.__.
At the UN, Dutch try to defend abject failure of liberalization of prostitution laws
Wed, 2009-10-28 15:54
#1
At the UN, Dutch try to defend abject failure of liberalization of prostitution laws
Wed, 2009-10-28 15:56
#2
The Netherlands talks big on how their laws "protect" women in prostitution but their laws have failed miserably.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/wom1601.doc.htm
They (The UN Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women) expressed concern that 80 per cent of sex workers were foreign women, while 20 per cent were of Dutch origin, noting that foreigners often lacked the language, education and technical skills to compete for jobs in the traditional labour market.
...
The delegation shed light on that matter, noting that, according to the biennial Emancipation Monitor and police reports, more than 40 per cent of the Dutch population -– mostly women -- had experienced some level of domestic violence in their lifetime.
....
While women’s participation in the labour market had remained constant between 2002 and 2005, the participation of ethnic minority women had decreased over the same period, he said.
...
Ethnic minority women and girls were performing progressively better in education and training than their male counterparts.
...
There were 20,000 vulnerable and isolated women in the Netherlands, he said. Volunteer work could be a stepping stone for them to a paid job. A project in six municipalities encouraged ethnic minority women to do volunteer work and become active in their communities. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment financed projects aimed at 50,000 women over a three-year period.
It's easy to state what laws are on the books, what regulations exist to protect women, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. They have offered no proof at all that their laws on health or anything else have been effective in improving the lives of women in general or of prostitutes.
http://www.iog.ca/publications/2009_trafficking_of_aboriginal_women.pdf
Sherene Razack notes that media reports as far back as the 19th century “indicate that there was a near universal conflation of Aboriginal woman and prostitute.”29 It thus becomes naturalized that Aboriginal women become prostitutes, and the violence and coercion they face in this occupation become regarded as a natural consequence of being a “squaw.” Such characterizations are rife with negative images about seduction and the tempting of “good” men into dark sexuality.
Lest we think this sort of attitude is no longer prevalent:
#72 (permalink) Noah_Scape wrote: Mostly, for the men I mean - it just seems like their natural instincts are being used to control them, and to take their money from them,..
It is no surprise to me that aboriginal women's groups and minority women's groups are not in favor of decriminalizing procurement and brothels.
This does not look like the face of empowerment to me.
Wed, 2009-10-28 22:19
#3
Isn't this topic already in another forum. Shouldn't you address your concerns there to debate which point of view seems correct?
Babble tends to frown on multiple threads on the exact same topic
You might want to consult a mod
Wed, 2009-10-28 22:49
#4
remind
answer resides in this thread below for those interested.
http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/prostitution-framing-debate-decriminali...
Wed, 2009-10-28 22:54
#5
You might want to consult a mod
Pot. Kettle.
Thu, 2009-10-29 00:26
#6
Isn't this topic already in another forum. Shouldn't you address your concerns there to debate which point of view seems correct?
Babble tends to frown on multiple threads on the exact same topic
You might want to consult a mod
A mod already commented here: #2 (permalink)
I hope this will be an acceptable solution to this impasse. Everyone is welcome to discuss the issue in the feminism forum OR the sex worker rights forum, but the sex worker rights forum will be primarily from the perspective of people who have been sex workers, while the discussions in the feminism forum will be basically open to all feminist perspectives.
I don't feel comfortable in the "Sex Workers Rights" forum and I prefer a more democratic discussion "open to all feminist perspectives" so I decided to offer my thoughts here rather than in the more restricted forum. As noted by the mod you are free to participate in either thread so I don't see a problem. If you feel the need for a more protected environment it is available to you.
Thu, 2009-10-29 23:45
#7
Martin-Fuck off
Info-If a mod has commented in your favour then consider my comment withdrawn. I was unaware of that.
Fri, 2009-10-30 00:46
#8
remind
Info, when I read the report, I got this perception as well, plus a few more, that they have to report to the UN on it, says everything though in my mind...
Soon Canada may have to report on that too, inconjunction with how we have to report on our treatment of Aboriginals.
Fri, 2009-10-30 06:58
#9
Bacchus, please don't tell people to fuck off.
I guess I'm fine with this for now, even though I'm really allergic to thread proliferation. Since there appears to be an impasse on babble with regards to prostitution threads, this solution will do for now.
Fri, 2009-10-30 11:58
#10
remind
Don't see an impasse at all, 3 pr 4 prostitute voices have spoken and said the title of the forum is wrong, that it silencs them and excludes,
The 1 sex worker voice here has said she does not mind if the forum title is more inclusives, seems they are all on board for togetheness.
