Who's a feminist? the old question with new angles...

From a closed thread:

to which Stargazer responded:

I did not say anything about people who hold that view as not being feminist -- I said that those who disagreed that the position is pro-feminist seem to be getting silenced on this issue. There is quite a difference, in my opinion. Having said that, I do find it somewhat objectionable that a whole forum as been devoted to "sex worker rights" as if this discussion has reached it conclusion and that we all agree that it is feminist to support full decriminalization or legalization. What other way of supporting oneself has a whole forum? And, if there is a whole forum in support of "sex worker rights and their allies", where is the room to safely object to that point of view?

I joined this board many years ago and have posted in fits and starts. I find it interesting and have learned a lot. However, I often lurk because there are certain unwritten rules that have been fostered here and it would seem as though if one violates them, there is grief. This issue strikes me as being among them -- it's coming across as though the truly enlightened support "sex worker rights" as being fully feminist and any arguments to the contrary are coming from those who either don't get it or don't get "real" feminism. Yet, you've heard from those who have been hurt badly by being in that work and from others who have been wounded sexually, including myself. But never mind that, it's just our woundedness talking, not really an accurate portrayal of how those with power wield in the lives of those who don't, particularly women.

Frankly, it's interesting but sort like driving by a car wreck to see how this discussion has shaped up in favour of one side of the discussion and those who are on the wrong side are misinterpreted and maligned.

The only person we've "silenced" is one person who kept attacking another poster after being told to stop.  She was not the only voice here critical of prostitution, and no other voices have been silenced or told they can't put forth the arguments you outlined in this or the other thread.

Clearly the discussion has reached zero conclusions. The reason the forum was created was because women in sex work were getting drowned out by those against it. Doesn't that indicate a lack of debate, discussion and understanding?

I'm not sure why you ask, "who is a feminist?" when I've clearly stated that feminists don't agree on this issue, or in fact on many issues.

Loretta, my post was not directed AT you it was directed towards everyone who would read it. I apologize if it came across as being directed at you.

Anyways, I think enough has been said regarding voices and whose are being heard and it is more than clear that both sides of this debate, and those who can easily meet in the middle, have all had their say in the at least 10 - 15 threads now on this topic.

I am not sure what your goal is. Do yoiu wish to shut down the voices of those who do not follow the abolutionist view? I don't think that is healthy as feminists see this issue very differently. Why is it so hard to accept that there is room for debate? Read the threads here and you'll see that the abolutionist group has had a whole lot to say and started a lot of threads on this topic.

There are also those who prefer full legalization as well. Should that not be allowed?

I think this thread will end badly.

How stark of contrast you make Michelle, as  you well know there are differeing types of silencing used here all the time....it does rabble a disservice to deny that silencing occurs here in many forms other than banning, or suspending.

most here, and reading, are way too intelligent to accept that kind of propaganda...

In fact, Loretta herself indicated such in her post, which you  over looked in your assurances that it was not happening..

...arbitrarily closing threads is one form...starting biased forums is another...or even your post was closed and silencing with its brooking no contest kinda talk...

and then there is this truthful observation of Loretta's

because of course we all know I am in favour of having women's rights stripped from them afterall...just because of my stance

so..... someone can attack me by slandering me like that, and it is all good...but let me tell you if I said that to those wanting decrim with no regulations, I would  have been warned and/or suspended, or attacked for attacking....

I have to give it some thought but I think this may have been the final straw for me. Yes, she may have crossed some lines. But she's not the only one to have crossed lines. Just the only one to be banned - not suspended but banned.

Yes, why was this supension (a first-time one, too) turned into a permanent ban, despite no additional offense and without explanation? And why does Infosaturated go on being smeared here, in absentia? That used to be beyond the pale, too.

Occasionally in rare instances, challenging situations must certainly present themselves, where commentary is provided in such a way as to understandably cause a fair degree of difficulty in terms of warnings or temporary suspensions, where no rational accommodation between the commentators and those subjected to the remarks can reasonably be expected going forward.  I can't imagine the decisions being altogether tough calls to make, just necessary ones where no other practical choice is available.

Actually, you're right, Martin, normally we don't talk about people who have been banned.  But you guys keep bringing it up, so of course I'm going to answer.  But this will be the last time I answer about Infosaturated.  The moderators had to field many, many complaints about her behaviour over the past few weeks, and this was the final straw.  Beyond the behaviour, we just don't have the moderating time to deal with all the complaints she was constantly making about other people (many of which we felt were without merit, some of which were), and all the complaints others made about her (many of which we felt had merit, some without).  She was also clearly unhappy with the site anyhow, demanding changes that the moderators weren't and aren't willing to make.  It's a time suck.  And we don't have that kind of time.  The attacks on susan davis, which she continued after being warned to stop, were the final straw.  And it is a unanimous decision by all the moderators, backed by the publisher.

That's my last word on this issue.

There is an entire forum for those who don't follow the "abolutionist" view. (I take it that you mean those who want to abolish prostitution.) Where is the place to discuss that view, for those of us who are feminist and hold it?

Should what not be allowed? The discussion or full legalization? If the former, again, there is a whole forum devoted to that topic, with no place for those who don't agree.

It doesn't need to but, in my view, it is appropriate to challenge the direction in which this whole topic is weighted.

You are welcome to discuss the abolitionist viewpoint in the feminism forum.  You always were.  Please do!  In fact, I would be really interested in seeing you expand on this:

Wll state what i see from those words:

1. the poor are without true choices; Absolute freaking fact and that is the main demographic in the sex trade

2. many of those involved in the sex trade were abused as childre: The stats show over 50% of those in  BC's sex trade are FN women, who have been abused by the Canadian system and white people, as children and as adults...

3. to do so would be to support a "business owner" financial model: Common sense dictates it as so, I have detailed at length what will have to happen once it is given an industry designation...

Loretta, thank you for starting this thread.  I highlighted the words that particularly resonate. 

I have read all of the sex work threads but made a conscious decision not to post in any of them. 

I do not support the sex trade as a legitimate business.  I think it's repulsive and should be shut down.  I realize we've heard some articulate individuals who say they enjoy their work and I have no reason to disbelieve them.  The thing is that I just cannot believe such a point of view is a common one.  The people I see involved in the sex trade are slaves to their addictions.  I just don't see purchasing sexual services as being a legitimate need for anyone.  I haven't had a sexual partner for two years but that doesn't mean I'm interested in renting one. 

I started out seeing this issue as one similar to the issue of decriminalization of marijuana -- that is, the majority of the harm comes out of the criminalization of possession and use. That's a simplistic view but captures the essence.

Having thought about it and done more reading, I no longer see this issue that way. This is not a victimless act and women who are in this work do so without much in the way of choices, or at least the majority do. In the same way that the vast majority of young pregnant women (who don't choose abortion) who have real supports don't lose their children to adoption, neither do women who have better options choose to support themselves through having sex with many men for money.

I also question this paradigm around the economic model that's being promoted here. I have read that susan davis desires to start some sort of a coop that would include sex workers, artists, and would also include a liaison kind of arrangement that would allow women who wanted out of that work other mechanisms to do so. That doesn't address the arguments related to Employment Standards, zoning issues, WCB or public health issues but let's put that aside for a minute.

Assuming that this is what susan davis wants, I highly doubt that most of those who are proponents of complete decrim or legalization have this vision for sex work and its workers. I have every reason to believe that we are looking at the corporate/capitialist economy taking this decriminalized/legalized industry and distorting the vision of these workers until it's a complete perversion of what it started out as...so why would we champion a cause of this nature?

We are talking about getting behind a business-oriented economic model, not a socialist or collectivist movement in reality. So, what's in it for us as women collectively? How does this advance the well-being of women, not only in the sex trade but around the world? How does it advance the cause of socialism? Why would we fight for the right to lower our collective well-being rather than fight for raising it in appropriate, caring, healthy ways?

