised for in the olympic trafficking panic was actually beds in a recovery house shared with men fresh out of prison and on the edge of the DTES, in direct conflict with the recommended treatment and supports for victims of human trafficking.
one fundraiser was a cooperate luncheon type deal at the point grey gold and country club i believe it was, you know the kind, $300 a plate/$3000 per corpoate table. benjamin perrin spoke.
i estimate they raised $80,000.00 at that one event. enough money incidently to pay core costs for all 3of the core sex worker support services with in vancouvers (growing) continuum of services for a year.
they bragge all the time about how they were the only human trafficking victim recovery space. even at one point on television declaring "yup, we've go them!!" as if they had successfully rescued and protected the droves of exploited women
rape crisis centers are not equipped to deal with or even reach human trafficking victims, sorry but they're not. we need to listen to the organizations who work with migrant sex workers and find way to support them and empower them with rights. we cannot afford to make thhese decisions in a reactionary way, people die. if we want tosupport migrant workers, let's ask them what they need.
i want to say though how important rape crisis centers are and even though we do not agree on these issues, the work they do is critical to the safety of women and is definitely appreciated.
While tempers get a little heated, I want to remind people that respect is essential in these discussions, or else there's not much point in having them. I also want to remind babblers that in the "Sex Worker Rights" forum, the lived experience of sex workers needs to be respected, whether or not you subscribe to abolition or protected decriminalization. With that in mind this:
is not respectful. Sex workers are not responsible for a patriarchal society which privileges male desire and commodifies the bodies of women and men (in sex work and other work). Please try to limit these kind of hurtful and diesrespectful comments as tempers rise in a highly pitched and contentious thread.
susan, respect for abolitionists, especially with the confrontational article in the OP, needs to be part of this discussion as well. Please refrain from conflating your criticism of the abolitionist position with babblers who have expressed it in this thread (e.g. "How does your "feminist principle," focus your hatred, etc.). It makes things more difficult in an already complex and difficult thread. Thanks.
Catchfire, my comment was taken a little out of context in your post.
However, point taken. This is not the right forum, and I will bow out of the thread.
I would like to note, however, that babble has, in setting up this forum, created a nasty identity-politics, first-principles feedback loop. Some of what's said here - that babble has invited, in fact - can be easily construed as anti-feminist.
I agree (well, with the second part, and perhaps the underlying meaning of the first). It is an intersectional topic which covers some highly fraught, highly contested ground. I don't want you to bow out of this discussion, although I understand the impulse, but this is not a "safe" topic. It's one that is really on the edge of feminist, anti-capitalist, anti-poverty discourse. So it's important that these discussions are happening. I think that the only way we can continue them (and this is of course true throughout babble, but it seems much mroe urgently true here) is by respecting each other's lived position and experience--otherwise it can only devolve into a screaming match.
My turn to weigh in with my HONEST opinions so please don't crucify me which ever side of the issue you are on.
I am against human trafficking...this segment of the sex trade is not voluntary, it involves mostly underage girls and has much violence and degredation, is much akin to the slave trade back in the 1700's using tactics like kidnapping and torture.
I am for educated, capable women who make a voluntary personal choice to use their bodies to make money if they decide to, it is unfortunate that most of our society treats these ladies with absolutely no respect and criminalizes their personal choices. I happen to think they are much more honest and forthright than most yet lots of people would have them walk in shame.
As for the abolishonist feminists, they should really not be quite so angry that other women have different opinions on taking control of their lives. I see such hypocrisy in their standards, they wish to empower women, but if they don't agree with someone's method of empowering themselves these feminists degrade and vilify them, this helps nobody on either side of the argument.
Hopefully, though I know some will not like my views, you will all accept them as my views and not yours.
fyi - I have used the services of a prostitute once when I was much, much younger and I don't know if it was her choice or not to be in the trade. I'm sorry that I never considered if she was or wasn't forced but I was certainly far from ethical and educated at age 18.
"Ladies"? Really? What about men in the industry, Nick?
And is the fact that some men here have used prostitutes relevant to anything at all in this thread? What is the purpose of this information?
Men would also be included in the priciples of my statements.
Hello,
Of course sex trade workers should have rights and protections. Of course sex trade workers should not be ashamed of who they are or what they do.
