But isn't that more like a thought-experiment, given that some 89% of prostituted women say - when someone bothers asking them - that they want to escape that situation? (Farley 2005, Violence Against Women - please read this exceptional article)
Also, what does this argument say about the political model that tries to entrench such a condition rather then end the oppressive conditions that define it and offer support out, not within these conditions?
This is why this thread was an attempt to get at male mindsets and the pressures a patriarchal society maintains on women to always be sexually available to them, if for money. We seem to end up, as always, rather discussing women, as if they were experimental subjects in our daedalus of allegedly good intentions... as long as the status quo is maintained.
P.S.: The choice of the word "hire" in the OP was that of Niagara Falls Review, not mine.
I first of all wanted to Thank Martin for his posts. This is an issue I have stayed away from commenting on except in this thread [89], because of post #9 (I still can't figure out how to go to particular posts) - I quoted it in it's entirety below.
The reason that I have stayed away from this is that it is a very emtional issue for me and if people want to argue about my post go ahead but after this post I will not be replying back to negative feedback because it would upset me to much.
When I was a teenager I was abused at home, thankfully not sexually but abuse is abuse. I was given an out. When I was sweet talked I was smart enough to see past the promises and knew what leaving meant - I would become a prostitute. My immediate response wasn't a yes, but it wasn't a no either. It was a tough decision. Stay and be abused or leave and become a prositute. It was like a rock and a hard place. I ultimately made the decision to stay because of one reason and one reason only - I knew that if I wanted a future I would have to stay and take the abuse, if I went I would also be abused but with no future. This is the reality of the prostitution industry today and in fact this includes strippers and porn stars as well.
After I escaped and started going to college I met two friends, both were prostitues, one on the street and one had started in stripping and doing porn but ultimately very shortly ended up in prostitution.Both of them had backgrounds similar to mine filled with abuse, fear and pain as well as neglect. It was a long hard road for them to even get to college and one of them didn't make it, dropping out after the first few months. They reflected everything that trishabaptie said in her post in the above thread.
Martin has a very good point when he says that it is nice to talk in what if and what could be's but the reality of the situation is that most of the women involved in prostituation right now are being revictimized everyday and even if you improve working conditions it doesn't take away the pain, the scars and the torture that brought them to the place where they had to make that decision to sell their body for sex or for porn and the constant revictimization of each women dealing with the pain, scars and torture of the past and the new pain scars and torture of the present. The industry is one of the worst things in our society in the way that it not only allows but encourages and rewards the victimization of women who are involved. Making it so that women can get workers comp or hire security is not going to help these women, they need on the ground support, they need to be taken out of the situation where they are allowed to see themselves as dirt, as worthless and as expendable. Once that is accomplished maybe then we can start talking about building an industry that is about the freedom of womens sexuality. But right now support of the industry is not support of the women it is encouraging and rewarding the victimization of the women who are involved.
Heh. You've not been able to scold anyone for - what - hours?
Go to it. It's not as if you need anyone else.
martin, where did you intend to list this topic? I'm sure it wasn't introductions. Let me know, I'll move it.
One in nine men FREQUENT prostitutes? :D
Wow. I'm so sure! :D
It was to be in body and soul. Thanks for moving it.
One out of nine? Maybe I'm just travelling in the wrong circles...or naive...or maybe Malarek is pulling numbers out of his ass.
I'd really like to see how he came about this number.
A considerable proportion of men worldwide buy sex from female prostitutes, with most estimates of lifetime prevalence ranging from 7 to 39 percent, depending on the country and study. Many experts argue that it is a male appetite-and not the choices of prostitutes-that fundamentally drives the sex trade."
Overall, an estimated 16 percent of men pay for sex in the U.S., according to a 2005 report by social work professor Sven-Axel Månsson of Malmö University in Sweden. And a study published in 2000 of 998 street prostitutes and 83 call girls in Los Angeles led by sociologist Janet Lever of California State University, Los Angeles, suggests that 28 percent of men who patronize prostitutes and nearly half of those who employ call girls buy sex regularly, with the rest being occasional customers.