Lest I be thought of as a prude, let me assure you that I fully support those ways including freedom of sexual expression, and celebration of our sexuality. Sexual freedom is not what we're talking about here, at least for most women in the sex trade.

I definitely don't think that, and I know lots of women who aren't "prudes" but also have a huge problem with prostitution.

One of the arguments that hits home for me is that the sex trade in general creates an expectation that sex from women should always be available, and perhaps divides women into two categories - women who are willing to provide it on demand, and women who are not.

Very good point. Indeed, the "What if you were offered (ENTER INORDINATE AMOUNT)?" tries to dismiss that resistance as insignificant.

Hello, Loretta. Lovely to talk to you again.

I joined these conversations because I support the Charter challenge. It bothers me a lot to see how willing people are to conflate (no doubt important) social debates with the foundational principles and structures of democracy -- see, eg, the discussion going on in another thread about the CPCCA, aka the Commons Un-Canadian Activities Committee. I mean, that is the threat that looms if we begin to confuse our own moral and social convictions with more basic law that is necessary to protect everyone's liberty and equality. If we can enforce our politics through the Criminal Code, the day could well come when the tables will be turned on us by fascists using the same logic, and we will have opened the door to Atwood's vision in The Handmaid's Tale.

Every once in a while, Susan Davis gets a chance to ask why it is only her work that is hamstrung by the Criminal Code, and that's the argument I'm here to support. Like many people here, I wish we could end capitalism yesterday. In the interim, however, most of us have to earn a living, and we all know how compromised we've been in various ways, depending on the work we took up. We have other laws to address the real crimes that legitimately bother people as civil-liberties offences -- human trafficking, exploitation of minors, eg -- and it would be good to see some clearly focused attention to those crimes. 

But that's not what Susan or Stargazer is talking about, and that's not why people still object to what they're saying (and in fact doing). People still think that trade in sex should be criminalized somehow, even though, oh, I don't know, flipping real estate isn't. Susan is standing on section 2 of the Charter, which acknowledges her full humanity -- ie, she is as much a human being as anyone else, which means she should be free to make the full range of choices anyone else does. The Charter does not say "You're only free if you're perfect." It says you're free because you're a human bean, and that is where equality is rooted. There are lots of mediocre men around; the Charter freed women to be every bit as mediocre as men are.

I happen not to think that Susan or Stargazer is mediocre. I've been interested to read all the work that Susan and her group have done to address the need for regulation, if they can get the restrictions of the Criminal Code gone. That all sounds reasonable to me. And I empathize a lot with Stargazer's feeling that she's being condescended to, whether people intend that or not.

But it is exceptionally dangerous to have people confusing admirable social and political arguments and education with criminal law and basic constitutional guarantees of liberty and equality. I'm sure that's why Alan Young and his students took this challenge on pro bono, and that's why I hope they win.

The Charter does not give unlimited freedoms when there are conflicting rights and freedoms. I hope that it fails since I believe that the right of women to live in freedom without legally sanctioning a practice that's harmful as well as reducing freedom for many involved in it. Decriminalizing the "sex worker" is reasonable, anything beyond that is a threat to the rights and freedoms of all women, especially those on the margins who are at risk through poverty.

ok, i tried not to post here but......i keep getting named so......

the employment standards WCB(which we already qualify for), occupational health and safety training( complete and funded by the health authority) working groups/ review boards (being discussed in vancouver- city staff are already working with sex workers)

did you not see our national industry association thread? 

http://rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/sex-industry-association

we are working on the aspects you mention. we do understnad the depth of what is required here. system wide reform.

also, i take exception to you stating that 50 % of sex workers are first nations- where did you find that data? please post a link to that data- i have neverheard that number before and don't believe it is based in reality.

30% of on street sex workers , disproportionate representation in survival sex work, these things i have heard. street sex work comprises 10% 15 % of our industy

i am willing to discuss these things but please stick to the facts. one of the greatest threats to sex workers and our safety and stability is mis information. if you are going to make assertions such as above, please provide a link to the data to back your assertion. same applies to all sex workers being abused as children. casting our families as pervert, rapist, incestuous creeps is completely insulting. it plays into the tired old assertion of us being too raped and abused to really know what we need. of course we think we choose our jobs, we're dillusional. that is oppressive and i will not stand quietly b while people cast us all as victims, damaged goods, unable to look after ourselves. this is the excuse always used to impose actions against our community and has had disastrous results all over canada.

are you trying to say that our plans will be taken over by orgainized crime, traffickers and pimps? well, that's nice. way to empower the workers trying to do this work. as if we are too stupid or easy to manipulate and will not be able to implement accountability. it seems as if you think we don't ave what it takes or perhaps it's because you think sex workers are too weak to make this happen. others have said the same thing. i think YOU underestimate us. we will gain control of our destinies and bring trasparency ad accountability to the sex industry.

meanwhile the criminalize the customers but decrim the workers crowd have done nothing to even begin to plan fro decriminalizing of workers. bith sides agree on that point i might point out...so what exactly is different? the swedish model will also require WCB, employment standards, occupational health and safety training and many other regulations....where arethe plans for that? oh right....no where. abolitionists are so busy trying to prove they are right, none of the work required to implement their plan has been done ...so you tell me, what exactly do you plan to do to design employment standards, etc for decrimed workers under the swedush.canadian model?

i hear alot of people slamming our plans and yet no one has any other plans to offer.

we are people, we will fight for inclusion, we will challenge people who perpetuate myths about our lives and hold responsible the systems intended to protect us.we are working on these plans every single day.

slamming canada's first sex worker cooperative as if t is some kind of art project is also very insulting. the workers from the DTES worked their asses of to meet the requiremnts for incorporataion and in light of cooperative business models success in stabilizing sex workers all over the world, you would think people would be a little more supportive. the potential f this action for stabilizing localized groups of workers all over canada is enormous as well as it's potnetial for creating alternative income sources.

you claim to want to help workers on the street yet you ignore what they have asked for and belittle their work. i'm sad to say, pretty typical. you know best right?

[see below]

I will read that thread but I'm not convinced, at this point, that standards in your work can be raised to that of other workers.

I would hope that you would do the same -- please show me where I quoted such figures. I deliberately didn't because I don't know what they might be and, at present, am doing some research through contact with a professor in the realm of women's studies. I am working with that person to dig into research on prostitution done through feminist analysis and will reflect upon it and bring it to this discussion when I get it.

No it isn't.

On many levels.

loretta wrote;

Is babble a place where, like with other "givens" (no sexism, no racism, etc,), it is now a given that we must accept the paradigm that susan davis purports around sex work/prostitution? I can get behind respecting her point of view but disagreeing with it, that seems fair. It seems very inappropriate that rabble/babble would take the position to support that paradigm for a number of reasons. Those reasons include the inherent sexism in sex work/prostitution, the fact that the poor are without true choices, the fact that many of those involved in the sex trade were abused as children and the fact that to do so would be to support a "business owner" financial model.

Giving someone a safe place to discuss their point of view in this matter is one thing, it's another to ban those who don't agree and challenge it.

i thougt you had stated something about first nations but i guess i was wrong...sorry. the point remains about calling our parents child molesters......

i also have stated over and over that our plans a geared to empower workers with rights, not business owners and how in our culture older, more experienced workers become madames and share their knowledge with less experienced workers.

do you subscribe to the sink or swim model? all workers must be isolated from each other, have no mentoring or security on their first date with a customer and not be allowed access to critical information about their work in the form of an ex worker become madame?

this casting of all business owners is why we have no where to work, and are forced onto the street. WE NEED JOBS!!! and we need those jobs to be safe work environments. we will be inspected and scurtinized as other industries, no one is asking for carte blanche brothels. in my opinion this is a scare tactic by abolitionists to confuse the greater public as too what decrim  means.

decrim means i am not a criminal. labour law, employment standards act protect workers all over canada, why will it not work for us? why do we require seperate laws? it casts us as different, violence against us as different/unimportant/less, and allows enforcement agencies to apply the law in anyway they see fit including "getting rid of that prostitution problem". we know how well that is working....sex workers are gone. they're dead.

let's not do the typical "quick and dirty" that the canadian government is so famous for. let's do the hard work and do what is right creating a legacy of safety for canadian sex workers. abolitionists seem to think that the swedish model is some how some instant and perfect solution. don't kid yourselves, it will take as much work as full decrim, maybe more. in addition to creating labour standards  and all the other infrastructure required to decrim workers only, you will need to come up with laws and penalties for criminalized comsumers and business owners.

in sweden they get a fine.....or 6 months in jail.....do you think that's going to be an effective deterent? that's pretty much already the sentence in canada now under communication provisions, it doesn't seem to be working now.....