However, I'm having a little difficulty buying the argument that working in the sex trade is some how "empowering." Selling one's labour is in no way empowering. It is degrading - no matter what the industry.
In addition to selling their labour, sex trade workers sell also their physical body. Double alienation! Sex trade workers therefore have no control over the speed, tempo, rythm or content of their work - the buyer determines all this -, nor do they have control of their own physical body. Both their labour and their body become the property of the john.
In other words, the sex trade is no more than (semi) voluntary slavery - like any other wage labour. Nothing to glorify.
And Susie, I think you may have misunderstood the earlier "used condom" comment. Of course the poster was not trying to say that sex trade workers are like used condoms. I think it is fair to assume that a very large percentage of "johns" see the women whose bodies they are willing to buy like any other item for sale - something to be thrown away when no longer of any use.
I'm not going to tell you how to live your life, but glorifying sex trade work is glorifying the commodification of labour and of the human body, and the proletarian condition generally. As a socialist, I whole heartedly disagree with you.
I can agree with this analysis.
Gross. But true. It shouldn't be so. Perhaps, strange,
Interestingly put.
I rather think this is Susan's point. The buyer has all the power because there are no legal protections for workers in the sex trade as there are for other trades. This would not be the case if the law protected sex workers more. One could say the same about a sweat shop worker who is in the country illegally. No legal protections means no power over the nature and safety of their work.
Well put J^2
thankyou everyone for comments and i agree that we need to talk these things through. some very interesting points are being made here.
i just want to once again adress the used condom comment and why it upsets me so much. first, it's just insultingin general but also it assumes that this is how the men feel. they don't finish with me and throw me away. some of my customers have been my friends for almost 20 years. that's longer than many relationships in this day and age.
it assumes the interaction is soley about blowing a load and does not take into account the intimacy exchanged, the friendships created or the vulnerablities adressed.
we as a society hold men up as the bread winners, strong with no weakness. any emotion or vulnerability is seen as weakness. i understand the sentiments about patriarchy but that analysis ignores individual men and the pressures they face trying to live up to societies expectations.
in my interactions wit my customers, not always but mostly men, over the last 25 years i have experienced men who felt they were above me or were so self centered that they were uncontrolable during the session,ignoring my boundaries. however, they are by no stretch the majority.
the majority of men i have known show genuine appreciation and gratitude for my friendship. people buy me gifts, write me poetry, have photograped, drawn and painted me and sometimes even phone me after years to tell me how i changed their lives, giving them the confidence and strength to move forward after devastating events in their lives.
it is difficult for me to see the customers in the way they are so often described. i see the individuals.
i apologize for getting all riled up and i will try to be more respectful. i just feel like we need to revisit what we mean by feminist priciples and acknowledge that to be feminist does not mean to be abolitionist. i find it very difficult to hear feminism used as an arguement against my rights when i consider myself to actually be a feminist.
also, politicalnick. your comment about being young and far from educated and ethical makes a good point.
part of our plans include wide spread, easily attainable educational materials about being a sex consumers, their health, ethical purchasing and why its important. it is our feeling that the consumers hold the key to ending exploitation in the sex industry. if we educate them on recognizing exploitation and how to report it they could have a significant impact on increasing arrests in this area. as well, if we educate the consumers and then institute a trademark to identify businesses and workers taking part in the trade secrets occupational health and safety accreditation program and who are providing safe work spaces and not trafficking or exploiting, it will become more profitable for businesses to adhere to ethics than not too.
if we criminalize the sex consumers and they risk being arrested for reporting dangerous conditions they may have witnessed, why would they report? we must not put up barriers to sex consumers reporting exploitation they see. they are seen as potential income and are welcomed into spaces we would never see. they are our biggest potential allies in ending exploitation in the sex industry. if we make them criminals, how will that help workers facing danger?
this is definitely true. i like the comparisson. places where decrim or legalization have taken place have certainly seen wages rise and control over health and safety increased.
I wouldn't mind the abolitiionists as much if they used real information to back up their exaggerated claims.
I do mind the stereotype of someone's daughters and sisters suddenly realizing "hey, sex work is something I want to do with my life' just because the anti solicitation laws are removed from impeding sex workers ability to work safely.