The proportion of patrons seems to vary considerably by country and by study. Månsson reported that 14 percent of Dutch men have bought sex as compared with nearly 40 percent of men in Spain. (Prostitution is legal in both countries.)
And according to HYDRA, a Berlin-based organization that provides legal advice and other aid to prostitutes, up to three quarters of men in Germany, which also has legalized prostitution, have paid for sexual services. Meanwhile other estimates for Germany put the proportion far lower, at about one fifth. In Thailand, where prostitution is illegal but socially accepted, one study suggested that a whopping 95 percent of men have slept with a prostitute.
Whatever the numbers, the behavior is prevalent enough that psychologists cannot easily write it off as pathological. (...) ("Why Do Men Buy Sex?", Nikolas Westerhoff, Scientific American, December 2008)
Also: "Pimps and patrons : the "boys" in the business" [9], in Roberta Perkins, Working girls : prostitutes, their life and social control, Australia Institute of Criminology, A quote:
"Just as the client views the prostitute as nothing more than a sexual object, so the sex worker feels no obligation to humanise her relations with her customer. Most prostitutes are contemptuous of their clients as men who are cheating on a woman, viz. their wives, fiances, girlfriends. This, coupled with the blatant objectification of prostitutes as women, the base unimaginative lust in most clients, and their folly in paying for sex, are the main reasons for a disdain felt by many prostitutes towards their customers, and is the source for the various terms for them in the prostitutes' argot. "Mug", for instance, among Australian prostitutes has roughly the same meaning as "sucker" in American slang. American prostitutes use the term "trick", alluding to clients' attempts at manipulating for free sex, and also "john" in reference to the clients attempts to conceal their true identity beneath a common pseudonym. English prostitutes call their clients "punters", with the same essential meaning as on the racetrack: that is, they gamble their money away. But these conceptual attempts at providing the prostitutes with a sense of superiority over their clients have an ironic ring. Society, with its male and morality dominated values, perceives the client's interaction with the prostitute as a sex object, his polygynous nature, and his open sexuality as "normal" behaviour, while the prostitutes' promiscuity, economic drive and control over sexual interactions is considered "abnormal". Thus, the client-prostitute relation is complex and contradictory."
If you start including the guys who pay for supper and a movie, hoping for nookie afterwards, I'll bet the numbers would skyrocket!
Good point Not just hoping, implicitly buying... and there is much unsaid violence when they are dissatisfied.
Their key issue seems to be control, avoiding any interaction where a woman's say would have to be taken into account. Two Montreal journalists - Catherine Texier and Marie-Odile Vézina - interviewed patrons in Profession: Prostituée: Rapport sur la prostitution au Québec, an early study of prostitution in Montreal. The men were adamant about their motivation: suppressing women's choice in the matter. Choosing impoverished women bought them guaranteed submission.
I don't have anything to add right now, but I'd like to get this post in here so there's no chance of me being the ninth guy to post to this thread.
Martin, have any studies been done regarding MSM sex workers, that is, men who have sex with men, both the clients and the sex workers, who many not identify as gay? Some of the issues may be the same from some of the workers' perspectives (poverty, youth, vulnerability), as well as men (clients) with certain levels of entitlement feeling that access to having sex with whomever they choose is their right. But other issues, such as sexism, misogyny, etc are not the same.
There is a film that is simmering on the back burner at NFB called "Hommes à louer", where Rodrigue Jean has interviewed at length male prostitutes in Montreal. The men interviewed say they despise their clients, speaking essentially of doing it to feed drug addictions. In that, they are similar to what most female workers are saying to researchers. I don't know enough documentation or research about what men who buy sex with men or sell it think and say to offer a summary other than cites such as those above. Feminists often tell me they would like to see allied men challenge men who buy women into dialogue about their values.
One in nine men hire prostitutes - Want to talk about it?
No. Next question?