Loretta, do you think it should be a criminal offence for a sex worker and a customer to discuss the terms of their contract in a car parked in the parking lot of a shopping mall? Would you answer this question differently for the sex worker than for the customer?

susan davis, I didn't do that either. I said that there is a disproportionate number of those involved in exchanging sexual intercourse for money were abused as children and I didn't name it as sexual abuse. This is what I've read from numerous sources however, I will include that question with those I'm asking of my contact in the women's studies department.

I joined these debates because I think the charter challenges are dangerous for women. I'm all for freedom, but I think it's a mistake to conflate freedom with choice, and choice with autonomy. We are not yet on equal footing, women and men. Men still make more money than do women, men still hold public office, men still make the laws, and enforce them, men still hold the balance of power in the top-heavy beauraucracies of institutions of power, including business, medicine, education, and law...

and men are the ones who demand to buy sex from women. Many people who support the total decriminalization of prostitution insist on describing the abolition postiion as one that would have women in prostitution criminalized. Stargazer, for example,  has made this mistake in several threads, one of which was quoted at the beginning of this one. 

I do not see how allowing men unfettered access to women's bodies will secure 'safety' for women in prostitution. How will the repeal of the bawdy house law protect women who sell (or are sold) through avenues such as craigslist? How can dedcriminalizing men (or women) who offer women for sale protect those women? This is kind of a rhetorical question. We can look at what happened in Amsterdam, Australia, Germany, to see how well women are protected when prostitution is decriminalized or legalized and regulated. Sure we can find a few 'happy hookers', but there are many many more women who are not happy, not safe, not 'choosing'. and these women are in mortal danger.

I know there are women who say they are feminists, and they support tthe charter challenge, and the decriminalization of all aspects of prostitution. I don't think that supporting the continuation of the sex industry can be a feminist stance. I expect a wee shitstorm of invective hurled my way for that statement, but i will stand by it. Just because you say you are feminist doesn't make it so. And advocating for men to be able to buy sexual access to women's bodies is anti-feminist. Feminism is about figuring out a way to freedom. We want women, and men, to be FREE. not "available to the average consumer at a reasonable cost". We don't know what exactly freedom is yet, but it's different again from having the opportunity to choose between selling sex or pushing a broom, or lining up at the foodbank....

Freedom, it seems to me, and feminism both, depend upon working for the well-being of others. Not just having 'choice' but acting in the interests of those with fewer opportunities--working together to expand opportunities for all. I don't see the charter challenge as acting in the interests of those with fewer options for education, work, etcetera. rather it is doing the opposite. and it is anti-feminist.

Unionist, it would depend on whether we're talking about now or if and when laws are changed.

Ok, let's talk about today. No change of laws - because I'm only aware of one court challenge, and you say you oppose it. Should discussion in a car in a parking lot be a criminal offence for the sex worker? for the customer?

peasant woman, did you call my cohorts and i hookers? please refrain from using language we find offensive. we are sex workers or prostituted people as is prefered by some ex workers here on babble. no where did i see any current or former workers say, yes, call me  hooker, i find it empowering.....

try to be respectful.

I did not mean to be disrespectful. that's why i used the term in quotes. i also find it offensive, as it again puts the blame for male violence on women.

This thesis explores women's experiences working in off-street prostitution venues in Vancouver, BC. The victimization experienced by street-based sex workers has led many people to conclude that prostitution is inherently dangerous. However, street-based workers form the minority of sex workers in Canada. The question remains, can their experiences be generalized to other types of prostitution? Consequently, this thesis examines whether female off-street sex workers face the same degree of victimization as female street-based sex workers, and asks if the experience of prostitution always entails violence. The research contained two components: a) a victimization survey examining interpersonal violence and other forms of victimization of off-street sex workers (n=39); and b) in-depth interviews with ten off-street sex workers exploring their working conditions, safety, stereotypes of prostitution, and law reform (n=10). While violence and exploitation do occur in the off-street industry, this study indicates that some women sell sex without experiencing any violence.

quotes or not, the ends do not justify the means....i appreciate that it was unintential though. thankyou.

30% in Vancouver.

We are not talking the whole sex trade here, we are talking genital contact sex.

Please do not obscure this by trying to merge all types of sex trade  activities together.

90% in PG, if not more, close to the same for Kamloops, Kelowna, Terrace, Smithers, FT St John,  and Prince Rupert, are of FN heritages.

Then we have all those who are the marginalized poor taking up  most of the rest of the spaces,  and they have been abused by our classist society too. And then they move along to being exploited and abused more, in order to serve the instant gratification needs of the classist society.

do refrain from trying to kid us that rich people's daughters, or even middle class ones, are choosing genital contact sex, in the majority of cases in the remaining percentile, as a career choice.

 no one said child molesters until you did susan, please also refrain from trying to build conceptual frameworks that were never there.

In respect to what is posted in the labour forum, thread by Ms Davis,  it is but a glossy overview of what  things on the surface should be done.

Reading that thread, and what was posted regarding the regulations and certifications they were allegedly advocating, made me delve into the reality applications of what those very very surface statements meant. As I have direct experience knowlege, it was easy to break it all down.

when that gloss was removed, by my detailing the reality facets under the gloss, it was stated that none of those things were feasible to do, and to impliment them would drive  prostitution back undergound and out into the streets.

Which lead me to realize the only thing really being advocated for was decriminalized and unregulated genital contact sex.

Trying to also gloss it up as a human rights issue is nonsensical, as Loretta clearly points out above, and I have detailed elsewhere.

But for those needing to have it repeated, I would be happy to do so.

wow, .....yup....you nailed it on the head.....that's exactly what it is....a glossed over version of what is "really"happening and a remind....it's mrs.....i know you may find it hard to fathom but i am married.

if we were all abused as children, then it stands to reason our parents were either diddling us or were so bad of a parents that they allowed us to be abused....it is a very slanted perspective that dinishes us as all damaged goods.

how is the international carter of human rights non sensical? are you suggesting we don't qualify? are we not human beings and citizens of this country? you can not seriously believe your arguement about the rights of one group out weighing anothers rights...that is indefensible to use your own words. the charter specifically states that no provivions within are intended to superceed the rights of one group over another.

i am a middle/ upper class daughter......? what makes you think middle/upperclass daughters are not sex workers? just because you are upper/middle class does not make you imune to falling into poverty, facing challenges in your life....

your othering of sex workers as some seperate sub class that just somehow materialized from some other world is outrageous.until you all stop trying to paint us all with one brush, you will never truely accept us as human beings. why is it so hard to accept that sex industry workers are as diverse in back ground as any other community? were all women abused as children? i mean c'mon.

Unionist, I would say arrest the prospective customer.

susan davis, sex worker is not what people are, it's what they do. We don't have the freedom to do anything we want in our society. We are a group of individuals who live in a larger community. Yes, we have rights and freedoms and those must be balanced with the rights and freedoms of the others in the larger community. Freedom around identity issues is about what people are, in terms of qualities that make them who they are, they are not about what people do.