As I see it if there is an impasse it is babble, who apparently are rushing to silence voices and erase the lives of prostitutes, by creating a wedge in the form of a forum specifically for the one babbler, who identifies, as a front line sex worker.
This all could get really political and very public quickly, I think, if it is not addressed, as already as we can see from the prostitutes voices, they are watching closely, and are angry.
Each day that goes by, that babble chooses to disrespect their voices, after making a call out for them, means another progressive credential is lost by rabble/babble.
Fri, 2009-10-30 12:25
#11
susan davis
Don't see an impasse at all, 3 pr 4 prostitute voices have spoken and said the title of the forum is wrong, that it silencs them and excludes,
The 1 sex worker voice here has said she does not mind if the forum title is more inclusives, seems they are all on board for togetheness.
As I see it if there is an impasse it is babble, who apparently are rushing to silence voices and erase the lives of prostitutes, by creating a wedge in the form of a forum specifically for the one babbler, who identifies, as a front line sex worker.
This all could get really political and very public quickly, I think, if it is not addressed, as already as we can see from the prostitutes voices, they are watching closely, and are angry.
Each day that goes by, that babble chooses to disrespect their voices, after making a call out for them, means another progressive credential is lost by rabble/babble.
3 or 4 prostituted people said what? i saw one , trisha baptie......
i still have no problem with calling the forum- sex industry forum.
i like that there are sex workers in the forum now however. and consumers....the sex workers who have added their perspective so far do not support claims of wide spread abuse in the industry.....in fact quite the opposite.....
Fri, 2009-10-30 12:39
#12
I'm confused. You need two forums because the oppressors don't want to post in the forum that is called "sex industry workers?" Wow. And I thought we were all adults here.
Fri, 2009-10-30 14:11
#13
remind
I'm confused. You need two forums because the oppressors don't want to post in the forum that is called "sex industry workers?" Wow. And I thought we were all adults here.
You are not seriously calling prostitutes, or former prostitutes, the oppressors in this situation, are you?
Nor immature for wanting their lived experiences and voices being acknowleged?
My goodness, as a privileged sex industry business owner, your words are beyond acceptable discourse, in the feminist forum.
Fri, 2009-10-30 18:47
#14
Silencing people by deeming them too incompetent to speak for themselves is oppressive. For example, not respecting the preferred terminology of people who are working for health, safety, and the rights of sex workers on a day to day basis, in the thick of the frontlines, conducting ethical research about the needs of sex workers on the street, etc. Discriminating against people based on their occupation, is oppressive. For instance, lobbying to have all their customers criminalized; closing down strip clubs or outlawing them in certain municipalities; police raids on legitimate businesses taking the "trafficked" women out in handcuffs. Presuming to speak on behalf of all sex workers, ignoring their voices, and lobbying against safe work spaces, is oppressive. For example, former sex workers who had terrible experiences referring to all sex workers as "prostituted."
I hope to be a priveleged business owner, as I have not made a profit yet. But I admitted my business owner status as an invitation to disparage me (as I knew you would). I stand as one sex industry business owner who is not afraid of your oppressive tactics. Your words don't say anything about me. But they sure say something about you. Prejudiced.
Fri, 2009-10-30 19:17
#15
remind
Silencing people by deeming them too incompetent to speak for themselves is oppressive.
Who is doing this other than sex workers, who are not front line sex workers, and babble management? Certainly not me.
So far, 3 or 4 prostitutes, or former ones, said they would participate in discussions, but not in a forum labelled sex worker's rights.
The 1 self identified front line sex worker here stated she would be fine with a forum change name as she wanted to respect their voices.
ALL other sex worker's have rights, they do not need them ascribed, they do not need their own forum here, they have Industry Canada numbers and the full protection of the social safety net.
Happy to hear you want to be a privileged business owner. That is what this forum is all about, you have come to the right place.
Sat, 2009-10-31 11:53
#16
susan davis
3 or 4? once again....i have seen 1....trisha baptie.....
trying to diminsh annie's voice by excluding her experiences as not "front line" is ridiculous. her experiences are real and she has a valid perspective.
i am not a "self identified front line sex worker" i am a sex worker. try to show a little repsect. how many times do i have to ask? and i am not the only one here any more.
annie deserves to run a successful business and in the tradition of our industry share her knowledge and expertise with less experienced workers. you consistantly prove you know nothing of our way of life. you would have us all alone and isolated with no supprt net or community.
annie has created space for us and i for one am greatful.
