sex workers voices .......

One would be deluding oneself by dismissing as a hoax the possibility of being forced by a government employment agency to accept a job in prostitution. The original article - a solid analysis - published in anything but a "tabloid", or their standards are way higher than ours - makes it clear that this would be entirely possible and legal in countries where full decrimininalization is implemented.

Quote: "...since January 1, the legal landscape has changed: in accordance with the reasonableness / means testing requirements for unemployment benefits, it is theoretically possible that women could be referred to serious bordellos, not only to serve on their supporting staff, but also to work as prostitutes."

The incorrect information was that this had in fact already happened, but the possibility remains logical and real nonetheless. As the author puts it: "Legally, there is no minimum standard of reasonableness for job announcements. Employment agencies are imposing limits on themselves - for now."

ETA: Of course, people (mostly women and youths) are forced into prostitution all the time, it just hasn't been documented that they have so by a govt agency, yet.

martin, you're not making sense. To consent to sex work, one has to consent. Susan Davis does, and makes clear with every post that that's what she's talking about.

No government can order anyone to consent -- consent cannot be ordered, by definition.

This whole line of argument seems disingenuous to me, Martin.

Having collected EI benefits when they were UI benefits, I would suggest your argument is dystopian. I think Unionist is correct when he says this sidebar detracts from any argument you are trying to make.

Does Canada deny you EI if you decline to join the forces and go kill people in Afghanistan (a "lawful" activity, supposedly)?

Bad example. It CAN not only do so but also throw my sorry ass in jail via the draft whenever it chooses to reinstitute it.

I think class and race privilege gets in your eyes, folks...

Snert, even Unionist can acknowledge that we were discussing what could happen.

Oh that is TFF, considering the poor and disadvantaged are the ones who actually go into the military in the majority, because they have no other opportunities. So...much like prostitution, some white middle class people think it is a wonderful opportunity to give the poor and marginalized a leg up, they get to go into professions where the odds of them dying is pretty fucking significant, compared to most every other job.

Tough jobs but someone has to do them....I siuppose, if we want to keep the status quo patriarchy classist privilege alive.

Patriarchial classism makes for such wonderful analysis in the feminist forum..

Agreed. Both in Vancouver and Montreal, abolitionist coalitions are steered and led by the experiences of currently and formerly prostituted women.

"deny agency"

Oh yes, I agree, we are denying them, those others, agency by not supporting their right, to be forced into the only "employment" opportunity they have.

"people free themselves"

Oh yes, I agree, there has never ever been an instance where freedom from oppression has occured, with any help from anyone else to achieve it.

In fact, I can clearly see that being an activist, on any front is a waste of time and resources, because activism for others has never helped anyone, ever.

you are correct, laws are not standing in our way.

Well, you certainly did not convey this with everything you wrote deploring them these past months...

So susan, what you are looking for then is public money, to start a project geared only to meet men's, mainly white privileged men's, sexual pleasures?

As you have now stated, the laws, the way they stand now, are not a hinderance to your activities.

Susan Davis wrote, about Lee Lakeman, at the end of the "Dominant Culture, Feminism..." thread,

post #19 in this thread. you state 80% of indoor workers are trafficked and alude to all sex workers being survivors of abuse....

No, she did not, as anyone can verify. In a way, it's reassuring that Susan apparently has to systematically misquote her opponents.

In reponse to my own post, she wrote:

are you stating that active sex workers are a part of the abolition coalitions?

Yes.

are you not trying help them exit?

Yes, according to their own agenda.

are you allowing their harm to continue? what you stated makes no sense. ex workers, ok but current active sex workers?

Read it and weep: There are current active sex workers among abolitionists.

Susan, I stated I was on the edge of deciding where to put my "yea". It is not being "all over the map".

And stop putting words in my mouth, I did not say it was "dirty evil men", you do your cause a great disservice by resorting to slander and smears.

Surely you are not trying to state that the preponderance of people utilizing front line sex workers, here in Canada, are not white males?

Plain common sense indicates otherwise, even if there were no statistics backing this up.

Please do see this post of mine.

