Defense of the Nordic Model for dealing with Prostitution (and the right to defend it)

661 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

fortunate wrote:
It doesn't matter if I think it is, or if you think it is, or if some church lady in Kelowna thinks it is.

Actually it does matter. In a democracy we infringe on the rights of individuals for the greater good. Seatbelt laws infringe on individual rights. Minimum wage laws infringe on worker rights. Everyone gets to have an opinion and express it, not just the people directly affected. I don't have to be a minimum wage worker to have an opinion. If a bunch of minimum wage workers say they don't want it raised because they are afraid they will lose their jobs, I listen, but I don't have to agree with them and I am free to listen to other voices. 

fortunate wrote:
Whether on the street or on the phone, the best way sex workers have to 'size a guy up' is talking to them.   Some can do it in 2 minutes in a phone conversation, and I have no doubt at all that an experienced street worker, whether high or not, can do the same.

High level police detectives wouldn't even make that claim. Abusive men walk amongst us all the time convincing everyone they are nice guys. 

fortunate wrote:
She's going to jump in that car with or without more time, because she isn't going to know when the next car is going to show up, if ever.

Whether she has 1 minute or 5 to assess the man makes no difference because I don't believe strangers can be assessed that quickly by anyone other than James Bond. 

fortunate wrote:
This sums up nicely what abolitionists do not want the general public to know:
I have never read or heard of any abolitionist ever trying to silence sex worker voices. I believe everyone should be heard and I think the grand majority of abolitionists agree on the right to be heard. 

From the article you quoted:

Quote:
 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/view-from-the-streets-new-nordic-sex-laws-are-making-prostitutes-feel-less-safe-9294458.html

Some sex workers applaud the laws. “It is good the customers are scared,” said Tina, 24, from Romania, waiting for clients in the streets in central Oslo. “If they try to get more than what they paid for, or if they threaten to be violent, I can tell them: ‘I am going to call the police, tell them where we are and give them the registration number of the car’.”

Numbers are scarce and everyone is biased including those directly involved. That this sex worker agrees with the Nordic model doesn't make it right. I disagree with the particular scenario she describes even though I do support the Nordic model as this particular sex worker does. I don't think it would be a wise idea to threaten the man in that situation. I think it would be dangerous. It's not necessary to be a sex worker to form a valid opinion on what constitutes "safe" or "safe enough". 

Solid empirical evidence not dependent on anecdotal accounts and opinions is hard to come by. Even so we can compare the histories and outcomes in multiple countries and form an opinion on the likely outcome in Canada. We can see that laws primarily impact street prostitution, brothels, and trafficking. We don't have to be sex workers to do that. 

After having reviewed tons of information, opinions and theories I don't believe there are any simple answers. In my opinion the Nordic model doesn't solve the problems but it does prevent them from growing and does reduce the number of women exposed to the most exploitative aspects of the industry. Enforcement and focus are key. Montreal just shut down some massage parlours but there are many more so laws already exist, they just aren't enforced. It's quite possible that the laws will have practically no impact other than prostitutes no longer being arrested. I think more brothels might get busted but that's just a gut feeling based on the popularity of forfeiture clauses for seizing the proceeds of crime. 

 

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
Please provide the evidence to what you are claiming regarding that strip clubs are literally being replaced by new massage parlours.  There is no evidence that i know for what you are claiming.

I already provided the quote but here it is again:

Quote:
 http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/16/why-dancing-naked-at-a-bar-is-a-declining-profession-in-toronto/

“The industry seems to be declining in the past few years,” says Susan McPhee (not her real name), 31, who started as a stripper overseas, and now dances at Zanzibar on Yonge Street. “The girls in the club used to just bat an eyelash and the guys would run right up. Now we have to go up to guys, chat with them and try to convince them to buy a lap dance.”

It is not as though, as a society, we have become more prudish. Licenses for wholistic centres and body rub parlours have risen even as strip clubs have closed their doors. ..….The strip clubs’ main competition in Toronto today comes from 1,000 massage parlours, most of them illegal, tucked into industrial areas and not inspected by the health department or the police, Mr. Lambrinos contends. 

I find the people that were interviewed are credible and what they are saying makes sense to me. 

fortunate wrote:
Why do dancers get sympathy for the loss of their jobs and income, but an escort can't? 

All workers who lose their jobs get my sympathy. Sometimes the job losses are unavoidable or for the public good. It's very common for one type of job to replace another or to vanish. Both technology and globalization are displacing jobs sometime to the betterment of mankind, sometimes not. What I think about the job losses is situationally dependent.

Strippers have been pushed from the stage to table dancing and from table dancing to lap dancing. I believe the people saying that strip clubs are losing business to massage parlours. They are in the business AND what they are saying follows the logical progression of history. So, I judge them to be credible. In this situation, weighting prostitution against stripping, I consider stripping the better job of the two. 

fortunate wrote:
I'll reply to this one, because you are not cherry picking the quote and dissecting each word and sentence with some kind of rebuttal.  If you do this all the time, we can have a conversation. 