Sat, 2009-10-31 13:06
#17
remind
Trisha Baptie, jmartin, Infosaturated, and another, self proclaimed prostitute stepped forwad last evening as well, was just reading the post when the hydro went out, and have been trying to find it again. And there is only you, in the "sex worker" category, as per explained parameters of what that term meant in this case of forum development.
So...not sure what you are not getting, about the sex worker's rights forum and the self identified prostitutes issues with it, nor about how those you have brought into it, really do not apply to the forum's mandate, as they already have rights under the current laws, because they do not have oral and inter-genital contact.
As such, they fill a completely different category of sex worker, and are only allies of yours, at best.
Because they are self declared business owners, in the non-contact sex industry, their voices have even less weight, as one can only see them as lobbyists, to bolster their business. And they have even said so here that that is want they want.
It is not disrespectful to indicate all of this, it is the way things are.
If you respresent others, who are independant prostitutes, why is it only legit business owners and their customers that are appearing here?
Sat, 2009-10-31 13:23
#18
susan davis
excuse me, other sex workers posted....or do you dismiss and ignore thier statements too......
Sat, 2009-10-31 16:05
#19
remind
what sex workers who engage in genital contact sex work, are posting other than you?
cookiesnscream, is a business owner, that does not enage in genital sex, thus is not a prostitute, anne is an exotic dancer by trade, she says, and a business owner, also legal, so who else would there be?
Not being difficult here, as I must have missed their posts or something, if you are indicating others.
The 2 other people who came in, were; john's, business owners (did not declare so, so unknown) or allies, as they said they were not workers in the business, but supported decrim.
Oh yes, there was that other young woman, who is an escort, with a small select cliental. Again, she indicates she is an "escort", also a legal occupation, and thus has labour rights and access to the social safety net, if she declares her earnings, and her business.
I know this seems like splitting hairs to you, but it isn't.
This is supposed to be a "sex worker's rights forum" which means according to it's mandate, it is for discussions surrounding sex worker's right's.
It is not for advertising, and commercials.
It is for sex worker's rights, all other sex work, is legal, except for that which surounds prostitution, therefore the only rights that should be being addressed are prostitute's rights.
All other forms of sex work have them.
Sat, 2009-10-31 16:11
#20
susan davis
fortunate, ingrid......?
Sat, 2009-10-31 16:23
#21
remind
Links?
Sat, 2009-10-31 19:02
#22
excuse me, other sex workers posted....or do you dismiss and ignore thier statements too......
remind has decided not to read any posts by me, as they seem to offend too much. I do find that many people get offended by my style lol, oddly enough that also includes men on the escort review boards 
I spend an awful lot of time defending the rights of sex workers to have a voice and to get the respect automatically given to any other worker, don't I? I just did not think that I would also have to do it here. 
Isn't is curious that some rude men on review boards have similar attitudes towards sex workers as some I have seen here? 
Sat, 2009-10-31 20:56
#23
susan davis
so true babe!!
Sun, 2009-11-01 11:24
#24
I do not feel I have to prove my sex work experience, or disclose the extent of it, or try to defend my right to own a business in the sex industry. I also don't consider this advertising, as I have not promoted any of the exciting things going on through the site, nor would I invite most of the commentors on here who enjoy attacking the posts of sex industry workers to the site. You are clearly unwelcome.
I'm curious - what constitutes genital contact? Would someone inserting a dildo into someone else's rectum be considered genital contact, even if that person does not directly have skin to skin contact at any time? Or is that "protected" sex work? How about shoving a dildo into your own ass, between typing on the keyboard? That's not "frontline" sex work, eh? Your comments about the rights and social supports available to non-contact sex industry workers is further proof of your ignorance. If the people who are just learning from these discussions could know what I know, they would laugh with me at the ignorance being displayed.
Sun, 2009-11-01 12:03
#25
To get back to the point, liberalization of laws in the Netherlands have failed to produce any proof of the benefits liberalization of laws were supposed to produce.
If anything, evidence points to an increase in negative outcomes.
Sun, 2009-11-01 12:08
#26
susan davis
I do not feel I have to prove my sex work experience, or disclose the extent of it, or try to defend my right to own a business in the sex industry. I also don't consider this advertising, as I have not promoted any of the exciting things going on through the site, nor would I invite most of the commentors on here who enjoy attacking the posts of sex industry workers to the site. You are clearly unwelcome.