After much thought, about all parameters, I do not believe legalizing  front line sex work, will get anyone off of the street.  In fact, it could well push more into the streets.

Society will not allow a publically endorsed job industry to happen that does not meet other workplace safety standards. Nor should it.

Frankly, the money required to set up an infrastructure soley to benefit men's sexual desires, would be better spent getting those out who want out, plus a myriad of other things. I mean just how important to society are men's sexual  and power desires?

You have already stated that the law is not blocking those who choose to do so, from doing so. So those who choose to do so, can carry on choosing to do so.

susan davis wrote:

.... it's cold and raining and will be for months. you would leave women in the street, in the pouring rain, at the mercy of the street. you make me sick. to have to shit, fuck, sleep and maybe die in the laneway.....you would leave them in the cold.....

Decriminalization does not cause a reduction in street work and has no bearing on you're opening a coop.

In Sweden, there has been a large reduction in street work.

Therefore, it would seem to be you that "would leave women in the street, in the pouring rain, at the mercy of the street. ... to have to shit, fuck, sleep and maybe die in the laneway.....you would leave them in the cold....."

That's not very nice Susan.

Unionist wrote:

skdadl wrote:

And the solution to class oppression is for white middle-class people to deny agency to the oppressed? I don't think so, remind.

 

Supporting workers' struggles means just that to me -- support. It doesn't mean leading, and it certainly doesn't mean supporting the extension of police powers in order to "protect" designated groups "for their own good." People free themselves. We should know that by now.

Yes.

Yes, I agree too, we privileged progressives, who have low job safety  risks, should be supportiing the poor, the marginalized and racialized, in "their" quest to entrench  themselves into the most high risk and shittiest job positions there are, because they do not want anything else other than to provide sexual services to the most privileged.

Why don't the sex workers who feel they're being exploited, or who dislike being sex workers, quit?

For the record, I wouldn't normally suggest such a thing, knowing that many aren't going to have a better option.  But if abolitionists want to shut down sex work entirely, then I guess they must have some options, yes?  Surely the abolitionists have a plan for what sex workers are going to be doing to earn money the day the abolitionists' wet dream comes true, and white men start going to jail for trying to pay for sex.

So... whatever that thing is, why don't sex workers who don't want to be sex workers just go do that right now?  Why wait?

Edited to add:  y'know what totally fascinates me about these threads?  The so-called "pro-prostitution" crowd (I guess we're like "pro-abortion" supporters) keep suggesting the possibility of allowing sex workers by choice to do as they choose, and helping those who don't want to be sex workers. 

But that's not good enough.  No amount of support is good enough.  The only thing, evidently, that could possibly be good enough is for WHITE MEN TO GO TO JAIL.  And nobody has the courage to just stand up and say it.  That's why we need a "one size fits all" solution like total abolition.  To only help those who need help would risk the possibility that some man might still be able to pay for sex!  Nevermind if the sex worker is OK with it, because the abolitionists are seeing red over the mere thought!  What if he's smirking?!!!?!  What if he liked it!!!!

I'm throwing down.  I challenge an abolitionist to put their cards on the table.  You don't just want to help women, you want to punish men.  Admit it.  Let's get down to a real discussion.

Snert wrote:

Why don't the sex workers who feel they're being exploited, or who dislike being sex workers, quit?

For the record, I wouldn't normally suggest such a thing, knowing that many aren't going to have a better option.  But if abolitionists want to shut down sex work entirely, then I guess they must have some options, yes?  Surely the abolitionists have a plan for what sex workers are going to be doing to earn money the day the abolitionists' wet dream comes true, and white men start going to jail for trying to pay for sex.

So... whatever that thing is, why don't sex workers who don't want to be sex workers just go do that right now?  Why wait?

Edited to add:  y'know what totally fascinates me about these threads?  The so-called "pro-prostitution" crowd (I guess we're like "pro-abortion" supporters) keep suggesting the possibility of allowing sex workers by choice to do as they choose, and helping those who don't want to be sex workers. 