You are all human beings and I have no problem believing that you come from diverse backgrounds. I have no idea what that has to do with anything. However, I still believe that this work is something that disproportionately is made up of people with limited choices, whether or not they come from a middle-class background. There's no shame in having limited choices and our larger community should be working toward supporting those in that position and expanding their options.

i agree, we should be working towards better choices for all, but in the meantime while we try to eradicate  poverty does it not make sense to stabilize peoples safety? or are you subscribing to the idea that no matter the cost- in terms of human lives- we must move forward and pretend as if we WILL eradicate poverty and to hell with those caught in the middle?

no comments on the coop, or the links to data i provided you? or the idea of a sex workers first customer being a sink or swim situation?

my statement were ment to adress remind in the post you are referencing. i answered your post above. what about comments on our industry association and occupational health and safety training? policy procedure reforms for systems in charge of our protection? the fact that WCB recognizes us as workers?

what about the system wide reforms needed to adress barriers facing us that will be necessary no matter the outcome....sweden or decrim?

If we move in the direction of legalizing prostitution, we will never have a reason to work toward improvements overall. After all, how could someone apply for welfare when work is available in the field of legalized prostitution? You're an abused woman who needs work -- there it is. After all, it would seem as though the demand by men for the use of women's bodies is a never-ending demand/market to be tapped into by enterprising folks in the business and, while I appreciate the co-op concept, in reality, "the" business won't be made up of women's collectives who have the power in how their business is run.

... because?

So what if you are married susan davis, it plays no part in this discussion. Nor do any of the other numerous, too numerous to count, let alone address, red herrings and misinterpretations in that last post of yours..

I detailed just a few of the  laws and regulations that would have to be made and put in place, as well as all the regulatory bodies needed to oversee, that you gave points on, as supposed things you and others  planned upon doing, in the linked thread to the labour forum above.

You, yourself, and others, immediately dismissed those required industry regulations, as nondoable, so making claims that the industry business people, such  as yourself, want to do those regulatory things and have looked into it all,  fall a bit short of being actual reality. In fact, they appear to be feel good fluff, without substance.

~

As a feminist my first priority is fostering the well being of women. My actions in life flow from that place. Why?

men have been fostering their own well being at our expense, for over 2000 years, they know how, and most are not willing to give up that 2000 year old history  in just a mere  80 short years.

Women have not even recovered from how our chattal stature for 2000 years has warped our sense of self yet. And it is going to be a few generations yet I suspect, before we do.

Meanwhile, this feminist understands that there are no human rights involved in decriminalizing john's, pimps and procurers, as a man's right to have leisure time ejaculations is not a human a right and is just another version of the old patriarchial propaganda  of "every sperm is sacred".

Unionist, what remind said, "Meanwhile, this feminist understands that there are no human rights involved in decriminalizing john's, pimps and procurers, as a man's right to have leisure time ejaculations is not a human a right and is just another version of the old patriarchial propaganda  of 'every sperm is sacred'."

So you would change the law to allow a sex worker to discuss terms of a contract with a john (that's illegal right now in a "public place", including a car parked at the mall), but have the john arrested if he participated in the conversation?

One step further: Would you be ok with the john having that conversation with her over the phone? Or in her home?

Doesn't it reinforce the notion that every sperm is not sacred? My take on the "every sperm is sacred notion" is that ejaculation should only occur with hetero, married sex with no birth control. 

Could you definite "leisure time ejaculations"? This does not even mention or imply that any commerce is involved? As long as there is CONSENT, the state has no business saying anything about what adults do sexually in their leisure time - male or female. 

There are human rights involved. It is the right of a an adult to make decisions about her own body with a consenting adult. As long as the adult she or he is hoping to consent to sexual acts with is criminalized - then she may as well be too. 

remind: 2,000 years? The human species is a lot older than that and I would say patriarchal control goes back to the beginning. 

I do see a deliberate attempt to misunderstand what is sex work due to this rigid "definition" that it is meant to include all sex related work -- webcam, dancers, prostitution, etc, so then it can be used against the poster to say oh, my you are obviously talking about all sex work  so your stats (proven and peer reviewed) must be wrong, so I am going to "fix" them for you. 

You may not like it, but it is legal.  The laws that criminalize the activities around it (it being prostitution for the rigidly impaired) are only 25 years old.  The majority of sex workers work indoors, the overwhelming majority of 80+%.  This is a fact, please do not attempt to dismiss it.  The majority of all sexworkers therefore do not have tragic pasts, violent encounters, drug addictions, and forced entry to the business.  If by "poverty" you mean that many many people in Canada need too work to "escape" poverty, then sure go ahead and use it for the "main" reason for people choosing sex work.  It does seem that the fact that some people choose and enjoy it, in spite of what others think of them, seems to rub people the wrong way.  But get over it, people.  Prostitution is legal, therefore it is a legal option for work in Canada. 

The real world is out there, for anyone who can see beyond the ladies who work on the street.  Bringing up Craigslist of all things, lol.  The majority of high end indoor service providers do not advertise there.  They spend hundreds and thousands monthly on their business, which ultimately keeps them out of public view and away from censorship and social stigma.  They own and operate their own business, they have post secondary educations, often funded through this work.  They have an interest in communications and customer service, and they do not view sex and sexuality in that old style feminist view that all sexual acts are anti-female, or that no woman in their right mind could possibly enjoy sex and sexuality.   By stating that women are not capable of making this decision themselves, by themselves for themselves, you are effectively silencing them, marginalizing them, discounting their voices, infantalizing them.  In fact, no better than the judge who rules the 3 year old girl was "provocative" or the wife who acts in self defense was premeditative, or the teenager who was raped while walking home from school was "asking for it".

I really see no difference between those examples and the statements I have read that tell me what I am and what I think.

I have stated this elsewhere that this would be the model I prefer, since I believe it best reflects the charter right of women's equality. There is no right to have sex nor is there a right to contract for it.

Yes, I have a problem with people who think that they have the right to decide for me, a grown woman, and if I won't cooperate, they will make me do it their way. 

I would have to disagree with this, since Prostitution is legal in this country, by definition people in this country over the age of 18 have a right to contract for it.

The swedish model of criminalizing the client has been proven elsewhere, by the Swedish government and police services themselves, to have failed in its intent.  Why not choose something that actually gets the results you desire, if what you desire is to make life easier for street workers with drug and past abuse histories?  I think, because those issues have little or nothing to do with prostitution per se, and the solutions are unrelated to that work.

I haven't ever stated that this is what I'm talking about. I am talking about genital contact sex work.

If that's the case, what's the fuss about challenging the solicitation laws? Sure, most people work to avoid support themselves and therefore avoid poverty. There is a difference in that most people don't aspire to being a prostitute, or sex worker, if you prefer. Most end up "choosing" it for lack of other options.

The bolded statement is entirely inappropriate and not at all what's being said. Please do not get into personal attacks. Neither is this about my sex life and what I enjoy or don't enjoy -- that comment is not worth responding to since no-one has said that women are to be denied freedom as sexual beings.

Let's look at this another way -- why don't we just assume that all workers can decide for themselves what wage they need and in what conditions they will work? Why do we need laws of any kind to restrict business of any kind? Hell, those miners can look after themselves -- labour laws infantalize them, let's get rid of them. In supporting labour laws, you are discounting the voices of those who say they don't want a union so why don't we let them decide what's going to happen?

Loretta, this question has been addressed several times elsewhere. Non-consensual sex is assault, and we have other laws that can prevent the state from pressuring anyone into sex work. We don't even need to mention sex work: no one is required to volunteer for assault.

I can hardly believe you wrote that. The Charter doesn't say you have a right to eat or take a pee either.

No one bestows rights upon anyone else. We have rights by virtue of being human beings. The Charter is there to make sure that no one attempts to take those away from us.