I quote so I cannot be accused of paraphrasing incorrectly and so that readers can see what I am responding to. I am very careful not to alter the meaning of your words through lack of context when I quote you. That is easily verifiable by looking at your original post. Your posts seem like rants or venting (nothing wrong with either) so I just pick out salient points to reply to. 

fortunate wrote:
 You are missing the point of my statement, which replied to your claims, but this reply here, does nothing to address that.

If there was a point somewhere that you would like me to reply to you'll have to be more specific.

 

Elle_Fury

Some wonderful quotes that express much more clearly than I can why the "choice" and "agency" argument is flawed.

 

“Do not ever conflate consent with liberation. Consent is accommodation to unjust conditions that we do not control, liberation is the overthrow of those conditions.”

“Marilyn Frye uses the image of a birdcage. One wire is not gonna hold that bird, but oppression is like a cage. It’s a system of interrelated barriers and forces, it’s how all those wires work together. If you don’t see that it’s a system, well, the bird wants to be in that cage. The bird must enjoy being in that cage. The bird is singing, she’s eating, she may even be laying eggs. The bird is volunteering to be in that cage because it’s the bird’s nature to be in that cage.”

- Lierre Keith

 

fortunate

Pondering, until or unless you stop trying to misdirect with this dissection of comments, your replies are not worthy of my response. 

If you want a conversation, stop the passive aggressive nonsense.   

I hoped the main goal of feminism is to teach women to be direct.

 

Do I speak for all sex workers?  Have I ever claimed to do that?   What I know is from what i have experienced, and by listening to hundreds and hundreds of sex workers at many different levels, and from many different countries.   And what I know is that my knowledge is a great deal more diverse and vast than any abolitionist, who refuse to listen to anyone who refuses to be one of their victims.  

 

But feel free to read the latest story about a human trafficking hero, Mam, who made up the story of her own childhood, and had other young women make up stories about their own, all to get the $$ for their humanitarian work, and to force women into less than subsistence level garment factory jobs.   Because that was what Cambodia needed, more workers in the factories, and that is what the 'Rescue Industry' does in Cambodia, find new workers to be virtual slaves.   (see Links topic in the sex worker forum) 

 

Unfortunately, Canada doesn't have a subsistence level garment factory industry, so the 'rescued' sex workers are basically going to be told to live on the streets, as long as they aren't doing sex worker, all the abolititionist groups will be doing happy dances.   

 

Pondering

fortunate wrote:

Pondering, until or unless you stop trying to misdirect with this dissection of comments, your replies are not worthy of my response. 

If you want a conversation, stop the passive aggressive nonsense.   

I hoped the main goal of feminism is to teach women to be direct.

I think you're full of shit, (Is that direct enough for you?), which is why you attack me rather than my arguments and paraphrase rather than quoting. I don't want to be passive aggressive so let me be clear, I don't particularly want to have a conversation with you for the aforementioned reasons of being full of shit, making personal attacks and paraphrasing. 

fortunate wrote:
And what I know is that my knowledge is a great deal more diverse and vast than any abolitionist, who refuse to listen to anyone who refuses to be one of their victims.

Then you should be able to rely on your arguments rather than attacking the groups and individuals who disagree with you. 

fortunate wrote:
Unfortunately, Canada doesn't have a subsistence level garment factory industry, so the 'rescued' sex workers are basically going to be told to live on the streets, as long as they aren't doing sex worker, all the abolititionist groups will be doing happy dances 

Having a subsistence level garment factory industry like Cambodia's would not be a good thing for Canada. Our social safety net is lacking but it is worlds better than a job at a garment factory in Cambodia.

I don't believe that street prostitution is an economic safety net for impoverished women in Canada. I believe it's a trap and it's inherently dangerous and harmful to women who get sucked into it as a result of complex life circumstances, such as being born an aboriginal woman. The life circumstances of women are not improved through being granted the opportunity of street prostitution. 

We have to fight for exit services and addiction therapies and myriad other supports but as with many other problems prevention is easier than treatment. The insiduous nature of drugs and alcohol and the lure of fast money and recklessness means some women will continue to choose to work the streets. 

The most horrendous childhood abuse, trafficked teens, PTSD, mentally ill, drug addicted, etc. statistics were gathered from street prostitutes.

Street prostitution is dangerous, sometimes deadly, and indefensible as an economic necessity for survival in Canada. Street prostitution adds to women's ills it doesn't solve them. The vast majority of street prostitutes don't want to be street prostitutes and they don't work their way up the prostitution ladder. The vast majority of street prostitutes wish with all of their hearts that they never got into in the first place. 

fortunate

@ pondering, See my post elsewhere, i find this very rude, to be asked multiple times to stop this.  To me it is an attack.  In any case, I don't read them, if you wish to revise your comments to me, without the dissections, i will be happy to read and reply at that time. Until then, just know that whatever you have posted quoting me?  I haven't read them, and won't be reading them.  

 

In this forum, for me, on this topic, i'll just use this link to illustrate my feelings:   http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2014/03/06/internet-feminism-hurt-my-feelings-but-then-i-got-up-offa-that-thang/

The phenomenon to which I allude — lately all the white ladies are talking about it — is attributable not to the usual anti-feminist dudebros, but to the Mean Girls of Feminism Eating Their Own. This describes every internet feminist at one time or another. It’s been done to me and I’ve certainly done it myself. It’s kind of horrible, on accounta it’s painful, but then again, no pain no gain, right?