But that's not good enough.  No amount of support is good enough.  The only thing, evidently, that could possibly be good enough is for WHITE MEN TO GO TO JAIL.  And nobody has the courage to just stand up and say it.  That's why we need a "one size fits all" solution like total abolition.  To only help those who need help would risk the possibility that some man might still be able to pay for sex!  Nevermind if the sex worker is OK with it, because the abolitionists are seeing red over the mere thought!  What if he's smirking?!!!?!  What if he liked it!!!!

I'm throwing down.  I challenge an abolitionist to put their cards on the table.  You don't just want to help women, you want to punish men.  Admit it.  Let's get down to a real discussion.

What a wonderful edit, as it shows what a fiucking asshat you are.

Keep up the good work. Always refreshing when someone indicates clearly what they are.

Snert wrote:

I wasn't really expecting any humble epiphanies.  But now I've named the game.

What a complete and utter asshat you are, you have named sfa but your own twisted logic and sense of privilege and entitlement.

susan davis wrote:

i missed nothing, where are the jobs and retraining programs? no where. one org works on exiting strategies in vancouver and it does not provide an opportunity to make money and it is not rape relief.

Oh so I see, advocating for livable guaranteed annual income, drug rehab access, funding for skills development, anti-racist policies, are not exit strategies.

But your coop is.

Quote:

you give these organizations more credit than they deserve.

No, I do not think so..

Quote:

what does happen however is a revolving door effect, women are left facing extreme poverty living on welfare and end up back in the sex industry even though they wish to exit, are possibly hurt or assaulted or killed and end up back in the shelter bed....let the cycle continue!!!

Your coop is not going to end the revolving door for those who want out, so I do not see why you are trashing those, whom you say are part of the revolving door.

What is going to end it, is public will driving humane social policies. It says much that people can force the government to keep their internet rights secure in a matter of hours, but cannot get the governments to do anything for the poor and mariginalized.

Snert wrote:

I'm throwing down.  I challenge an abolitionist to put their cards on the table.  You don't just want to help women, you want to punish men.  Admit it.  Let's get down to a real discussion.

Lets do get down to a real discussion. That means listening to the arguments presented and dealing with them not throwing out strawdog arguments.  I do not want to punish men.  I happen to love men as a group though not each and every one of them.

We don't let migrants come here to work for 40$ a week and a place on someone's kitchen floor. They may think that is a great option compared to their current situation but in Canada we call that exploitative. The women currently working as prostitutes or sex workers are not the only ones to consider. We must also consider the possible rise in workers that would lead to greater numbers of women being forced into prostitution. If a majority of prostitutes are WOC then we must examine the racism inherent in large numbers of minority women being imported to serve the sexual desires of white men in ways that the majority of white women are unwilling to do.

If prostitutes were having sex willingly, for pleasure, they wouldn't require payment.  Not providing men with extra women to have sex with is not "punishing" men. It's called equality. A society where men and women have sex for the same reason, it feels good.

I've had a good weekend or two in my day and even with excellent lubricants there are limits. That's why prostitutes use numbing agents and various drugs to kill the pain.  A woman's body was not constructed to be used like that hour after hour, day after day, by an endless succession of men.

Finally, there are civilizations that did not have prostitution. Not all societies have a subclass of women that the men pass around for sexual pleasure.

susan davis wrote:

i can tell you from first hand experience, you are right...it's not very nice. but it's the truth and while people sit around talking about it people die. i am angry and sorry if it comes out in bad language but i will not apologize for my resolve to protect workers forced into these dangerous conditions by uninformed actions taken against us. my friends are dead. their names do not appear on any list because their bodies were found. or who died from disease or exposure, yes freezing to death in the laneway...we must work outside are forced to entertain clients in public view, have no where to wash ourselves between clients and our assaults and murders are unimportant and unsolved... businesses and residents throw things at us and we are an easy target.

Then why won't you support solutions that will get these women off the street?  You are not protecting workers by blocking the only solution that has worked.

Until we follow Sweden's example women will continue dying and yet all you can think of is some coop idea that you don't have the money for.

The Sweden solution is the ONLY model that has successfully reduced street work.