I heard John Moore interviewing Victor Malarek on CFRB radio in Toronto. Malarek describes the men as coming from all walks of life. Many of the men are not those who one would think as lonely depressed individuals who can't get a date. Quite a few are "happily" married. He mentioned men who have wives whom they treat with respect (not including the cheatin'). Essentially, these men would not ask their wives to perform certain sex acts; they would ask/demand prostitutes to perform those same sex acts. There are men who prefer getting prostitutes because those men had bad relationships with women. Malarek described these men as being dangerous to the women.
Malarek's focus was on the men who look for sex. It will be interesting reading his book. I'm guessing that he will have a show on the same topic.
One in nine men hire prostitutes - Want to talk about it?
No. next question?
Well, maybe you don't, but someone here obviously needs to get something off his chest.
C'mon Marty, dish. We won't judge you.
I agree more attention should be focused on those who use prostitutes. Education campaigns are over due, and it's high time men themselves start to shift male attitudes concerning prostitution. However, criminalizing Johns is problematic for several reasons. Primarily, because this approach doesn't seem to work in any other facet of what we call "vice". And, it brings police in closer contact with the world of vice, which is good for no one.
Another problem where this focus could go very wrong is if it becomes seen as a panacea. There are many factors that lead to prostitution, some more significant than others. But all need attention.
The age gap between my eldest and youngest is 16 years. In those 16 years, I've seen the "Barbie Doll" transformed into "Bratz Dolls". While there used to be controversy around the emphasis on sexuality the now pedestrian "Barbie" portrayed, we now have a no holds barred doll that attempts to idealize modes of appearance that we'd usually associate with prostitutes.
And, if we take away the dolls, our kids can catch "Toddlers and Tiaras" on the missnomed "Learning Channel". When they aren't watching music videos of fetishly attired preformers whose musical talents are, in some cases, non existant. How many "Pussy Cat Dolls" actually sing? One, maybe? But it doesn't matter, as long as you can sell yourself sexually, you are a success!
This is what we are teaching our young women, and our young men about women.
When one takes a walk through the as yet politically unorganized neighborhoods to where the police have rousted prostitution, take your eyes off the ladies and the johns, and look around you. Check out the pay day loan places, the pawn shops, the tow trucks waiting for a call... for a tow?... in nieghborhoods where if one has a car, one fixes it yourself? One cannot have an industry without a supporting cast.
And we arrive at the part that substance abuse has in all this. And, it's nice to blame our Latin American friends for cocaine, or the nefarious biker gangs for crystal meth. But increasingly, you can thank big, untouchable pharma for niceties like Oxycontin, and our good friends at Health Canada that doesn't see that as a problem.
Yes, lets take a look at the whole neighbourhood.
I did catch an episode of Toddlers and Tiaras. I was horrified - it was like a train wreck, I couldn't turn away, and yet, it was so disgusting. Talk about a pedophile's dream, those contests. It's horrifying because those contests say explicitly to little girls what society tells them anyhow.
Is it that I am just getting old? I'm not sure. It seems to me the media has switched from conditioning women for a life in the home with the best detergents and vacuums, and conditioning men to expect that, to conditioning women for a life selling their bodies, and conditioning men to expect that.
No, it's not the premier cause of prostitution. In the scheme of things, it's maybe the least of our worries. But it disturbs me more than porn ever could. You still have to go out of your way a bit to see porn, and it has a taboo. This stuff is being main lined as "normal" straight to our kid's brains.
I don't know anything about the Pussy Cat Dolls, but the guy who writes The Superficial, which is something of an anti-celebrity celebrity site, calls them "strippers."
That goes the other way, too. Sometimes the guy pays for just dinner and and a couple of glasses of wine before being led by the hand. I find sometimes it's the woman who knows exactly what the new guy will be doing in about half an hour.
No, it's not the premier cause of prostitution. In the scheme of things, it's maybe the least of our worries. But it disturbs me more than porn ever could. You still have to go out of your way a bit to see porn, and it has a taboo. This stuff is being main lined as "normal" straight to our kid's brains.
Frankly I do not see any difference. Because women knew full well after a day of cleaning and looking after the kids what her obligations were. Now they have just removed the tacit understanding and exposed it.