I'm curious - what constitutes genital contact? Would someone inserting a dildo into someone else's rectum be considered genital contact, even if that person does not directly have skin to skin contact at any time? Or is that "protected" sex work? How about shoving a dildo into your own ass, between typing on the keyboard? That's not "frontline" sex work, eh? Your comments about the rights and social supports available to non-contact sex industry workers is further proof of your ignorance. If the people who are just learning from these discussions could know what I know, they would laugh with me at the ignorance being displayed.
here, here annie!!!
Sun, 2009-11-01 12:09
#27
susan davis
To get back to the point, liberalization of laws in the Netherlands have failed to produce any proof of the benefits liberalization of laws were supposed to produce.
If anything, evidence points to an increase in negative outcomes.
way to impose your own interpretation!! it clearly states there have been benefits....anyway we don't support legalization, we support decrim.....
Sun, 2009-11-01 12:35
#28
To get back to the point, liberalization of laws in the Netherlands have failed to produce any proof of the benefits liberalization of laws were supposed to produce.
If anything, evidence points to an increase in negative outcomes.
way to impose your own interpretation!! it clearly states there have been benefits....anyway we don't support legalization, we support decrim.....
Fortunately the link is there so people can go to the report and evaluate it for themselves. Amsterdam's efforts to close down large areas of their red-light district are also evidence of the failure to control the involvement of organized crime and other negative outcomes of liberalization of laws.
http://francofemmes.org/aocvf/documents/Prostitution-v.angl_FINALE_WEB.pdf
In reality, the difference between decriminalization and legalization seems to lie merely in how much regulation of health and safety, zoning, licensing, or advertising is put in place after criminal sanctions are removed.
In Germany, the state of Nevada, (U.S.A.), some states in Australia, and the Netherlands, which have legalized prostitution, regulation includes any or all of : registration of prostituted women, health and safety regulations, licensing of prostitution-related businesses, controls on the location and size of establishments, and the creation of “tolerance zones”.
However, in the two jurisdictions that have ‘decriminalized’ – New Zealand and the state of New South Wales in Australia - governments also license brothels and impose zoning restrictions on where prostitution – indoor and outdoor – can be carried on.
Tue, 2009-11-03 00:12
#29
I don't want to create yet another thread on prostitution, but this news story casts an interesting light on the way boys are raped and locked into "sex work" by the Afghan elites our tax dollars are keeping in power:
Bacha Bazi: Afghan Tradition Exploits Young Boys
by Amanda Kloer
Published November 02, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
Two subjects within the field of human trafficking are too often ignored: cultural traditions of slavery and the sale of boys in the commercial sex industry. CNN recently shed light on both of these in an article about the Afghan tradition of bacha bazi, or "boy play". It's a cultural tradition for many powerful Afghan men, but it's modern-day slavery for the boys who live through it.
Bacha bazi is illegal in Afghanistan, but the practice is still thriving. Boys are taken from their families at a young age and sold or given to wealthy and powerful business men, politicians, and military commanders. The boys are dressed in women's clothing and makeup and forced to dance to entertain their master and his guests. They are also forced to perform sex acts on their master or his guests. The few boys who are able to escape their slavery have a difficult time ever making a living doing anything else. They are forever branded in society as a bacha bereesh, or a "boy without a beard," a boy who dances and dresses as a woman.
Their plight is not unlike that of women forced into sexual performance or prostitution, who also have a difficult time being accepted into society and finding work after their ordeal. Bacha bazi boys often return to the industry even after they have left, because they have no other means to support themselves. Women who have been forced into commercial sex often do the same. Perhaps so many similarities exist because bacha bazi feminizes these boys in order to degrade them. By forcing them to perform in women's clothes and by raping them, this tradition not only seeks to humiliate these boys for the pleasure of wealthy men, but also to reinforce the idea that women are inferior and for a boy to have feminine affectations is degrading for him. It's a window into the severe gender inequality that pervades Afghanistan. (...)
Tue, 2009-11-03 01:40
#30
what sex workers who engage in genital contact sex work, are posting other than you?
cookiesnscream, is a business owner, that does not enage in genital sex, thus is not a prostitute, anne is an exotic dancer by trade, she says, and a business owner, also legal, so who else would there be?
Not being difficult here, as I must have missed their posts or something, if you are indicating others.
The 2 other people who came in, were; john's, business owners (did not declare so, so unknown) or allies, as they said they were not workers in the business, but supported decrim.
Oh yes, there was that other young woman, who is an escort, with a small select cliental. Again, she indicates she is an "escort", also a legal occupation, and thus has labour rights and access to the social safety net, if she declares her earnings, and her business.
I know this seems like splitting hairs to you, but it isn't.