And I kind of object to the idea that sex work is always dangerous, that sex workers are completely under the control of their clients who have "bought" them, body and soul, which is ridiculous and stereotyping and generalizations based on absolutely no information. Just because you would feel that way when you imagine yourself doing this work, doesn't mean that it happens lol. There are very very few clients who don't understand the rules, the rules are determined by the sex worker, deciding to visit the sex worker means playing by her rules. The type of client who doesn't respect that (few and far between) are usually screened out by her in the first place and she never meets him, if he is a predator tho, he may still get thru that, and try something on. But lets face it, this is the kind of guy any woman at any time would be in danger with, not just because he is a client and she is a sex worker. If she was a tanning salon attendant, he would still be a danger to her, he's a danger to all women everywhere all the time.
If I don't feel like a slave when I am working retail, and I am "selling" my body to the employer, why should I feel like one when I am deciding what servcies I will or will not provide, and which men (or women) I will or will not see, based on how they treat me when they phone me up?
I get FAR less respect from the many commentators in this thread, fwiw, than I do from any client that I have spent time with. And that is why some women choose sex work, and are quite happy to continue. Being valued, respected and appreciated for the services provided, you can't discount that simply by the tired argument "I wouldn't want my daughters to do it". But what if the daughters are sleeping around with random men, because feminism taught them that its their body, and sex is natural, and they should do it if they want to, without regard to whether that guy respects or values what they've shared. At the end of the day, I have no problem with the majority of men (and women) I see that most of them value and appreciate the time they have spent with me, and the services as well.
There is also, in spite of the facts which have been given out to the same people over and over, the assumption that all sex workers do is straight sexual intercourse, and therefore that the vagina is for sale. I suppose, vaguely, now and again, they assume a guy is just coming for a bj? When the reality is a lot of guys that I might see have serious sexual difficulties, maybe on medications, heart conditions, etc. Intercourse in fact is not an option at all. So where are your assumptions and stereotyping, when deciding you know best about what is going on in the bedrooms of sex workers and why these men should not be able to get it, if you are continuously told over and over again, that many guys do not come for sex? What happens then? What part of the sex workers body is getting "sold" or exploited, if there is no sex involved?
Really, I am curious.
Fortunate, I can say you get a lot of respect from me. It takes a lot of courage to come on a thread where you are regularly told that your life is an act of sad desperation.
To the people attacking her, directly or theoretically, I ask you: What worker at a till or counter, or static security guard that is denied a chair isn't objectified? What worker told they can't dye their hair pink or green or blue or orange isn't objectified, their body policed without reason? What worker not using hazardous equipment, that is forced to take a drug test where they test not for intoxication but previous intoxication isn't having their body commodified, their agency denied? What's so different about a person taking a job they would otherwise not take if they had more money just because that job involves orgasms?
Just because some people feel there has to be a 1:1 correlation between sex acts and loving relationships, or who feel that money somehow cheapens the emotional bond in an experience they personally deem sacred does not allow them to project their standards onto society...
You'll note a correlation between the people who want all sex acts to be without direct monetary compensation on the grounds of authenticity and people who treat trans identities and presentation as inauthentic... better that we adhere to coercively assigned constraints and nobly starve or commit suicide, all the better to push for a living wage or somehow break down gender barriers... as though sex workers and trans people (and trans sex workers, obv... the venn diagram is implied but it's best made explicit) don't already do those things respectively, by ceasing to depress wages as part of the army of the unemployed, or rejecting the cissexist binary, even when we may, after rejecting those constraints, freely identify on the other side of that binary.
I would find it reassuring that all these paralells in tactics, silencing, control, occur... and that it's hard to find someone who spews cissexist rhetoric who doesn't also spew anti-sex-worker rhetoric, with all it's bundled misogyny and classism, and a bit of policing for those men involved too... because honestly this is what it seems about. Somehow we all taint pure womanhood with maleness. Sex workers for sleeping with men, trans people for having been coercively-assigned-men or finally presenting as men.
And honestly, they take mens' cars for engaging in a consensual act... I can hardly think of that as privileging men who buy sex. The Johns are publicly shamed frequently... this by preponderantly-male police departments... moments like these, catchfire, is where the unidirectional-sex-power hypothesis breaks solidly down.
PS: It's not just men buying and the buyers are not just buying access to vagina, but those cases will, of course, be dismissed as exceptions that prove the rule.