The lively, free, and sarcastic exchange of ideas is a beloved cornerstone of the internet. Opposing viewpoints exposing legitimate beefs within the cutthroat world of Internet Feminism should always be expressed colorfully, and with wisecracks. Still, it can be argued that one ought to distinguish between justifiable anger and knee-jerk abuse; cannibalism not a literary style. It should not be confused with argumentation.

 

 

This is the article she links in her blog: http://www.thenation.com/article/178140/feminisms-toxic-twitter-wars#

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
@ pondering, See my post elsewhere, i find this very rude, to be asked multiple times to stop this.  To me it is an attack.

Not posting the way you want me to is not an attack and is not rude. You are overstepping in attempting to control how and what I post. It is one thing to make the request, another to keep insisting that I must comply. That you don't like my style is your problem not mine. 

fortunate wrote:
 In any case, I don't read them, if you wish to revise your comments to me, without the dissections, i will be happy to read and reply at that time. Until then, just know that whatever you have posted quoting me?  I haven't read them, and won't be reading them.  

Sounds like a healthy choice, don't worry about me at all, I'm not disappointed.

fortunate wrote:
In this forum, for me, on this topic, i'll just use this link to illustrate my feelings:   http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2014/03/06/internet-feminism-hurt-my-feelings-but-then-i-got-up-offa-that-thang/

The lively, free, and sarcastic exchange of ideas is a beloved cornerstone of the internet. Opposing viewpoints exposing legitimate beefs within the cutthroat world of Internet Feminism should always be expressed colorfully, and with wisecracks. Still, it can be argued that one ought to distinguish between justifiable anger and knee-jerk abuse; cannibalism not a literary style. It should not be confused with argumentation.

This is the article she links in her blog: http://www.thenation.com/article/178140/feminisms-toxic-twitter-wars#

Terrific articles, especially the second. It relates well to this thread in which feminist abolitionists are attacked and denigrated right in the feminist forum.

rabble.ca/babble/feminism/exploiting-violence-feminist-politics

The attacks on feminists is definitely something I want to explore.  Fragmentation has allowed feminism to drift away from it's core concepts. That has allowed non-feminist groups to misappropriate the term threatening it's existence as a meaningful movement.  I will bring that discussion to a different thread.

This all ties in very well with the original topic of this thread, The Nordic Model and the right to defend it. Feminists who support the Nordic Model have been subjected to many nasty attacks for defending our point of view which is why I added "and the right to defend it" in the title.  Ironically the thread immediately lived up to it's name. 

quizzical

heard on the news last night the government is going to put the new laws forward before summer break.

CTV national said it was going to target pimps and johns and gave some stats on public opinion.

susan davis susan davis's picture

congratulations.....you win....i wonder how many women will die.....good for you abolitionists....you successfully silenced sex workers voices and your allies...the church...have stopped us from having better safer lives....

good for you!! will you be hosting a celebration?

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

congratulations.....you win....i wonder how many women will die.....good for you abolitionists....you successfully silenced sex workers voices and your allies...the church...have stopped us from having better safer lives....

good for you!! will you be hosting a celebration?

Far fewer women than would have died if you had your way.  Go ahead and tell your daughter she will be safer if she talks to a stranger for 2 extra minutes to make sure she's safe before getting in his car. 

College tip #1 for your daughters, oh right, we aren't talking about those kinds of girls. That's a safety tip for the other kind of girls. 

"Would I want this for my daughter" is a question I started asking myself many years ago. I discovered I was less apt to accept poor treatment for myself that way. 

Now that you mention it, I won't be holding a celebration, but I will celebrate personally. In fact I am smiling right now even though it is a small victory in the grand scheme of things. At least the situation won't be getting worse and will be getting better for women as they will no longer be subject to arrest. You do see that as a step forward don't you? That women won't be arrested?

susan davis susan davis's picture

women are not arrested here already...i am looking forward to the raids , humiliation and deportations...i am also looking forward to my forced rehabilitation and having my children seized....i also am excited to see my new street corner to work on as brothels will once again be illegal....hmmm...which corner should i pick....

maybe we should start a cooperative life insurance plan to ensure our funerals are paid for....

so many ways we could put a positive spin on this....

susan davis susan davis's picture

can i come to your party?

Unionist

Rebecca West wrote:

 

Let's keep this respectful, okay folks?

Bacchus

I suspect it will be defeated in a new charter challenge in the courts

. Harper would be wise to submit it to the SCC first

Unionist

Bacchus wrote:

I suspect it will be defeated in a new charter challenge in the courts

I'm no lawyer, but I can't imagine how the courts could strike down the Nordic model when it has never been tried. Bedford was based on real, factual evidence. There ain't any here.

Quote:
Harper would be wise to submit it to the SCC first

Had the SCC found that selling/buying sex was a matter of basic freedom of expression or conscience or some such, then yes. But it didn't. It said that the laws banning communication and solicitation put sex workers' security at an unreasonable risk (that's my amateurish abbreviation). How would they rule on a hypothetical?