If you are a human being, you eat, excrete, and like all other animals associate freely with other human beings. You need food, clothing, and shelter. The Charter doesn't single out most of those basic functions, although it does guarantee freedom of association, which, again, is a basic animal function, and it would be a pretty horrific society that denied it. (There have been such societies, unfortunately.)

Our animal life precedes all law, and all democratic codifications begin with a recognition of that fact. One of the great glories of animal life is to curl up with another living body of one's choice, and it would be an ugly tyranny that presumed to interfere with that choice and that joy.

Och, Rousseau -- where are you now that we really need you? *cue chorus of "Born Free"*

great post, skadl - it definitely bears repeating. I have been trying to formulate an adequate response to the assertion that "no one has  right to have sex". 

These have been discussed ad nauseum as to why they harm the sex worker and no one else by preventing her from working specifically in ways that are safer (like from home, which is considered a "bawdy house" or with security which is considered "living off the avails" or with family (also "living off the avails").  How anyone can think that the solicitation laws do not affect the sex worker, particularly the street sex worker, in a negative and harmful way is ludicrous.   How can it be better to jump into a car and drive away from the street to discuss rates and services (which, by the way is perfectly legal to do unless you are standing on the street).   So instead, you would have her get into the car with someone she has no opportunity to talk to with for a bit, to judge his character or seriousness, to find out even if he is prepared to spend what she is charging. 

Let us suppose that your miner goes to work, uncertain as to whether or not he will actually get sent into the mine today, and when he does, only then does he get a chance to tell them what kind of a wage he had in mind, then they tell him, well, since you are here anyway, why don't we pay you half of what you want and see what happens?  

And, btw, ignoring the fact that susi's organization has spent a lot of time, energy and thought into coming up with regulations and work standards is pretty insulting.  Just proves my point.  Posting without actually reading enough to make a direct comment on the post being commented on      Essentially, you are saying sex workers do not deserve or merit regulations and unions, etc, due solely to the nature of their choice to work in this legal occupation.  Well, many, as I say, are self employed so unions would not apply, but on the other hand when the absolute minimum fee for this sort of work is at least 50/hr, you might have a hard time lobbying for high wages.  Working conditions in massage parlours, or through agencies, yes.  There would be a lot of support for that, because currently there is no real regulation and an agency can dip into a workers earnings through the intial percentage of the call, then charge extra for drivers, advertising, and fine the worker for being late, not showing up, and so on.  Such fees could be more reasonable than what they are, for sure.  Perhaps you should be working for this, instead of trying to increase unemployment stats.

I do appreciate however that you said used "most" rather than "all" when referring to those who aspire to be prostitutes.  You would be surprised at how many actually did aspire to these, when younger or choosing it at a later age after serious consideration.  Yes, some people do aspire to this.  It can be glamorous, it can allow people the freedom to pursue other interests, it can simply be that they enjoy men and sex.  Last time I checked, there was nothing sinister about being in touch with one's own sexuality, as an adult.

absolutely not true. ghislaine have a browse through the  isles of history, but patriarchy would have you believe so...and not even really true for everywhere in the last 2000 years either.

Egalitarian societies certainly were not....and early celtic (simplistic term) most definitely not.

and what I meant was Ghislaine, it is always supposed to be about a man's dick, the new version of the focus is the selling of  leisure sex as a commodity, as opposed to the former one of male sperms needing release because they are sacred.

this is the end result of the objectification of women and girls, commodifying our vaginas as a conmmodity work place product, and convincing some it is human rights....

yep always wanted  my daughter and granddaughter to be a live version of a blow up doll....ffs

Exactly Loretta...

Yes, for now. If it became fully legalized and regulated, what's to stop that from happening? If some can legally sell it, what would stop the rest from having to? I see this move as perhaps improving life for some women in the short term at the cost of diminishing it for all - it's a green light to those who wish to commodify our bodies for their own interests, not ours.

ETA: I just re-read the thread on industry standards, etc, and realize that the discussion is about complete decriminalization not legalization at all. To me, this means that "the industry" is looking toward doing whatever they determine is OK without input from those outside it -- can someone clarify this for me? If that's the case, what are we talking about here? Full on, do whatever in terms of work hours, pay scales, public health, safety standards...I don't really see reference to this at all in terms of what it means for the rest of us outside that industry in the linked thread. What I see is a proposal for the industry to be self-regulated, period. I'm not sure if there are any other industries that have this degree of freedom but I highly doubt it. And, I doubt most of us would want that.

Yep....beneath all the spin and rhetoric that is exactly what they are saying...too secret, too much to demand that men be accountable for their actions and body excretions as if somehow  it is, and they are special. and above all things......in a normal work place scenario.

and denying that it would set up a "he said she said" situation for sexual assaults to boot...is mind boggling

there is a reason why feminists have succeeded in getting prostitution recognized as violence against women....

What's to stop what from happening, exactly?  Are you implying that decriminalizing the activities around the legal activity of prostitution is somehow going to legalize non-consensual sex?   I don't get how you make connections between things that have no connection at all.  This is typical of some of the "research" I have seen referenced here.  These things have been discussed and debunked elsewhere.

The regulations and policies have been clearly examined, explored and presented by susi elsewhere.  Refusing to read them doesn't mean that nothing has been done, or that there is going to be some sort of free for all.  The links to the rules and regulations set up by the New Zealand government on this topic have also been provided.  I am not going to hold people's hands and lead them to it, since it is clear that some would prefer not to read the comments and posts that surround these links for fear they might learn something that contradicts their strongly held beliefs. 

I realize that it might be awkward to be challenged constantly and directly with facts and statements and corrections, but is that not debate?  Let us assume, for a moment, that the definition of sex worker is one who does "genital contact work" shall we, since it seems so confusing although it has been discussed.  There is another category, sex industry worker, that  includes sex worker, dancer, films, etc.   Altho, can you separate actors in films (genital contact) from sex workers?.    Are you able to deal with the female clients of male sex workers at all?  I am finding it difficult to see them being defended, and who, in the end, is going to be defended and protected:  the male worker or the female client??   Have you thought about whether or not their is a victim in the case of male sex workers who have male clients?  Are they both aggressors in this legal activity?  Can't be victims, since they are men?   I am failing to see any of this included in the concerns and comments.   Does anyone care that the indoor sex worker is by definition forced to be a criminal by working from home?

How does one discuss (negotiate) with another that cannot  ???
Is this not restraint of trade ?
One minus one equals zero, that is the intent, correct ?

Refering to the title of this thread,
I am a feminist.

One doesn't because that is not the way work in the real world is undertaken and it is not a restraint of trade...

and this is the statement of the truth of that from above

so should we just chuck 100's of years of worker's rights fights away, so some men can have on demand leisure time ejaculation responses?

Last job I applied for, We discussed wages, hours etc. I CHOSE to accept.

and you did so in the framework of having the whole of the labour code supporting your actions, as well as health and worker's comp...

obviously you chose to accept an amount over min wage...aren't you fortunate in your class position....millions are not....

blue collar union workers are even forced  to make the same wage as everyone else in their job description, no individual bargaining allowed...

There is something about describing women in this way that is disturbing to me, disturbing because it is a stereo-type and I don't think any of the women here presenting themselves as sex workers in any way reflect that, rather I find intelliigent women who are stating clearly that they are making a free choice.

I wonder why that is so difficult to accept, certainly as society we are twisted regarding initmacy thanks to a lot of negative conditioning but  I don't think it is that.  I think it is because when we buy into the idea that we are powerless, that we have been victimized then we don't acknowledge our own power and responsibility.

I found some years ago that I diverged from what seems to have become dogma in some feminist circles when I realized that the most powerful people in my life were women and that men were equally imprisoned and in a way that seemed to limit them far more than I found women to be limited.

I began to ask myself why women were so determined to demonstrate their equality by proving they could do what men could do rather than celebrating the fact that women give birth which no man is capable of.  It seemed to me that by referencing our success in regards to the definitions men had made we were trading our true power for well, for what, for what men have made of the world, not for me.