I am currently taking a law course and last night my studies involved contract law. It stated that prostitution is legal in Canada, but Cdn courts will not enforce contracts involving prostitution - because it falls under the definition of an "immoral act".
I was completely blown away by this. Who are the courts to define an immoral act if it is legal? On top of all the oppression mentioned in this thread, a prostitute cannot enforce a contract if a client refuses to pay.
I personally lean libertarian and believe that each person should be free to have complete ownership over their body (including prostitution and drugs), however I continue to be extremely disturbed about the mainstream messaging directed towards girls and women - which men also pick up on. Michelle, I saw that show on one evening and could not bear more than 1 minute of it. I was ready to cry and was wracking my brain about child protection legislation that could be applied to those parents.
martin, I think the study you are speaking of is very interesting and I would like to read more about it. We have to keep in mind that there is a wide variety of forms of prostutition - some which women choose and find empowering.
Wouldn't the corollary be the reason for the law -- so that Johns also cannot enforce a contract if a prostitute changes her/his mind after an agreement was reached?
If you are going to get into legalese, the problematization of "consent" in sexual assault cases becomes relevant here. Does money really change everything?
Is this a window into addressing why men want to buy sex?
Wouldn't the corollary be the reason for the law -- so that Johns also cannot enforce a contract if a prostitute changes her/his mind after an agreement was reached?
e should be fighting for laws which increase the power of sex workers, not their clients.
sorry!
What's there to talk about? I don't see it as a problem.
That's kind of what I was getting at. To allow a sexual transaction to be enforced, on the grounds that it's a contract, would necessarily mean both parties to that contract would have the opportunity to enforce it. Based on that, I'm not sure that excluding prostitution from contract law disadvantages prostitutes as much as including it could.
Wouldn't the corollary be the reason for the law -- so that Johns also cannot enforce a contract if a prostitute changes her/his mind after an agreement was reached?
Hardly. In the case of the john refusing to pay, he's received the service AND has refused to pay for it. In the case of the prostitute changing her mind, obviously, the john would not pay if she changed her mind about it.
No, he could have paid beforehand or someone else could have done so for him.
We have gone around this a-contract-is-a-contract thing at length when "surrogate" mothers' right to change their mind and keep their child was discussed during the "Baby M" controversy among feminists - radicals v. liberals (1986). I recall that the issue turned on whether any human interaction could be reduced to enforceable contracts.
I still think it's significant that so many men want to not only manufacture consent, but ensure it if need be, through blatant economic advantage/constraint. Do they need our help?
martin: do you think prostitution should remain legal?
One in nine men hire prostitutes - Want to talk about it?
No. Next question?
Why not? Are you mad that you got overcharged like Eliot Spitzer?
Much like any other profession, if you want to improve conditions, you regulate it and/or unionize it. Questioning why it exists is interesting but it doesn't result in immediate improvement.
If you are going to get into legalese, the problematization of "consent" in sexual assault cases becomes relevant here. Does money really change everything?
Is this a window into addressing why men want to buy sex?
Lots of reasons. Males might be evolved (whether in the cultural or biological sense is a big tough question itself) to trade resources for sex and females vice-versa. This is a feature of a lot of human sexual relationships whether we'd call them prostitution or not. Sometimes it's the freedom from social obligation prostitutes provide - such as in the old saying about how you really aren't paying a prostitute for sex, you're paying her to go away after. It guarantees the sex without the relationship that might otherwise be required. Sometimes it's for variety of women for those bored with monogamy or for variety of sex acts the woman they're with can't or won't agree to provide. Other times it's just for access to women they couldn't normally get based on their looks, social position or ability. No question there's a big whack of entitlement involved too.
So, ya, I've done it. What can we learn? Doug summed it up good for me in #35.(about the freedom from obligation) I only post this to learn.
I've found the cost of chasing women (and I never had a problem before I went left-wing) is astronomical. It's easy to get laid if you buy into capitalist thought. Not so easy if you want to respect women and try to downsize. Just some char for the grill.