 

susan davis susan davis's picture

lack of safe work places - bawdy houses illegal - has been proven through evidence....how is the banning of profit any different? the targeting of all business owners as exploitative and once again leaving sex workers with no security or places to work...

it has already been proven through volumes of evidence....

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

women are not arrested here already...i am looking forward to the raids , humiliation and deportations...i am also looking forward to my forced rehabilitation and having my children seized....i also am excited to see my new street corner to work on as brothels will once again be illegal....hmmm...which corner should i pick....

maybe we should start a cooperative life insurance plan to ensure our funerals are paid for....

so many ways we could put a positive spin on this....

Not true. Women are still being arrested for prostitution in Canada. Before, but especially during this past year, the arrests of women have been dropping while police wait for the new laws to come into effect because they know that one way or another the laws are going to be changed and prostitutes will no longer be subject to arrest.

I don't think things are going to change nearly as dramatically as you think they are. If your children are seized or you are forced into rehabilitation I hope you will post here. I am sure many will champion your cause.

I wasn't aware that you are working in a brothel; if your brothel is busted you could be arrested! If the new model decriminalizes selling then in future you will no longer be subject to arrest (unless you are the madame).

So good news, no reason for you to quit your brothel and pick a corner. :)

Pondering

Bacchus wrote:

I suspect it will be defeated in a new charter challenge in the courts

. Harper would be wise to submit it to the SCC first

  

I suspect you are ignoring the great big IF in the SCC ruling that based their reading on two major conditions. 

1) That prostitution itself is legal. If prostitution is illegal that changes the foundation of the ruling. Rights when pursuing a legal activity change no longer exist when pursuing an illegal activity. 

2) The design of the law was to prevent public nuisance not to prevent prostitution.  

The entire judgement was predicated on those two facts. The court also found that prostititution itself is dangerous, that the laws do not create the danger. It is legal to create laws against dangerous behavior. The problem is that the laws were not created to prevent harm, they were created to prevent public nuisance. 

I have yet to read any lawyer claim that a facsimile to the Nordic model would be illegal in Canada. It's not being debated at all. None of the pundits are claiming that there legal impediments. 

 

susan davis susan davis's picture

riiiiight pondering.....no madames...no brothels.....pick your corner.....

are you simply being rude or do you sincerely not understand what it is you have so vehemently supported?

 

susan davis susan davis's picture

here are lawyers who disagree with you about whether the criminalization of clients would work or if it would even be constitutionally legal....

My work should not cost me my life - pivot legal society

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/pivotlegal/pages/615/attachments/or...

Constitutional analysis

Given that the harms identified in the GSHI/UBC research mirror the harmful conditions created by the laws that were challenged in the Bedford case, a prohibition of the purchase of sex is likely to be found to violate sex workers’ right to security of the person, as protected by section 7 of the Charter. The evidence of displacement to unsafe areas, lack of time to screen clients and diminished ability to access police protection all lead to the conclusion that the criminalization of clients creates dangerous conditions for sex workers and prevents sex workers from taking steps to protect themselves from risk. The rights of sex workers to security of the person are therefore engaged. In our opinion, such a law would not withstand constitutional scrutiny

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

here are lawyers who disagree with you about whether the criminalization of clients would work or if it would even be constitutionally legal....

......

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/pivotlegal/pages/615/attachments/or...

Constitutional analysis

Given that the harms identified in the GSHI/UBC research mirror the harmful conditions created by the laws that were challenged in the Bedford case, a prohibition of the purchase of sex is likely to be found to violate sex workers’ right to security of the person, as protected by section 7 of the Charter. The evidence of displacement to unsafe areas, lack of time to screen clients and diminished ability to access police protection all lead to the conclusion that the criminalization of clients creates dangerous conditions for sex workers and prevents sex workers from taking steps to protect themselves from risk. The rights of sex workers to security of the person are therefore engaged. In our opinion, such a law would not withstand constitutional scrutiny

Thanks, if they are right you have nothing to worry about and the new laws will be overturned quickly.

I am no lawyer, but I disagree with their assessment. I don't believe that the Charter makes it impossible for Canada to have laws against prostitution. I think the entire Charter decision was based on prostitution being legal.

Women have the right to security of the person, they do not have the right to be sex workers. 

 

 

Pondering

susan davis wrote:
riiiiight pondering.....no madames...no brothels.....pick your corner.....

are you simply being rude or do you sincerely not understand what it is you have so vehemently supported?

Neither, I am calling you on your BS claims that you will be losing custody of your children and that the brothel you work at will be closing down,( as if it's legal now), displacing you to a street corner. 

susan davis susan davis's picture

now i am bullshitting pondering? what do you know about the biased ways in which these laws are applied and how targeted sex workers are? nothing....

you are basing your ASSUMPTIONS on BIASED data and a narrow view which completely dimisses the experiences of those of us who experience systematic and police violence as a result of being a sex worker...a second class citizen....nothing to you....beneath your care and a reasonable casualty in your war on patriarchy....

susan davis susan davis's picture

i guess you won't be inviting me to your party then...no sex workers allowed....

Gustave

Pondering wrote:
I have yet to read any lawyer claim that a facsimile to the Nordic model would be illegal in Canada. It's not being debated at all. None of the pundits are claiming that there legal impediments. 