This is supposed to be a "sex worker's rights forum" which means according to it's mandate, it is for discussions surrounding sex worker's right's.
It is not for advertising, and commercials.
It is for sex worker's rights, all other sex work, is legal, except for that which surounds prostitution, therefore the only rights that should be being addressed are prostitute's rights.
All other forms of sex work have them.
Are you saying that all independent sex workers who work in prostitution are "business owners" therefore their opinions don't matter? Well, that kind of excludes an awful lot of people lol. How do the comments of others in the sex work trades not relevant or helpful or contributing to the issues of prostitute's rights? By singling their comments out as advertising, are you attempting to discredit their contributions, comments and opinions somehow? In which case, what exactly do posters like info, martin and yourself have to contribute here? And, according to the laws of Canada and the definition of prostitution, cookiesnscream's activities do qualify as prostitution, in spite of the lack of genital contact.
I understand that it might be difficult for everyone here to accept these new voices. But hopefully you are all up for the challenge. Sometimes it is necessary to shake up the beliefs, take off the blinders. When everyone agrees with you, where is the debate. If no one is here to present real facts and anecdotal stories, you are going to believe everything a very small minority tells you? Or interprets for you, based on a very real bias that came about from their own personal history. Or, herstory?
The problems of the women in the DTES who do street work go way beyond whether or not prostitution can be made illegal, or the laws created to control it can be removed. Their issues are not mine, or the same as the majority of sex work service providers. It doesn't mean that no one is concerned. but realistically you first have to deal with poverty, addictions, and mental health issues first and foremost, and then worry about how they are making their living.
There is a theme of trying to label things, as though nothing can be discussed until we all agree on what to call it. It may be better to simply accept that some things cannot be labelled, classified and categorized that simply. It would be like trying to come up with a new name or label for every person who works in the sex industry, and how difficult would that be. I do not think you need to know or understand specifically what people's backgrounds are exactly; in a way, you should be able to tell from their posts their POV.
Tue, 2009-11-03 02:54
#31
The problems of the women in the DTES who do street work go way beyond whether or not prostitution can be made illegal, or the laws created to control it can be removed. Their issues are not mine, or the same as the majority of sex work service providers. It doesn't mean that no one is concerned. but realistically you first have to deal with poverty, addictions, and mental health issues first and foremost, and then worry about how they are making their living.
Given the amount of harm they suffer as a direct result of prostitution I don't consider it an afterthought. There is no need to address the problems in some sort of hierarchy. They are all interconnected. The decision to leave prostitution can be either the first step or the last step.
There is a theme of trying to label things, as though nothing can be discussed until we all agree on what to call it. It may be better to simply accept that some things cannot be labelled, classified and categorized that simply. It would be like trying to come up with a new name or label for every person who works in the sex industry, and how difficult would that be.
Prostitution can and has been labeled. There is no need for a new more vague label.
Tue, 2009-11-03 09:41
#32
...realistically you first have to deal with poverty, addictions, and mental health issues first and foremost, and then worry about how they are making their living.
Sorry, but I am worried NOW. Focussing on DTES women - only to sweep them under the carpet in this manner - could not happen if our focus remained on the main subjets of the legislation under examination: the pimps, procurers, brothel-owners and johns whose behaviour takes advantage of these women and should remain criminal in Canada.
(How long can we keep avoiding the blatant class issues involved in this issue?)
Tue, 2009-11-03 15:56
#33
remind
"(How long can we keep avoiding the blatant class issues involved in this issue?)"
As long as some men and women, believe it is a man's right to have unrestricted and unregulated ejaculation responses in his leisure time wherever/whenever he wants.
Even if it costs society millions/billions, just as it has done in other countries, only to find it is the same patriarchial shit, just a different pile.
Tue, 2009-11-03 21:39
#34
...realistically you first have to deal with poverty, addictions, and mental health issues first and foremost, and then worry about how they are making their living.
Sorry, but I am worried NOW. Focussing on DTES women - only to sweep them under the carpet in this manner - could not happen if our focus remained on the main subjets of the legislation under examination: the pimps, procurers, brothel-owners and johns whose behaviour takes advantage of these women and should remain criminal in Canada.
(How long can we keep avoiding the blatant class issues involved in this issue?)