If it's not clear, I feel I'm being more honest about my intentions. And I'm sure I could get a reference letter for my respect. ;)
I miss M. Spector.
Hey, dialogue! Good on ya', laddies!
Hmm,
I was thinking that maybe I'd get a maid
Find a place nearby for her to stay.
Just someone to keep my house clean,
Fix my meals and go away.
A maid. A man needs a maid.
A maid.
It's hard to make that change
When life and love turns strange.
And old.
To give a love, you gotta live a love.
To live a love, you gotta be "part of"
When will I see you again?
I didn't really get that jas, what if you have a healthy relationship with 3 sisters and their kids? My family has love. My place is plenty clean without a maid, I don't get your prose?
It's a Neil Young song. Just pointing out the parallel of that kind of emotional response to life to Doug's astute observation.
I don't think Doug's observations led to anything close to that kind of a comparison. It's kind of repugnant to compare it.
If you knew the song, you'd understand. It absolutely is a parallel, and I make that observation non-judgmentally.
I'll look it up. Thanks for the link. Neil Young can't be that bad.
Any hints on the name of the song?
Haven't found it but Neil can be great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0t0EW6z8a0&feature=related
"A man needs a maid"
Like I said, a horrible comparison.
Neil was very emotional. Perhaps, this is one of his better tracks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh44QPT1mPE&feature=related
Guess he found it, his music stopped.
I also think the relationship with housework in Neil's song is significant. Calling "horrible" some men's diffidence at commitment to equalitarian relationships keeps a reality at bay.
(I'll be glad to PM the original version of this post to anyone here who wants to address it in detail, but am pulling it now to make life a bit harder for the political foes who would exploit my candidness...)
Martin, you don't need to hide from your past. It helps bolster your positions rather than weaken them.
Xx xxx xxxxx x xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx x xxx. Big deal. Being more open about that stuff can only help to de-stigmatize the discussion of prostitution by the men who use them.
Well, I can't pull your pathetic recasting of what I shared... I think I showed I did everything but "hide from my past." (groan!)
I am merely concerned about how my words can be misrepresented - which you just proved. I am sorry that you misread them this badly and hope this is unwitting on your part.
I think it may be unintentional Martin. It took a lot of guts to post that. I was truly in awe last night when I read it of your courage, especially given your dogmatic opposition to it.
The prostitution challenges we face in Canada won't even begin to be addressed unless the users are willing to talk openly about it.
Well thanks for the half-compliment. I think my post may show how non-dogmatic I actually am in trying to suss out what makes men and prostitution tick and why progressives should be concerned and in solidarity with critical feminists.
(Since you say the the smear may be unintentional, I would be really grateful if you pulled the third sentence of post #52; it doesn't at all correspond to what I think and wrote.)
Martin, it is a reasonable interpretation of what you wrote. You received xxxxxxxx with a xxxxx xxxxxx. The xxxxxxx alone is enough to, in some circles, be considered xxxxxxxxxxxx. Xxxx xx, xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx xx x xxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxxxxx. With the xxxxx xxxxxx though, it really does clinch it.
If you think I'm mis-characterizing what you said, then put your post back so that it can be decided. No-one called you out for being a bad person or being a hypocrite when you posted it. In fact, no-one commented at all. That alone should tell you that it at least got people thinking. Removing the post is the problem, as it just re-enforces the attitude that the use of prosititution can't be talked about in public.
It took a lot of guts to post that, Martin, and for the first time I was willing to consider that maybe you weren't the person that I thought you were. It was a very thought provoking and honest post. One that could stimulate some much needed discussion.
Ah..., I thought you were being disingenuous and this confirms it. You won't let me decide whether to leave or not a post here for the antifeminists to gloat over. By misrepresenting it, you're trying to force my hand. Par for the patriarchal course, I guess. You're quite something, "HeywoodFloyd". No wonder people are careful not to disclose anything here.
My whole point was that sex in exchange of money made, in my experience for unhappy endings and destructive interactions.
I'm not trying to misrepresent anything Martin and I would like an apology for that. I don't have a copy of your post with which to judge what I remember of it against.