In the nordic model, prostitution is legal. If prostitution is legal, I don't see why the Supreme Court decision woud not stand. The intent of the legislator was not a major concern in the SCC decision.

I have yet to find a criminalist claiming that a facsimile of the nordic model would resist a Charter analysis.

The nordic model is contrary to human rights unless you happen to be part of those who beleive no one chooses to become a sex worker. But that's a moral judgement, in total contradiction with empirical evidence easily available to anyone observing the sex work scene.

Pondering

Gustave wrote:
In the nordic model, prostitution is legal. If prostitution is legal, I don't see why the Supreme Court decision woud not stand. The intent of the legislator was not a major concern in the SCC decision.

I don't agree that prostitution is legal under the Nordic model. Some laws only criminalize the seller of goods, for example, selling counterfeit goods. That the customer isn't breaking the law doesn't mean selling counterfeit goods is legal. The Nordic model is the opposite situation in which buying is criminalized rather than selling. Both sides of a transaction need not be criminalized for something to be illegal.

Gustave wrote:
I have yet to find a criminalist claiming that a facsimile of the nordic model would resist a Charter analysis.

Kind of a moot point however but I think the default is that something would pass muster unless someone says otherwise. 

Gustave wrote:
The nordic model is contrary to human rights unless you happen to be part of those who beleive no one chooses to become a sex worker.

There is no human right stating that a person has the right to do as they please as long as they aren't being forced. Choosing to be a sex worker is not a human right. Not even close. 

Gustave wrote:
But that's a moral judgement, in total contradiction with empirical evidence easily available to anyone observing the sex work scene.

There is nothing wrong with making moral judgements.  Human rights are based on moral judgements. All our laws are based on moral judgements. The existence of willing prostitutes doesn't contradict or negate all the damage done by prostitution. Society is not morally bound to accept the cost of trying to weed out all the women who would be damaged by prostitution and bear the costs of PTSD and other harms so that a minority of women who want to work in prostitution can do so. 

Pondering

susan davis wrote:
now i am bullshitting pondering?

I call BS on your claim that YOUR children will be removed from YOUR care and YOU will lose YOUR job at a brothel and that YOU will be selecting a street corner to work. 

susan davis wrote:
what do you know about the biased ways in which these laws are applied and how targeted sex workers are? nothing....

I let my posts stand on the merit of the arguments and information they contain. 

susan davis wrote:
you are basing your ASSUMPTIONS on BIASED data and a narrow view which completely dimisses the experiences of those of us who experience systematic and police violence as a result of being a sex worker...a second class citizen....nothing to you....beneath your care and a reasonable casualty in your war on patriarchy....

WTF? You should wait until you are sober to post. 

susan davis wrote:
i guess you won't be inviting me to your party then...no sex workers allowed....

I'm having a party for a sex worker in 2 weeks but you won't be invited because I don't like your bullying tactics. 

Gustave

Pondering wrote:

I don't agree that prostitution is legal under the Nordic model.

But it is, whether you agree or not. And the reason is simple: it would otherwise be a prohibitionist regime. Sweden is against prohibition, in words of course, and with a lot of hypocrisy because the Nordic model is in fact prohibitionist.

Pondering wrote:

There is no human right stating that a person has the right to do as they please as long as they aren't being forced.

Not “as long they are not being forced” — that’s obvious by definition —, but as long as they cause no harm. Yep, that’s a basic right, that of the property of our own person.

 

Pondering wrote:

There is nothing wrong with making moral judgements.  Human rights are based on moral judgements. All our laws are based on moral judgements. The existence of willing prostitutes doesn't contradict or negate all the damage done by prostitution. Society is not morally bound to accept the cost of trying to weed out all the women who would be damaged by prostitution and bear the costs of PTSD and other harms so that a minority of women who want to work in prostitution can do so. 

Moral judgements are fine. The problem is with the hyperboles used by prohibitionists, peremptory statements like “all the damage caused by prostitution”, “the cost to weed out women who would be damaged by prostitution”, “the cost of PTSD”, “a minority of women who want to work in prostitution”. I see your mental imagery of prostitution is in concordance with the emotional discourse of the prohibitionists. What you need to understand is that those peremptory statements are the result of some deductive reasoning: prostitution is bad, therefore the devil inhabit the people who take part in it. There is no reason to believe prostitution cause serious harm to society; that the cost to weed out 1000 sex workers exceeds the cost to exercise repression on 60000 sex workers and a few hundred thousand customers; that prostitution is a cause of PTSD; and that it’s a minority of sex workers who want to work in prostitution. That’s all part of your imagination.

 

vincentL311

double post

vincentL311

What is absolutely certain though is that this law will face a Charter challenge, and most likely will end up being decided once again by the Supreme court, whether it be in a year, 5 years or 10. Which probably is the point of all this, the Conservatives are not going to legalize Prostitution, period. If it eventually does happen, they will be able to say that the courts forced them.

For now the abolitionists may rejoice in that the Nordic model will be the law of the land.