I wonder that any woman who calls herself a feminist can tell another that she is not, that seems the very antithesis of respecting of women.

Good, and thank you for the affirmation, as I used it to be disturbing, and it is not a sterotype

you got daughters?

You got a daughter that could be tipped into marginalization  and exploitation because of her heritage quite easily, as we live in a racist and classist society?

Which women?

The 2 that declared they were choosing it,  or the 5 prostitutes that stated they were forced into it?

Which is pretty much representative of real life, a handful choose, the rest are forced into the personification of a blow up doll...

women and young girls have been objectified for a reason after all....once we believe ourelves to be objects commodification of genital sex comes shortly thereafter...

Well.... if men are equally as imprisoned, as women, then I want some of that prison.....sorry the poor men meme wore off on me long ago...

Odd thinking, given a woman cannot give birth without the male component, to say the least...look let's not make all this giving birth all mystical, or romance novelish, it is biological functioning contained in all species...it is just as bad as thinking every sperm is sacred.

i choose to celebrate whatever i can do well, at any given point in time and believe it me it varies, and beyond that appreciate what my partner of 30+ years can do better than i at any given time,

we have taught each other much over the decades....sexually and otherwise...

Well....shall we start calling sarah palin a feminist then? or Ann Coulter? or Rachel Mardsden? how about REAL women? how about Barbra Kay, or Kate McMillian?

Shall i call Harper a progressive too while i am being all fair and  respecting?

another example would be:

being tolerant does not mean tolerating intolerance

I think it speaks to men's approach to sex workers rather than being any comment on sex workers themselves.  And I think it's an accurate analogy.  Sex you purchase, like drunken sex with someone you don't even care about, is pretty much the same as finding a convenient receptacle. 

Women are not receptacles.

Remind, I found your response predictable.  I don't think you actually understood much of what I was saying and I have little confidence that whatever I say will find any receptivity with you.  Generally I have found your behavior on these threads horrifying and you are one of the main reasons I am even bothering to speak up, I felt ashamed that my silence could be taken in any way as support for your views.

That's right, they're not.  And this is what I hate about the sex trade -- that their clients treat them as if they were.

I think what we are hearing from some women is that they do not feel this way, I don't dispute that many women feel that men treat them that way.

As to Remind's question of which women do I find intelligent? All of them.

ennir I find that insulting post to Remind completly unacceptable and ceratinly does not meet any definition of feminism that I know.  I regret that are being initiatied to this level of discourse and intolerance for civil discussion.  I hope you will apologize and try to exchange views with more care and respect for yourself and others.  Remind has been a major contributor to this conversation and as such should have your ear and your consideration for her thoughts but whetherr or not you agree with her posts or her points there is no need nor tolerance on my part for expressions of anti-feminist contempt

ennir, as for my  behaviour it is not like i have been making personal attacks, like yours, with your falsely accusing  me of behaving badly, when i haven't been.  and even trying to ascribe "shame" to me.

how many prostitutes have you known in your real life?

not expecting an answer back, as i take it you have no daughter's, seeing as you did not answer my honest question and chose to be attacking and snide instead.

Of course i "understood" every thing you said, so apparently you do not find all women intelligent, and  moreover i have heard it ad naseum over the years...

What part of this didn't you understand?

You can be intelligent without understanding another's point of view.

You don't think that you have behaved badly towards Susan?

And do you seriously think a woman has to have a daughter to feel for young women and want to see them respected and cared for?  No Remind I am not going to answer that question, I think the question is offensive.

Hey Remind that is a real leap to my ascribing shame to you, I said I felt ashamed that if I did not speak up my silence could be taken as support for your words.  You are the one that leaped to that, I have no interest in whether you feel shame or not.

please stop making personal attacks ennir, it is discomforting, in the feminist forum especially

Anti-feminist contempt, please show me examples?

Again, who defines feminism? 

I guess we disagree on this, I don't feel I am attacking you, I am telling you how I feel, you are free to do whatever you want, I am not calling you names, I am saying I don't think you listen to me.  I said that I found you behavior horrifying, I am not telling you what you should do I am telling you how I feel.

Restraint of trade happens all the time -- the most vocally opposed among them are free traders.

As I am, despite the fact that I'm not convinced that full decriminalization of selling genital contact is a good thing for women.

Wow.  Been staying out of these threads for a variety of reasons, one being not enough time...

I see sex workers saying that no one should have the right to tell them what to do with their bodies.  I agree, no one has that right.  You can have sex with whomever you like, in any number and with any variety of acts.  None of our business.  However, that's not the part I am concerned about.  What concerns me is the commodification of the sex act and what repercussions that has on the world and social order that I live in and that I will send my daughters out into as young women sooner than I'd like.  And I don't see any positive effects from a feminist perspective.  I also find the dismissal of progressive concerns for the most vulnerable of the sex worker cohort intensely disturbing from both a feminist and humanist point of view.

So there has to be input from the rest of the people.  Even if we're not connected to sex work, because you're changing our social landscape via the business of sex, not sex itself.  We expect a level of input on other industries as well.  We don't get enough, but we do get some.

That's an excellent way of putting how I feel, Timebandit.

selling genital contact-

fuck you guys are insulting. this so diminised my work and the life i live...i am not a fuck doll or a receptacle.....any more than you are a baby factory remind. this type of discourse s disgusting. i do not remember any sex workers or former sex workers saying that was appropriate language for describing my life and work.

i have heard rape, prostituted, sex work......

i just love how youall uselanguage to belittle, diminish and oppress us.its pretty sad.

i totally understnad.if you read our plans for sex industry review boards or working groups, we do include mainsteam society as a stakeholder and respect that they must have input. please, add anything you like to those plans or state any concerns.

it's in the sex worker rights forum......

i would also like to say that sex work has been around a long time, in the oldest piece of writing on the planet- "the whore of babylon story" from 6000 years ago- has a sex worker in it...this is hardly new or some kind of addition to our "social landscape". we are here. we are part of the human experience and we will claim our rights as human beings.

And, irony of ironies, it's the abolitionist side that's complaining of being silenced.

Susan, I agree that people have to be more sensitive about the words they use to describe sex workers.

My feeling, though, is that they're talking from a feminist point of view about the way male society (not all males) view sex work and sex workers.  I think that the feminism forum has to be open to this kind of analysis of the sex trade - that many men DO see buying sex as "buying genital contact".  Many feminists believe that the sex trade doesn't just commodotize sex trade workers, but also all women when they can buy sex either in person or on a screen. 

Just as many people believe that the capitalist class does not see the humanity of the workers, and considers them cogs, or widgets in their machinery, there are a lot of feminists who believe that the patriarchy uses prostitution and other trade in sex as a way of reducing women to mere sex objects, simply in place to satisfy men.

That said, I also think it's extremely disrespectful to call sex workers "receptacles" or "blow up dolls" or to even imply that they act like it.  It may be true that this is how some men see sex workers (and perhaps other women as a result of the sex trade which some feminists believe encourage this view of women), but I think we have to be really clear that we are talking about patriarchal attitudes towards sex workers and women, instead of ascribing that status to sex workers ourselves, when we use inflammatory terms like that.

Regarding the diminishment of your work, Susan: feminists do not have to agree with you that sex work has positive value.  There are a lot of feminists who believe that the sex trade is not good for women overall, and they have to be free to express that viewpoint here as well.

Exactly why, I first used  it in relation to how male society would/will/does see my daughter and granddaughter. To make the clear point I was speaking about ALL women, and even  to the point of personalizing it down to my family, so people would get what I meant by its use...

When something is commodified, it no longer remains what it was.....and it becomes disposable...just like all other gadgets, toys, and games...for leisure time activities...

You have got to be kidding me. If anything remind has been nasty, disrepectful and horid to the sex workers here. Apologies should come from her. No one owes her an aoplogy.