I don't see how sex for money could ever end up in a truly happy ending for either party. Unfortunately, now no one else here will.
You win Martin. I'll edit the offending posts. Perhaps we can all forget that this ever happened.
Do posts # 51 onwards answer the thread title question?
Thank you, and no, I didn't think you were trying to misrepresent what I wrote, only that this was the result, which I wrote. So I apologize if this seemed like a trial of intent.
Martin, seriously. How do you reconcile these two statements you made?
Either you think I was trying to mispresent what you said, or you don't. Which is it?
Ah..., I thought you were being disingenuous and this confirms it.
Thank you, and no, I didn't think you were trying to misrepresent what I wrote, only that this was the result, which I wrote. So I apologize if this seemed like a trial of intent.
Disingenuous in your defense, after I clearly objected to your recasting of my words and you tried to strong-arm me into reposting, not in your initial post which I believe was not ill-intentioned.
Being disingenuous in my defence would imply that I was being disingenuous in my original post. You referred to my original post as a "pathetic recasting of what I shared.."
I firmly object to you repeatedly characterizing my post as a recast of your words. It was most certainly not. That you don't want your post to see the light of day is too bad, because it had real value to this discussion. However, what I wrote was certainly not an inaccurate reflection of what you wrote. Nor was it an inaccurate reflection of your actions.
Of course, you recast it. For the rest, we'll have to disagree. Also, one Martin point for your claim about what I "imply" (when I am saying the exact contrary).
And hey, how about getting off my case and telling us a little about how you try to reconcile your values, past and current behaviour, whatever, around prostitution if you are so admirative?
Sure. I've never used a prostitute. I don't really have a problem with people who have, or do.
However, I don't think we can ban the right for a person to barter their body. Doing that takes away from the fundamental right of the autonomy of self and that WILL be used by anti-abortion people as the crux in the argument to make abortion illegal.
interesting juxtaposition, however, don't see the 2 as being mutally inclusive. As then by that same notion no one could work either as that is bartering one's body too, eh.
If the anti-choice fetishists, are thinking they can use that they are sadly mistaken. me thinks.
The thread issue is men hiring prostitutes, not women's right to "barter their body".
Would you sidestep a discussion about exploitive working practices by insisting on the "right" of the exploited to work under any conditions, even a sweatshop, or to eschew union dues in a unionized shop? How about the right of starving Thais to sell their children to sex tourists? Focussing only on the alleged "rights" of the disadvantaged group tends to draw attention away from the profiteers, doesn't it?
The thread issue is men hiring prostitutes, not women's right to "barter their body".
Perhaps I wasn't clear Martin. I don't have a problem with it because I don't have a problem with any adult person having sex for money, provided they are capable of giving consent.
interesting juxtaposition, however, don't see the 2 as being mutally inclusive. As then by that same notion no one could work either as that is bartering one's body too, eh.
Then look at it from the perspective of a person's right to do with their body what they will. If we accept that the state can say to a person "You can't trade your body for sex" then it is a very small step for the state to say "You can't take that fetus out of your body" and use the first law as a precedence.
I believe that there will be some very ugly unintended consequences of trying to restrict through law the sale of sex.
I can't believe I'm reading this...
Would "Sell us your body orifices or we'll take your uteri" be an appropriate way to phrase this?
No wonder they call it a "happy ending"...
That people don't and perhaps shouldn't have the right to sell their labour under any circumstances doesn't necessarily imply or require that people have no right to sell their labour at all.
It should be said that legalization doesn't solve everything, as this column I happened across reminds us - the how of doing it is just as important as the why:
The Nevada counties prefer not to acknowledge the contribution made by licensed prostitution to their bottom line. Some counties and towns impose some extraordinary restrictions on commercial sex workers. The net effect of these regulations is to separate sex workers from the local community. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/apr/03/nevada-prostitution-tax [74]"Legalization" should never be dscussed without making it clear whose acts are to be decriminalized.
It is absolutely imperative to get the State off the backs of prostituted people. NOW!