Pondering

Gustave wrote:
But it is, whether you agree or not. And the reason is simple: it would otherwise be a prohibitionist regime. Sweden is against prohibition, in words of course, and with a lot of hypocrisy because the Nordic model is in fact prohibitionist. 

Your logic is so circular you just contradicted yourself. The philosophy, whether you want to call it prohibitionist, abolitionist or no itionist, is immaterial. Under the Nordic model it is against the law to pay someone for sex. That the seller is not prosecuted doesn't mean prostitution is legal. 

Gustave wrote:
Not “as long they are not being forced” — that’s obvious by definition —, but as long as they cause no harm. Yep, that’s a basic right, that of the property of our own person. 

If that were true there would be no such thing as seatbelt laws. The concept of harm is not limited to the individuals directly affected. 

Gustave wrote:
The problem is with the hyperboles used by prohibitionists, peremptory statements like “all the damage caused by prostitution”, “the cost to weed out women who would be damaged by prostitution”, “the cost of PTSD”, “a minority of women who want to work in prostitution”. I see your mental imagery of prostitution is in concordance with the emotional discourse of the prohibitionists. 

That there are women who suffer PTSD from prostitution is not hypebole it's fact. 90% of prostitutes who responded to a pro-prostitution organization survey in Ireland were not Irish. It's 70% in Germany. I think it's fair to extrapolate that a minority of Canadian women want to become prostitutes. There is nothing peremptory about those statements. They can be disagreed with, challenged, you just did, or tried to. Your efforts were just weak. 

Nothing I said has anything to do with mental imagery or emotional discourse. That sounds more like what you are going for. 

Gustave wrote:
 What you need to understand is that those peremptory statements are the result of some deductive reasoning: prostitution is bad, therefore the devil inhabit the people who take part in it. 

What you need to understand is that I am an atheist so you are going to have to work on your physic abilities not to mention your deductive reasoning skills. 

Gustave wrote:
 There is no reason to believe prostitution cause serious harm to society; that the cost to weed out 1000 sex workers exceeds the cost to exercise repression on 60000 sex workers and a few hundred thousand customers; that prostitution is a cause of PTSD; and that it’s a minority of sex workers who want to work in prostitution. That’s all part of your imagination.

All you have to do is look at Amsterdam and Germany, among other countries, to see the reality of prostitution. No need to rely on imagination. 

I think you need to inform yourself a bit better before coming into the feminist forum accusing me of using emotional discourse, imagining things, and believing a man dressed in red with pointy horns and a tail inhabits people. 

vincentL311

I think the exact wording of the legislation will be interesting. After all, the Government's own survey defined the question in the terms 'should the selling of sex be legal'. So if Sex workers are doing what is a legal activity on their part, I think the same argument used in Bedford will still apply, that is Prostitutes are being exposed to an unreasonable risk to their security by the criminalization of their clients.

If on the other hand the wording of the legislation is such that both the Sex worker and the client are engaged in an illegal activity, but the penalty only falls only on the client, that might be different. The prostitutes are not entitled to the same protections because they choose to engage in something is illegal. I wonder if the Goverment could make a successful case that way. They actually did try to make a similar argument in Bedford, while Prostitution was not illegal in theory, the aim of the legislation was to make it illegal in practice, an argument the Supreme court did not accept.

I will be interested in seeing the actual legislation tomorrow.

Gustave

Pondering wrote:

Your logic is so circular you just contradicted yourself. The philosophy, whether you want to call it prohibitionist, abolitionist or no itionist, is immaterial. Under the Nordic model it is against the law to pay someone for sex. That the seller is not prosecuted doesn't mean prostitution is legal. 

Not MY logic, the Nordic model logic. Again, prostitution is officially legal in Sweden, whether you agree or not.

Pondering wrote:

The concept of harm is not limited to the individuals directly affected. 

That’s obvious. I was talking specifically about third parties.

Pondering wrote:
That there are women who suffer PTSD from prostitution is not hypebole it's fact.

Your hyperbole was about the cost of PTSD, as if prostitution caused PTSD. You haven’t got a clue about the incidence of PTSD in prostitution, neither about the direction of causality, if any, between the two.

Pondering wrote:

90% of prostitutes who responded to a pro-prostitution organization survey in Ireland were not Irish. It's 70% in Germany. I think it's fair to extrapolate that a minority of Canadian women want to become prostitutes.

First, this is a typical abolitionist statement: no reference. Did you learn that in a blog on the Internet?

Second, what does the fact that a survey showing x% sex worker in Germany or Ireland are not Irish or German have to do with the consent of sex workers ?

Third, what the hell are you trying to establish with the fact that a minority of Canadian woman want to become prostitutes?

Pondering wrote:
Nothing I said has anything to do with mental imagery or emotional discourse.

I think you’re right, here. It has obviously more to do with your lack of basic scientific training.

Pondering wrote:
 All you have to do is look at Amsterdam and Germany, among other countries, to see the reality of prostitution. No need to rely on imagination.

1 Why not Canada?

2 Amsterdam and Germany? Or is it Berlin and the Netherlands?

3 Do you have any reason to believe sex workers are worse off in those 2 countries then in prohibitionnist countries?

Pondering wrote:

accusing me of using emotional discourse, imagining things, and believing a man dressed in red with pointy horns and a tail inhabits people. 