All of the stats posted, the dangers discussed, the issues of danger and starting under 18, and pimps, and so on are all based on studies of street workers only, so yes, I will focus on DTES. Studies posted in other threads will give you background. Susi's work and concerns are DTES street work concerns, as she knows that the majority of non-street workers do not experience the same dangers. When someone starts posting studies on the reality of the majority of us, the indoor workers, then we can throw other numbers around. These are facts. When you are told 2/3 of sex workers suffered abuse, you are talking about these women, not all sex workers who are the majority. How does anything stated sweep them under the carpet? The laws people do not wish to have eliminated put these women in more danger every day. They certainly have not helped them in any way. There are already laws that deal with the very people you list, yet they are still problems? Right now DTES street workers break the law every single day, or put themselves into seriously dangerous positions, because of the laws that control a legal profession.
Are you attempting to silence the majority with the accusation regarding class issues? Does the fact that the majority of sex workers live comfortably, happily and enjoy their job, excepting for these conditions that make it hard for them to do it legally or improve their safety? How safe do you think it is for a woman to go alone (a driver security person is against the law) to a stranger's home (him coming to see her at her home is against the law)?
Tue, 2009-11-03 21:46
#35
Prostitution can and has been labeled. There is no need for a new more vague label.
Prostitution is fine, but it is not a person. It is a thing. Prostituted woman is also not a person, or a job description. Sex worker is. I know others do as well, actual people who actually do sex work. If you need to differentiate between what sex workers do or what sex work is, I can usually determine from the post and the poster what they mean. But I can also tell by a post using prostituted women that the poster isn't trying to have a dialogue with me, they are trying to be offensive.
Tue, 2009-11-03 22:00
#36
But I can also tell by a post using prostituted women that the poster isn't trying to have a dialogue with me, they are trying to be offensive.
I find the term "sex worker" offensive because it is a means of disappearing prostitutes or prostituted women under a vague label. Shoud I assume you are trying to be offensive towards me?
Tue, 2009-11-03 22:18
#37
But I can also tell by a post using prostituted women that the poster isn't trying to have a dialogue with me, they are trying to be offensive.I find the term "sex worker" offensive because it is a means of disappearing prostitutes or prostituted women under a vague label. Shoud I assume you are trying to be offensive towards me?
I do not see what is vague about "sex" + "worker". And it has been accepted here as a more accurate term, yes? When you prefer to use a term that has been discontinued by others, explained as to how and why it is offensive to others, then yes, it is offensive & used intentionally. It is, in addition, inaccurate and misleading without including context and explanation everytime you use it to ensure that we all know that you are not talking about any consensual sex worker.
Tue, 2009-11-03 22:53
#38
I do not see what is vague about "sex" + "worker". And it has been accepted here as a more accurate term, yes?
No it hasn't been. In fact it was clarified that "sex worker" also applies to exotic dancers and other jobs. That means the term is inaccurate when referring solely to the act of prostitution. As I am not talking about "sex workers" in general the term is inaccurate.
When you prefer to use a term that has been discontinued by others, explained as to how and why it is offensive to others, then yes, it is offensive & used intentionally.
"Others" don't get to discontinue a word that is still in common usage and broadly accepted as accurate. I have explained why the term "sex worker" is offensive to me but that doesn't seem to stop you from using it.
It is, in addition, inaccurate and misleading without including context and explanation everytime you use it to ensure that we all know that you are not talking about any consensual sex worker.
It is more accurate than the term "sex worker" which includes women who are not prostitutes.
The meaning of the term "prostitute" has not changed. There is no need for me to clarify anything.
Tue, 2009-11-03 23:12
#39
I do not see what is vague about "sex" + "worker". And it has been accepted here as a more accurate term, yes?No it hasn't been. In fact it was clarified that "sex worker" also applies to exotic dancers and other jobs. That means the term is inaccurate when referring solely to the act of prostitution. As I am not talking about "sex workers" in general the term is inaccurate.
When you prefer to use a term that has been discontinued by others, explained as to how and why it is offensive to others, then yes, it is offensive & used intentionally."Others" don't get to discontinue a word that is still in common usage and broadly accepted as accurate. I have explained why the term "sex worker" is offensive to me but that doesn't seem to stop you from using it.
It is, in addition, inaccurate and misleading without including context and explanation everytime you use it to ensure that we all know that you are not talking about any consensual sex worker.It is more accurate than the term "sex worker" which includes women who are not prostitutes.
The meaning of the term "prostitute" has not changed. There is no need for me to clarify anything.
You have not addressed why you prefer to use the term "prostituted women". If you change that to "prostitute", fine, have at it. But offending the ones you purport to help by continued use of "prostituted" will continue to offend, and be viewed as hostile, imo. Not saying you are deliberately trying to offend a group of people that you say you want to help by fixing what we do not perceive to be a problem, but words to have power.