But tying that demand to an allegedly necessary legalizing of pimping, running brothels/'escort' agencies and soliciting women and children by johns is a sham. This all-or-nothing posture blocks progress on a crucial demand - one of many - about which almost everyone agrees, i.e. to stop criminalizing the people being prostituted.
Women's oppression by the State in the selective repression of prostitution's most visible figures is being treated as a Trojan horse. To embrace this problem and fix it, are we told, we must give even more power and licence to their exploiters. B-S!
Once more, allegedly progressive men are using that traditional yellow-bellied strategy : "Chicks up front!"...
Sorry if this is really out of left field --perhaps I´m tired after a long day of getting nothing done-- but I thought that perhaps "Canadian government hires Ari Fleischer" should have simply been part of this thread....
I can't believe I'm reading this...
Would "Sell us your body orifices or we'll take your uteri" be an appropriate way to phrase this?
No wonder they call it a "happy ending"...
Really? This, from a guy who was pissing and moaning about how he felt that he was being misrepresented when he talked about his use of xxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxx for xxx?
Talk about being disingenuous and, for that matter, putting words in my mouth.
Great news! With the help of the Left and the Greens - fat chance of this happening in Canada... - Iceland joins Norway and Sweden in getting off the backs of the prostituted and on the case of the prostitutors...
Found this on the Web...
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o(Icelandic) Minister of Social Affairs Ásta Ragnheidur Jóhannesdóttir presented an action plan against human trafficking yesterday (March 18), which includes placing bans on operating strip clubs and purchasing sexual services.
It is hoped that the ban will take effect before the parliamentary elections on April 25. (...)
"Human trafficking is the most disgusting form of international and organized crime that exists in the world," Jóhannesdóttir said while presenting the 25-point action plan, Fréttabladid reports.
In 2007, with an amendment to existing legislation, prostitution was legalized in Iceland as long as a third party doesn't profit from it.
After Jóhannesdóttir presented the action plan, MP for the Left-Greens Atli Gíslason presented a bill on banning the purchase of sexual services, which is backed by other MPs from the government parties and the Progressive Party.
"A complete victory has been achieved after many years of fighting by women's rights organization and other social organizations-and no less by MPs who have often submitted bills on this topic to Althingi [the parliament]," Jóhannesdóttir said. "I'm one of them and so this day is an especially happy day for me."
The new bill will not criminalize the solicitation of sex, which Jóhannesdóttir described as the "Swedish approach" to combating human trafficking.
(Iceland Review, March 19, 2009)
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o This action plan and bill became law a few days ago in Iceland.
Janice Raymond. co-director of the Coalition Against the Trafficking of Women (CATW), writes :
« Congratulations to Gudrun Johannesdottir and the women of Stigamot who seized the moment of a woman Prime Minister to pass legislation on criminalizing the buyers in Iceland. This is the result of years of work by Gudrun and Stigamont and represents the determination and perseverance of a remarkable group of women in the face of not only governmental setbacks but outright threats from the sex industry in Iceland. This is a monumental achievement. Following the law in Norway, it gives us hope that other countries may soon see the light. »
(CATW distribution list: http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/catw-l [79]) For a summary of recent prostitution reform and attendant immigration issues in Nordic countries, notably Denmark: "Prostitution legislation: Will they go the same way?" [80]
But tying that demand to an allegedly necessary legalizing of pimping, running brothels/'escort' agencies and soliciting women and children by johns is a sham. This all-or-nothing posture blocks progress on a crucial demand - one of many - about which almost everyone agrees, i.e. to stop criminalizing the people being prostituted.
I agree. I'm pretty hesitant about this issue myself because I don't really understand it very well. It seems simple enough on the surface, legalize the prostitutes and criminalize the johns and the pimps. The johns is easy, I can't see any issues there. But the pimps ... or other third-party profiteers ... how do you distinguish someone providing security to a prostitute, and a pimp? Could it work to have prostitutes hire security firms for that?
As far as I know, prostitution is technically legal in Canada. Most forms of solicitation are illegal, as well as pimping -- defined as living off the proceeds of prostitution.