I could not have said it better.

 

quizzical

can't wait until it's tabled today am so sick of men exploiting women

Unionist

Sorry - my efforts to get the moderators to fix [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/defense-nordic-model-dealing-prostituti... #4101[/url] have failed. Just one left bracket missing ffs.

Hey PONDERING, could you please go back and edit your post when you have a minute? Thanks.

 

Unionist

Oh, and this is about the report I just posted:

[url=Laws">http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/06/03/laws_targeting_johns_only_... targeting ‘johns’ only increase dangers to prostitutes, report warns[/url]

Quote:
A report from a coalition of Canadian sex workers that draws on research from a British medical journal is a warning to the Conservative government, which is about to announce revised prostitution laws.

Unionist

Has this report been posted yet? My apologies if this is a repeat (it's a PDF):

[url=My">http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/pivotlegal/pages/615/attachments/or... Work Should Not Cost Me My Life - The case against criminalizing the purchase of sex in Canada[/url]

Authors: Sex Workers United Against Violence, Sarah Allan, Darcie Bennett, Jill Chettiar, Grace Jackson, Andrea Krüsi, Katrina Pacey, Kerry Porth, Mae Price, Kate Shannon and Chrissy Taylor

Quote:
In my opinion harassing the clients is exactly the same as harassing the women. You harass the clients and you’re in the exact same spot you were before. It’s exactly the same thing. Exactly. I’m staying out on the streets. I’m out there. I’m, I’m at risk. I’m in jeopardy of getting raped, hurt.

 

susan davis susan davis's picture

pondering, i am not drunk...but thanks again for treating me like a piece of crap...wtf....

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Sorry - my efforts to get the moderators to fix [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/defense-nordic-model-dealing-prostituti... #4101[/url] have failed. Just one left bracket missing ffs.

I tried the link but it sent me to a quizzical post and I couldn't find a problem in any of my posts but I could easily have missed something.

Pondering

Susan Davis wrote:
  pondering, i am not drunk...but thanks again for treating me like a piece of crap...wtf....

I was just giving you an out for having said the following but if you want to own it by all means.

Susan Davis wrote:
  you are basing your ASSUMPTIONS on BIASED data and a narrow view which completely dimisses the experiences of those of us who experience systematic and police violence as a result of being a sex worker...a second class citizen....nothing to you....beneath your care and a reasonable casualty in your war on patriarchy.... 

You say I treated you like a piece of crap? Your histrionics are inappropriate.  You don't know who I am, you don't know my history or my present, you don't know my work or my family, yet you presume to know what I do and don't care about and what I have and haven't experienced. I can't take anything you say seriously.  

Pondering

Gustave wrote:
  Again, prostitution is officially legal in Sweden, whether you agree or not. 

If prostitution were legal, people could legally buy sexual services, and yet they can't. You are playing semantics. 

Gustave wrote:
  Your hyperbole was about the cost of PTSD, as if prostitution caused PTSD. You haven’t got a clue about the incidence of PTSD in prostitution, neither about the direction of causality, if any, between the two. 

The harms of prostitution including PTSD are well-documented.  Exit services exist for a reason. There are plenty of survivors speaking out. This is just a game to you which is incredibly disrespectful.

Gustave wrote:
  First, this is a typical abolitionist statement: no reference. Did you learn that in a blog on the Internet? 

http://www.safeiq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ugly-mugs-september-2013.pdf

The organization is against criminalization of prostitution.  If you knew anything about prostitution you would know that the brothels of Europe are full of migrant women from under-privileged countries from Romania to Nigeria.  But then, this is just a game to you.

Gustave wrote:
  I think you’re right, here. It has obviously more to do with your lack of basic scientific training. 

You have no clue what my academic background is but do point out all your scientificky statements.

You came into this topic, in the feminist forum, to play games. You aren't here out of interest for what women have to say. You are here to pontificate and toss out sexist taunts.  If you had any guts or integrity you would apologize for trolling the feminist forum and withdraw. 

I'm shocked and saddened that this level of blatant sexist aggression against women is allowed in the "feminist" forum. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Actually, he's here to mansplain.  Silly feminists, only a guy really knows!

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sorry - my efforts to get the moderators to fix [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/defense-nordic-model-dealing-prostituti... #4101[/url] have failed. Just one left bracket missing ffs.

I tried the link but it sent me to a quizzical post and I couldn't find a problem in any of my posts but I could easily have missed something.

The mods have obviously fixed the thread now. But I did click on the link and it definitely goes to your post of May 28 at 7:49 pm - which was the one that had a left bracket missing. All good now! Wish I could say the same for Canada under Harper.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Hi Gustave! Welcome to babble. No lecturing women in the feminist forum. Thanks!

--Signed, your friendly neighbourhood lurker mod

Pondering, please don't speculate as to whether other babblers are inebriated. It's a personal attack in very bad taste.

Pondering

Catchfire wrote:
Pondering, please don't speculate as to whether other babblers are inebriated. It's a personal attack in very bad taste.

It won't happen again.

Can I tell Susan she is basing her assumptions on biased data and a narrow view that completely dismisses the experiences of women who experience systematic violence as a result of being prostituted, second class citizens, nothing to her, beneath her care and a reasonably casualty in her quest to regularize prostitution as a valid industry? 