I am not one to accept when people call me names, whatever they may be. You will have to live with my feeling offended, as you wish. That is your choice.
Tue, 2009-11-03 23:15
#40
.... and it is a wonderful thing to have the freedom to choose to do something (legal) that you want to do, is it not?
Tue, 2009-11-03 23:17
#41
remind
I agree it has not been accepted here, it is very much up for contention.
And given the......usage of it, in respect to raped and exploited children I would/will not be using again if paid to do so.
...will not being trying to erase the reality of the raped and exploited, anytime soon
Tue, 2009-11-03 23:19
#42
I agree it has not been accepted here, it is very much up for contention.
And given the......usage of it, in respect to raped and exploited children I would/will not be using again if paid to do so.
...will not being trying to erase the reality of the raped and exploited, anytime soon
I have no clear idea of what you are referring to.
Wed, 2009-11-04 09:33
#43
You have not addressed why you prefer to use the term "prostituted women".
I have addressed it at length. The short version is that "sex worker" doesn't mean "prostitute".
Not saying you are deliberately trying to offend a group of people that you say you want to help by fixing what we do not perceive to be a problem, but words to have power.
Why would I want to help people that don't have a problem? We are agreed that you don't need my help.
I am not one to accept when people call me names, whatever they may be.
The New Zealand Prostitute Collective has no problem with the term "prostitute".
While Susan has apologized for referring to two 12 year olds as "sex workers" it glaringly underlined the sanitizing nature of the term. The girls were not "exotic dancers".
Given that "sex worker" and "prostitute" are not synonyms they can't be used interchangably.
You will have to live with my feeling offended, as you wish. That is your choice.
I find using the term "sex worker" interchangably with "prostitute" even though it doesn't mean the same thing offensive. You don't seem to be losing any sleep over it. I don't expect you to change your terminology.
Wed, 2009-11-04 10:54
#44
susan davis
you know what, you guys suck. i was in an extremely difficult moment and trying to do something to protect some one. you choose to take my experience and use it against me. i apologized over and over and if it's going to be this sort of personal attacking i'm not sure i will come and add my perspective on babble any more.
your attacks of my dealing with an extremely horrible situation are disgusting. i did my best. you choose to be ignorant and use my weakness/ lack of experience against me. i hope you are proud of yourselves, harming me.
i am still dealing with the feelings i have about lying to her and for taking your adivice here on babble. i should not have reported, i should have gained her trust and taken some big guys over thereand rescued er my self. i am not a youth worker, i am not an NGO, i am not a rape crisis line.....i did my best and the continued attacks in this regard are sick.your approach failed and clearly she saw the police. her trust of me destroyed because i betrayed her wishes, i have not heard from her again....how does that make you feel remind? maybe when you look at your grand daughter you should think about that.
i should have trusted my instincts and experience with marginalized people and gone with what i know works.youth /child or not...it would have at least worked.
i'm glad you find it amusing to poke my emotional wounds. it shows what kind of people you really are. hateful, spiteful and in my opinion dangerous.
mods?if this kind of behaviour allowed on babble?
Wed, 2009-11-04 10:57
#45
susan davis
also we have gone over this point over and over- sex industry worker is the all encompassing term used in the sex industry to describe workers in any area. sex worker is generally accepted as escorts or full contact sex work. involving a worker and client one on one where a seual release is expected.
Wed, 2009-11-04 12:42
#46
remind
"worker" indicates a chosen field...
as such, it does not indicate those who are not doing any choosing in the equation. And they are the most important ones in this debate.
By thinking or framing in an encapsulated "normalizing" whole, you are doing no favours to the oppressed, exploited and trafficked.
It is objectionable and cannot be sanctioned as correct thinking/speaking. Saying so is not picking upon anyone. It is indicating that those who frame such things internally and thus express them externally, are not getting how harmful their words are.
Wed, 2009-11-04 12:50
#47
susan davis
no? i can see clearly that some of us are offended and have provided numerous reasons why which you choose to ignore. you seem completely complacent about hharming us with your words. we have a right to stand up for ourselves and to confront you on your behaviour.
you are even trying to diminish our voices as if we are not the ones to be worried about and only the abusd and trafiicked or street level wrkers voices are valid. as if we are some how "priveldged" and ourisde of the issues.
we are sex workers, we are affected by your disregard for our choosen language, and we are completely entrenched in finding ways to support trafficked and abused people in the sex industry.
once again, please.....lay out your plan....how exactly will you decrim workers yet criminalize men? although it seems clearer and clearer to me that you do not even support the swedish model. you support full criminalization and eradication of our industry and us.
to hell with the human rights charter, exploited and trafficked people are our only concern. sex workers who choose this work get what they deserve and hopefully we will all be killed in what is inherently violent work.
am i understnading you correctly remind?