Okay, Lee and Stargazer - unless you'd like to apply for the volunteer mod positions ;) then how about leaving it up to the moderators to determine who needs to apologize to whom.

Thanks.

This isn't even  just a reality for the sex trade, it has long been my contention as an eco-feminist, that if people refused to work at toxic jobs,  then the people using toxins for commercial purposes would be forced to design and use environmenbally friendly products and approaches.

No one has to agree with people's job choices that they believe will be destructive, or of no worth,  to society, the environment, or indeed people....

Indeed... I called my stepfather a company hack,  and told him he was a traitor to his grandchildren, because he chose to work at a pulp mill, and accept the nasty environmental practises they used, instead of fighting from within to use better technology and environmentaly safe practises, for himself and the population at large.

Did not mean I did not love him as a person, or would not hang out with him, just meant that I was not accepting of his job choices, and that he wasn't fighting for the environment, and he was getting paid to destroy it. He was not his "job".

He finally came around, saw what I meant, and worked with his union brethern and the community to make changes that were needed....

selling genital contact-

fuck you guys are insulting. this so diminised my work and the life i live

i would just like to add re: selling genital contact.

i understnad that both perspectives can be represented here but this statement is so un representative of sex workers or prostituted people.

i use condoms and never have "genital contact". the entire point of safe sex is not to have genital contact. this statements narrows the definition of "valid voices" to desperate or mentally ill workers who offer bare back full service and is hardly representative of our community. prostituted person or sex worker are accpeted terms and i take exception to the underlying tones of this definition of our work.

all of us use condoms.onstreet- off street- in very few circumstances- ie- the most extreme situation on street- do sex workers sell genital contact. it plays into the tired old crap of sex workers or prostituted people as the vector of disease and i find it incredibly offensive. remind is not as sex worker and neither is loretta. why are they allowed to define our reality for us?

we use codoms, no sex worker sells genital contact. these assertions are hateful and oppressive.

Nonsense.... you are selling access to your vagina, it is genitalia,  as is a man's penis, covered or not, and condoms break....

Your vagina is a commodity...that you are choosing to sell...

spanks a prostitute had a lot to say to you in another thread about trying to dress up fancy what prostitutes do.

Indeed, in another thread you felt it was okay for fortunate to obliquely call a woman a bitch, and yet here you are complaining about hateful words, when they are merely formal words describing exactly what is going on....

you are so rude dude.....dang......

tryin to dress up fancy.....?you are showing your true colours now......

i do not sell gential contact and to describe it as such is misleading. i would prefer you say selling my vagina over genital contact, as i never sell genital contact.

also, remind you state above that 90% of sex workers in PG are FN? bull- please post a link proving such an assertion. i know african american, caucasian and first nations workers in PG and saw the same over representation in the dangerous street level trade of first natios wokers we see all over canada.- when combined with knowledge of PTSD this takes on a different context- not every suicide note is in writing- and we must work to protect these vulnerable people.

i went ot PG during the "trade Secrtes" occupational health and safety training- consultations and the group represented many backgrounds and gender identities. nowhere close to 90% FN

please back up your claim or withdraw your statement.

Sorry, Susan, but that's a dodge, and I'm pretty certain you know it is.  The assertion that you sell coitus is not hateful, it's a fact.  However, if you feel that fact is oppressive, we might just be getting somewhere.

ETA:  It's possible, Susan, that Vancouver is not the ROC.  remind's point was that the cultural and racial diversity in large centres probably isn't reflected in smaller centres and more outlying areas of the country.

I'm sure there exist men and women who think that sex workers are nothing more than a "receptacle" or a "dixie cup" or a "sex doll".

I'm also sure there exist plenty of men and women who think that FNs are nothing more than "unemployable, violent drunks" and that POC are just "promiscuous criminals and thugs".

Given that I'm not FN or a POC, nor one of the virulent racists who hold these views, how often should I parrot them in my posts?  Once?  Twice?  Regularly?  Never?  Am I doing any kind of service to FN or POC if I do?  Could there be some lurker out there who's never heard of racism, and will he be enlightened by this?

And what if a babbler who's FN or a POC finds my quoting of the virulent attitudes of others to be offensive?  Should I stop, out of courtesy?  Or is repeating these ugly attitudes too important to be "silenced" by their feelings? 

I'm looking here at this thread and seeing lots of straw men lurking about. I don't think  it matters whether there are 30% Aboriginal women in street-levle prostitution or 90%, we all agree they are over-represented and that this is a shameful indictment of our society. We all agree that many women are damaged by men, yes? men who use rape, physical assault, harrassment and economic sanction to maintain power over women. I don't understand why it is so difficult for some people to see the connections between women's inequality to men and the fact that it is men who buy women in prostitution. Granted, I don't really care to argue this point, I know you cannot convince me that prostitution is in any way good for anyone. Be that as it may, just because I think that prostitution as an institution is oppressive to women, it does not therefore follow that I do not have regard or respect for women who are in prostitution. Quite the opposite, and I see that respect and regard articulated by other people on this list who are critical of prostitution. Women (and men) deserve so much better than a life of prostitution (even a day of prostitution) can possibly offer.

questioning the wisdom of choosing prostitution, or saying that support for prostitution or pimping is anti-feminist, is not at all disrespectful or insulting. To call this stance that, is to refuse to engage with the ideas and the activities that might take us a little closer to freedom and equality. I don't think that agitating for women to be able to kill people in the military is a feminist fight, either, and women who are in the military cannot be feminists, far as I can figure. That doesn't mean I am rude or disrespectful to them, or that I don't have an understanding of the ways that the institution itself upholds male power at the expense of the women also in that institution (all women, in fact, as well). It means I am interested in working to end that institution. same as i am interested in rendering prostution unthinkable.

i understand that perspective peasnt woman. and i respect that people want to work towards a society where prostitution is no longer necessary or seen as a choice. to see all people realize their dreams. for all people to be comfartable and happy and free to explore life.

but for, now since it does exist and we are living in it, does it not make sense to stabilize the safety of the people working in that field? people are dying, now. how can we protect people now?

we all agree that decriminalzing workers is paramount. opinions amy differ on how exactly that will look, but we do all agree.

terms being used by some posters are offensive and insulting and really do nothing except to stall the discussion on how we can move forward on what we all agree on, decriminalizing workers.

what can we do to remove systematic barriers for sex workers/prostituted people?

what can we do to educate the systems in charge of our protection?

how can we hold accountable those within the systems ment to protect us who use that power to harm us?

how can we find meangful ways for sex workers/ prostituted people to exit the sex industry?

how can we support licensing for decrimed workers? or do abolitionists support no regulation at all for workers after they are decriminalized under the swedish model?

so far we have heard suggestions of;

• mandatory STI tesing
• occupational health and safety training
• an inclusive licensing and complaints process
• mandatory STI testing for customers who would then "be allowed access to" sex workers in what i guess must be a government institution type building where sex workers are held and then customers can access them....?
• by law revisions that move towards inclusion and protection
• designing/ including sex industry workers in employee benefits programs that already exist
• including sex industry workers as workers and giving them rights under labour law.
• policy procedure mannual revisions for all areas of the government who engage with sex industry workers.

anyone else care to add anything?

Okay, apparently we must again go back to the actualities of body parts and functioning so that we can get on the same page....

Genital = of, relating to, or being a sexual organ

The reason why genitals  are referred to as  sexual organs is because they are an organ in the body physiology sense, which is what I have been stating....repeatedly

Genitals are not feet, backs, hands,  or  minds, they are actual "organs" in the sense that livers, hearts, and kidneys are vital organs. They are muscous membranes that absorb and secrete, and provide  distinct and important body functions beyond that of the sexual act, coitus [96] they can be used to engage in.

time bandit...i don't understnad what ROC means....?can you clarify?

i understnad i am selling sex, but describing it as genital contact is inaccurate, as i stated before, i prefer it when reminds says selling my vagina...although renting is probable a better description....

it is the insinuation of naked genital contact that upsets me. i use condoms and accept no gential contact.