It would seem pretty similar to what she said to me.

Susan Davis wrote:
 you are basing your ASSUMPTIONS on BIASED data and a narrow view which completely dimisses the experiences of those of us who experience systematic and police violence as a result of being a sex worker...a second class citizen....nothing to you....beneath your care and a reasonable casualty in your war on patriarchy.... "

 

 

Gustave

Pondering wrote:
If prostitution were legal, people could legally buy sexual services, and yet they can't. You are playing semantics. 

Again, I am not playing semantics, those calling themselves abolitionists do. If prostitution is illegal the policy is prohibitionist.

Pondering wrote:
The harms of prostitution including PTSD are well-documented. 

Would you mind providing some links?

The Uglymugs survey has nothing to do with consent. Furthermore, nothing in the survey suggests that a significant amount of the sex workers are not there by their own volition. More than 90%, if I remember well, were independent sex workers.

Catchfire wrote:
Hi Gustave! Welcome to babble. No lecturing women in the feminist forum. Thanks!

Hi Catchfire and thanks. Unfortunately I had to answer since I was lectured by fortunate (I had no idea if he/she was a woman or a man). And I will continue to do so if the attacks keep coming, like this one:

Pondering wrote:
I'm shocked and saddened that this level of blatant sexist aggression against women is allowed in the "feminist" forum. 

Intellectual frustration.

Pondering has been using personal attack all over this thread, against susan and against me. It has to stop.

 

Gustave

Gustave wrote:

Pondering wrote:
If prostitution were legal, people could legally buy sexual services, and yet they can't. You are playing semantics. 

Again, I am not playing semantics, those calling themselves abolitionists do. If prostitution is illegal the policy is prohibitionist.

Pondering wrote:
The harms of prostitution including PTSD are well-documented. 

Would you mind providing some links?

The Uglymugs survey has nothing to do with consent. Furthermore, nothing in the survey suggests that a significant amount of the sex workers are not there by their own volition. More than 90%, if I remember well, were independent sex workers.

Catchfire wrote:
Hi Gustave! Welcome to babble. No lecturing women in the feminist forum. Thanks!

Hi Catchfire and thanks. Unfortunately I had to answer since I was lectured by Pondering (I had no idea if he/she was a woman or a man). And I will continue to do so if the attacks keep coming, like this one:

Pondering wrote:
I'm shocked and saddened that this level of blatant sexist aggression against women is allowed in the "feminist" forum. 

Intellectual frustration.

Pondering has been using personal attack all over this thread, against susan and against me. It has to stop.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Gustave, you've been mansplaining everything from objectification onward for months now.  Can you please give it a rest, or take it to the rest of the board?  Catchfire's asked you nicely, I'm now asking you not as nicely.  It's inappropriate behaviour in the feminist forum.

Pondering

Gustave, I am not responding to your latest post because I am not interested in your approach to discussion. 

Pondering

Here are some candid quotes from a fully consenting adult prostitute.

Disclaimer: This is anecdotal and I am not claiming it to be the experience of all prostitutes or most prostitutes or even many prostitutes. It is the experience of this particular prostitute. 

Before anyone starts lecturing me, this woman refers to her profession as prostitution. 

titsandsass.com/getting-away-with-hating-it-consent-in-the-context-of-sex-work/

Quote:
 My various privileges mean I operate in a way that is about as low-risk and comfy as one can get: I screen extensively, I am my own boss, I request a very high hourly rate, and I don’t see people who are violent or rude. If you asked me if I like it, I would say, “yes, I like it.” I like the people I meet, I like the freedom of schedule, and I like the money I make.

Quote:
I’ve thought to myself before, about clients with whom the physical aspect is more challenging, “but he lets me get away with it.” The “it” here means my inability to pretend I enjoy the sex. That’s what he “lets me get away with,” by not demanding his money back, I guess, and by continuing to see me and pay me for my time.

In other words, this man allows me to not to disguise my fundamental lack of desire to have sex with him. I think this feeling of being granted some type of permission to not fake enjoyment isn’t unique to me and isn’t unique to sex workers.

Quote:
I don’t teach clients how to “pleasure” me; that is far too intimate and a boundary I don’t cross. Sometimes I resent any sexual pleasure I feel, either because I find the guy irritating and enjoying his cock is like a compliment I don’t want to give, or because I’m not in a “sexy” headspace. Audacia Ray and Michelle Tea have written about the feelings of self-betrayal, horror, and general displeasure that can accompany orgasming with a client; I’ve been right there with them. I’ve mostly gotten over revulsion towards my own body’s responses, probably because I’m better at controlling those responses now. But I still usually want to maintain a distance while I work. I want to maintain my sexual privacy which can be done even while having intercourse. I’m not there for my own sexual pleasure or fulfillment and I don’t like pretending that I am.

Interesting that she prefers the men who don't care how she feels to the ones that want to believe she is having a good time too.  

She uses deliberate dissociation from her body to endure it.

Editing to include the link I forgot:

http://titsandsass.com/getting-away-with-hating-it-consent-in-the-contex...

 

Pages