Wed, 2009-11-04 12:52
#48
susan davis
and no comment or apology for casting me as supporting the exploitation of youth in sex work eh? no comment on your emotional attack of me trying to deal with an extremely difficult situation? no comment on how your advice did the exact opposite of what it should have?
remind, you are really out there.
Wed, 2009-11-04 15:11
#49
Hear, hear. Susan's calling a 10-yr old a "sex worker" shows this term to be a complete sham in the eyes of some.
Wed, 2009-11-04 15:15
#50
your approach failed and clearly she saw the police. her trust of me destroyed because i betrayed her wishes, i have not heard from her again....how does that make you feel remind?
It's a good thing the topic came up again regardless of your hurt feelings. You need to understand that the girl is being repeatedly raped and the only correct response is to involve the police.
I wasn't going to go deeper into it but given your rant here you still don't "get it". Your thread was deeping disturbing on multiple levels. The title of the thread was "failure of the government to protect youth".
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/feminism/failure-government-protect-youth
Your post opened with "12 years old but i say woman because she spoke like a woman....". In reading the entire post it is clear that you shared this particular event as an illustration of the failure of government to protect youth just as the threat title suggests. It was not a plea for the board to advise you on how to handle it which you made clear later in the same post.
the other young woman i met was in prince george and was also 12 having been a sex worker for 2 years. it was her birthday and we got her a cake and gave her some presents...she cried and so did all of us....when it was all said and done she had to go back to the abuse, we couldn't help her. there was no where we could take her, no supports for her to access...what could we do? bring her to vancouver?i mean shit.....
Leaving her there was criminal. When you come across a 12 year old who has been raped since she was 10 you call the police. She did not have to go back to the abuse. You were in a position to end it. You failed. I hope that does make you feel bad, really really bad, bad enough to call the police next time rather than suggesting it's a mistake.
Your post closed with:
i would like us to talk about ways we can begin to provide these children with the supports they need and begin to protect canadian children in a meaningful way.the complete and utter failure of our system to adress issues facing youth is disgusting...
You made your focus for the thread quite clear. You did not close with a plea for help for that little girl who has phoned you. I hope the reason she hasn't called you back is that she found the kids helpline #. 1-800-668-6868 provided by oldgoat in the previous thread.
That thread was a textbook example of the result of normalization. Referring to 12 year olds as women and sex workers. Yes, I know you apologized, the point remains that mentally you classified them as such rather than as child victims of rape. You stated explicitly that your choice of the term "woman" was deliberate. Here is another one.
A Brisbane pimp who paid his child prostitute in chicken nuggets will serve just nine months behind bars.
Ronald Vikash Gander, 27, was described by a District Court judge yesterday as a ''sleaze merchant'' who treated the 16-year-old girl as a ''piece of meat'' after it was revealed he had forced her to have sex with older men and take part in a lesbian sex romp in order to pay rent on his Spring Hill apartment.
But wait, there's more:
In 2004 he was jailed for attempting to pull off a massive multi-million dollar fraud involving the sale of a Brisbane highrise building...He also forged a guarantee to purchase eight luxury cars worth nearly $700,000.
For those offences, Gander was sentenced to five years jail but the sentencing judge at the time recommended Gander be eligible for parole after he served two-and-a-half years.
How normalization of prostitution affects society as a whole is a relevant factor in the debate.
If you feel emotionally harmed by participating you do have to decide whether or not it's worth it. It doesn't give you leave to launch attacks on others.In my comment I specifically mentioned your apology because it was not intended as an attack on you and this post isn't an attack either.
You need to understand that there is only one correct response to finding out children have been forced into prostitution. Calling the police.
You were treated with kid gloves in that thread and this post is also treating you with kid gloves.
Lay off with the attacks.
Wed, 2009-11-04 15:25
#51
no? i can see clearly that some of us are offended and have provided numerous reasons why which you choose to ignore. you seem completely complacent about hharming us with your words. we have a right to stand up for ourselves and to confront you on your behaviour.
Michelle already made the call as a mod that both the term prostitute and sex worker can be used. It has been well established that some posters are offended by the use of the term "sex worker" and it has been made clear that some posters are offended by the use "prostitute".
If you are too emotionally fragile to cope with reading the term "prostitute" then you really do need to take a break.