Rest of Canada Susan.....

regardless of condom use, it is genital contact.

For instance, if a man uses a glove to hold his genitals, he is still holding his genitals...

The name of this thread and the first post held out the hope of discussing things like what social policy and what personal behaviour and what political movements and political tactics might lead us to "women's liberation" (to use a fine old phrase)  And within that context what reforms we might demand/create/imagine as part of that transformative struggle to protect the most  vulnerable among us like the involuntary migrant women trafficked for sexual slavery, and the children and youth raped and seduced into prostitution and the dispossessed mostly racialized women of the ghettos in our major cities. 

There are two reasons to focus on the most disadvantaged: one is compassionate and one is strategic.  If we fight for all with the criteria that we try to satisfy the needs of the most dispossessed we are more likley to get the best most effective tactics and the most principled as well.  In this situation the plight of women, the migrant, ghettoized, racialized, colonized and the young of those prostituted should guide us in our search for the reforms that will best suit women as a whole.  The desires of those prostituted who are not in those conditions matter to me but are are simply not as weighty in my political discussion of which reforms to demand

Obviously the solidarity of men to simply stop demanding prostitution would be the best outcome and we should never stop working for it.  But voluntary self control by individual men in the name of women's liberty does not seem to be a big hit with men so far.    They have not stopped beating wives or raping wives or committing incest or harassing women on the street in vast numbers. 

Silly discussion like how much time it takes us to stand by the side of a car and determine who are the dangerous men before getting in and spreading our legs or before having them bury our heads in their laps ignores that we cannot tell and neither can anyone else which are the dangerous ones: we cannot tell even after long courtships before we marry them.  That's because they are fairly normal men behaving badly.  No one can predetermine the choices men make of how to use and abuse privileges and power over women that they simply should not have. 

And dreams of voluntary control of the multibillion dollar sex industry are mindless.

Those not as steeped in anti-violence work as I am on a daily basis, may not realize that the occurences of violence against women go up in each situation whenever the status of women in relation to men changes: in the micro women get battered in the family when he looses a job but also when she finds one, when the last kid starts school and she is less trapped or when a new baby is born and she is more trapped, on the macro level when, as at l'ecole polytechic many more women than usual got into engineering or when one woman breaks thru a glass ceiling, when either feminists or women as a group are treated contemptuously by their government or bosses, religious leaders or cultural figures and when women get a step forward like pay equity or childcare or new law that offers some substantive shift in inequality.  So we need to be very clear where we are going what constitutes a victory and what changes we want.

There are some who argue that feminists have no right to demand that the state respond to violence agaisnt women by criminalizing it.  Some of those are pregressive on other matters but they object to feminists demanding the use of police and courts to intervene on the side of women overpowered by violence.  This battle is not won.  We are still fighitng the state including the Canadian state for an adequate response to violence against women.  Cops and courts, laws and administrations of law are inadequate and as yet are not guided much less driven by a substative charter based equality analysis.  But feminists in anti-violence work on the whole demand that we move in that direction for the sake of women and for the sake of transformation of the state appparatus and control.

Most of our energey goes into direct action to save women and organize women but we demand the rule of law be accessable to women so each women is not forced to fight each mn on her own.

So far the few men who work for voluntary cooperation from other men are still having only minimal effect although this last few years there has been a plethora of excellent contributions from men like Victor Mallorek, Robert Jensen, the men who support Vancouver Rape Relief and Womens Shelter and men are organizing in Montreal to support the new burst of energy against sexist violence.  The men I met yesterday at the BC Association of Social Workers raised their hands with the majority of the women in the room when asked if they supported the decriminalization of the women and few men prostituted and if they supported the more effective criminalization of the johns who use and profit from the use of those folks. There were in agreement with the Human Rights perspective and equality arguments put forward by Shelagh Day and I.  And of course they were impressed by the exprostitutes and parents of girls and youth workers who spoke up in the room to support what we had said.  They asked pointed questions later about why the NDP has no position and why it appears to have a pro legalization/total decrim position and why the media refuses to cover the feminist opposition to decriminalizaiton of the trade.  There was absolutely no disagreement expressed that we need to criminalize the procurers, the pimps and the bawdy house owners except from BC Civil Liberties speaker on the panel to represent their position

That thread title is still what interests me not so much in the form of who is a feminist but in the form of what constitutes a feminist response to this form of our oppression.  I am less interested in who cannot/should not be heard than in what gives an argument weight.  A bevy of reforms that accomodate that oppression of women and have nothing to do with the substantive equality of women may interest others but are not only not my focus but they distract (by accident?) from the question of getting to a better world for women including a world without prostitution.  When the suggestions for reform entrench acceptance of prostitution it seems to me they entrench the oppression of those most vulenrable and sacrifice and compromise the meaning of freedom and liberty for all

Awesome, Lee. Exactly on target as far as I am concerned and committed to those precise values. Thank you! It is a significant step forward that social workers - who don't put much truck in rhetoric but do help impoverished and abused people day in and day out - came to see it your way. We are on the way to beating back the "business model" of human rights.

The point of decriminalizing the workers, and offering comprehensive and varied exiting services is to dismantle and end systems of prostiution. So, no, actually, licensing and sti testing and any other thing that would regulate the trade in women's bodies is not helpful to anyone but the fellas buying, or renting those women's bodies. the best way to reduce the harms of prostitution is to interfere with the source of the harm, that's the men who buy and sell and rent women's bodies. Arrest the men. Even the "good guys". Even the guys who call the escorts, or who go to massage parlours, or who reply to the craigslist ads, or whatever. Stop them. If you are a 'good guy', who thinks it's terrible what some men do to women in prostitution, then stop it. Even, in fact, if you think that some women 'choose sex work' and they should be able to make a living that way, stop it. just give her the money maybe, but then, tell your friends to not buy women. in prostitution or in pornography. Not regulate, or set standards, or develop criteria for respectful relations with sex workers or whathaveyou, but stop buying or renting women's vaginas, mouths, anuses, etc for your use. that would be very pro-feminist and humane of you.

The point of decriminalizing the workers, and offering comprehensive and varied exiting services is to dismantle and end systems of prostiution. So, no, actually, licensing and sti testing and any other thing that would regulate the trade in women's bodies is not helpful to anyone but the fellas buying, or renting those women's bodies. the best way to reduce the harms of prostitution is to interfere with the source of the harm, that's the men who buy and sell and rent women's bodies. Arrest the men. Even the "good guys". Even the guys who call the escorts, or who go to massage parlours, or who reply to the craigslist ads, or whatever. Stop them. If you are a 'good guy', who thinks it's terrible what some men do to women in prostitution, then stop it. Even, in fact, if you think that some women 'choose sex work' and they should be able to make a living that way, stop it. just give her the money maybe, but then, tell your friends to not buy women. in prostitution or in pornography. Not regulate, or set standards, or develop criteria for respectful relations with sex workers or whathaveyou, but stop buying or renting women's vaginas, mouths, anuses, etc for your use. that would be very pro-feminist and humane of you.

And this is what I hate about people who refuse to listen:  over and over you are told that these are real men with real feelings who, for the most part, do not treat sex workers this way.  They are polite and respectful, in fact, so much so that personally I have had a lot more respect directed my way from them than I have from remind, and similiar comments.  Still continuing to try to twist my statements, and actually to try to mislead you all by saying that only 2 active sex workers have spoken up.  For one thing, susi represents the opinions of hundreds, all with the same stories, so when she speaks up it is from a position of knowledge.  For another thing, although not alot, at least 5 people joined up and told their stories, not 2.  remind prefers to ignore them because she cannot categorize and label them.

Okay, this is over a hundred posts, so I'm going to close it.