In fact, elsewhere I have recently been trying to initiate a discussion about whether prostitutes and other sex workers may be eligible for workers' compensation benefits. One barrier for many sex workers would be proving income. Another would be establishing an employment relationship. If both those conditions were met, I see no reason why some of those claims would not succeed.
To my mind this would be a powerful tool to facilitate further organizing, perhaps the formation of collectives, with the effect of lessening the power imbalance between prostitutes and johns.
It helps not to to think of prostitutes in an essentialist manner, as if that was a cast-in-stone identity, rather than being temporarily on the receiving end of sexual abuse by an entitled party, for lack of alternatives and social support, which is how most of the women involved describe it as they struggle to escape this situation.
And the men that systemarically take these women's money are very rarely "hired", I assure you...
Workers' compensation law does not require that the employment at the time of injury be permanent or even long-term.
If the prostitute-john relationship could rarely be characterized as regular employment (notwithstanding the term "hire" in this thread title), is that necessarily true of the relationship between prostitutes and pimps? I'm not sure. What about phone sex workers or dancers, and their employers (versus clients)? Some of those are certainly in regular employment.
If workers' compensation can be established as an area of social benefits entitlement for some sex workers, would that provide an impetus for others working in prostitution to organize into collectives, eg to ensure that their legal employment structure allows for statutory coverage in the event of injury on the job? Advocacy groups already exist. This would give them a really substantial way to try to help some of their most vulnerable members. It would bring them more money, increased legitimacy and exposure, leverage to demand legal changes that their members decide are important.
Of course, the idea of enfranchising sex workers in this way runs contrary to the vision of criminalizing all those who buy sex, martin. I'm guessing that's why you are opposed to it?
But isn't that more like a thought-experiment, given that some 89% of prostituted women say - when someone bothers asking them - that they want to escape that situation? (Farley 2005, Violence Against Women - please read this exceptional article)
Also, what does this argument say about the political model that tries to entrench such a condition rather then end the oppressive conditions that define it and offer support out, not within these conditions?
This is why this thread was an attempt to get at male mindsets and the pressures a patriarchal society maintains on women to always be sexually available to them, if for money. We seem to end up, as always, rather discussing women, as if they were experimental subjects in our daedalus of allegedly good intentions... as long as the status quo is maintained.
P.S.: The choice of the word "hire" in the OP was that of Niagara Falls Review, not mine.
Martin, workers' compensation coverage is one of the largest social welfare programs in the country. It offers extensive retraining programs, life-long pensions, and medical coverage including high-quality detox programs. I daresay that many of these women would be more than happy to find out that they are eligible for these services.
The point in relation to this thread is to place the women themselves, individually and as a group, in more of a position of strength to demand necessary changes.
[quote=triciamaTo my mind this would be a powerful tool to facilitate further organizing, perhaps the formation of collectives, with the effect of lessening the power imbalance between prostitutes and johns.
I was thinking about worker co-operatives too, in regards to the Icelandic law that prohibited third parties from profiting. It's extremely common for worker co-operatives to be legally constituted as corporations, who are entities or persons under the law - unless there was some exception for worker co-ops, that would prevent prostitutes from organizing into co-ops. Co-ops would seemingly be an ideal way for prostitutes, operating independantly of the pimps, to organize - they could pool resources to provide themselves with a workspace, which would give them better control of security etc ... they'd control the space they have to work in, instead of having to work in an uncontrolled environment.
I like the idea of enfranchising them, but ... with an eye to eventually phasing out prostitution. I think they're actually complementary concepts, rather than being at odds. Enfranchisement might provide some of them with enough control that they can look towards getting out. I'm actually sort of undecided about phasing it out, but I think most of it should be. If 11% or whatever want to continue in that line of work, though, I suppose it should not be utterly phased out. My gut reaction is to recoil from it and want to get rid of it altogether, but honestly, I suspect that at least some of that is the closet moralizer in me speaking. I'm, well, a bit prude and my feelings towards prostitution are confused, hesitant, and uncertain.