divide and conquer strategy is working

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture

oldgoat wrote:
Ghislaine, I would offer that to the extent that a family unit may be undermined, the ownership of that lies squarely with the customer and no other.  As far as dangerous and unprotected sex goes, I'm pretty sure I recall seeing Susan post somewhere that one of her goals of having sex workers duely organised is to have standards which will minimise as far as possible the less safe practices which are currently happening.

Respectfully, I do not believe that is a fair depiction...

When it was indicated  what it would take to bring about those standards, it was rejected out of hand as non-doable. Hence the advocacy of "self-regulating", which actually means no regulations.

 

Other countries, as it has been shown over and over, have already realized what no regulations has meant to the status of women in their country and are back-peddling, quickly.

 

G. Muffin

susan davis wrote:
hate is always a slippery slope....what would you have us do?round everyone up and put us in camps? this is dangerous territory.

what is it about us you hate so much?i mean if you hate the sex trade by default you hate us too.....even though you are expressing respect, it doesn't really seem that way based on your other statements....

What the hell are you talking about, Susan?  Now all of I'm sudden I'm a Nazi? 

Which of my "other statements" would lead you to believe that I hate you?

susan davis

i never said no regulations remind, i merely suggested that your proposed customer screening before being grated access to our bodies in what would have to be a government run, secure compound(prison) so the government would be sure no dirty customers got through.....may not be a realistic solution.

we have always agreed that health standards will be paramount. i do not support the mandatory testing model as i do not feel it will work. in order for it to work we must test the entire population....

where did the sex workers get the didease- the customer-

where did the customer get the disease- secratary?wife?

where did the secretary/wife get the disease?- the milkman?

i will however submit to testing as i do regular tests already, but feel like this is just playing into the tired old stereo type of sex workers as the vector of disease- it is unfair- discriminating and untrue.

we need to be given the tools to make safe decisions about our work in the form of occupational health and safety training- already complete and to be presented at the FIRST- feminist for decrim forum as mentioned in the sex worker rights forum.

i also like new zealands approach of making condom use law- this empowers workers to refuse unprotected service.

susan davis

G. Pie wrote:

susan davis wrote:
hate is always a slippery slope....what would you have us do?round everyone up and put us in camps? this is dangerous territory.

what is it about us you hate so much?i mean if you hate the sex trade by default you hate us too.....even though you are expressing respect, it doesn't really seem that way based on your other statements....

What the hell are you talking about, Susan?  Now all of I'm sudden I'm a Nazi? 

Which of my "other statements" would lead you to believe that I hate you?

your hatred of the sex trade is hatred of me...or was i not clear? i never said nazi- more that just the germans have put "hated or undesirable populations" into camps....the canadian government for one.......

Ghislaine

remind wrote:

oldgoat wrote:
Ghislaine, I would offer that to the extent that a family unit may be undermined, the ownership of that lies squarely with the customer and no other.  As far as dangerous and unprotected sex goes, I'm pretty sure I recall seeing Susan post somewhere that one of her goals of having sex workers duely organised is to have standards which will minimise as far as possible the less safe practices which are currently happening.

Respectfully, I do not believe that is a fair depiction...

When it was indicated  what it would take to bring about those standards, it was rejected out of hand as non-doable. Hence the advocacy of "self-regulating", which actually means no regulations.

 

Other countries, as it has been shown over and over, have already realized what no regulations has meant to the status of women in their country and are back-peddling, quickly.

 

Either way, condoms are not 100% effective.

G. Muffin

susan davis wrote:

G. Pie wrote:

susan davis wrote:
hate is always a slippery slope....what would you have us do?round everyone up and put us in camps? this is dangerous territory.

what is it about us you hate so much?i mean if you hate the sex trade by default you hate us too.....even though you are expressing respect, it doesn't really seem that way based on your other statements....

What the hell are you talking about, Susan?  Now all of I'm sudden I'm a Nazi? 

Which of my "other statements" would lead you to believe that I hate you?

your hatred of the sex trade is hatred of me...or was i not clear?

You're clear but you're wrong.  I actually can respect you and loathe your work at the same time.

Quote:
i never said nazi- more that just the germans have put "hated or undesirable populations" into camps....the canadian government for one.......

Oh, that's much better.  I'm just a residential school sadist or perhaps a Japanese internment guard.  Phew!  For a second there, I thought you were going to insult me. 

susan davis

i have never had an STI in my work, ever in 23 years and 30,000 clients.....clearly proper use of condoms does work.......you would put us at risk over 0.001%? dismissing the protection offered by condoms is risky too. sex work must not be decriminalized because sometimes condoms break?

susan davis

i am not insulting you gpie, or i am not trying too.... but when ever i hear "hate" or dispise"i am afraid....it is a slippery slope.

remind remind's picture

Quote:
we are looking at the bar licensing model. in that every phone call made to police by a bar is a mark against their license renewal as a bar owner has a responsibility to protect patrons and maintain the peace. too many calls to police and you loose your license as clearly you are not adequatley protecting people. we feel this model is easily adaptable to the sex industry. also a complaints process by committee, as described in the proposed terms for a sex industry working group/review board thread to ensure balanced scrutiny of licnese applications and renewal occurs.

1. genital contact commodification is not a bar, and thus cannot follow the "bar model"

 

2. what the bar model does is keep the bars from bothering the police, as they know it is a strike against their record....thus we are seeing gun fights and knivings these days in bars, and then when someone is hurt, or killed, it is just their "first strike". It is not a model or a regulation, it is the city's way of saying to the bar owners;  "don't waste our community policing resources on drunken brawls"

 

3. if coitus is commodified and given an industry Canada number, there is no committee groups needed for anything, it would be regulated and mandated  like any other business and industry. It does get special status that other businesses do not have. The businesses either comply with the regulations or they do not get any of the licensings that they need to operate.

4.  that brings us back to the business model, as there will be no independant apartmental work allowed, there can't be, nor can there be street work allowed, there can't be. the required regulations would not be being met. So again those not complying would be getting arrested and charged,  not much different than today eh? or they would have to go work for someone else.

5. which brings us to the madam model, which is completely nondoable as proposed, as it could never be sanctioned by society, it would have to move into the educational model, where sex teachers require certification, and thus students have to pay a fee to learn...and then go through practical experience testing, etc etc...

 

After we have spent all this money on creating a sex commodification industry, is the plight of poor and marginalized women any better? The evidence from other countries shows quite clearly the answer is NO. Nor is the status of women in the rest of the country.

 

Ghislaine

susan davis wrote:

i have never had an STI in my work, ever in 23 years and 30,000 clients.....clearly proper use of condoms does work.......you would put us at risk over 0.001%? dismissing the protection offered by condoms is risky too. sex work must not be decriminalized because sometimes condoms break?

As stated previously, I support legalization with proper regulation (as opposed to decriminalization). I also never said that you had any diseases and I have no doubt in what you say. I simply noted that condoms are not 100% effective even if used properly.

 

susan davis

violence against sex workers in new zealand has stabilized....i don't understnad how you can choose to just ignore the facts.....

just as in the gay rights movement, stigma is not erased over night. the fact that violence against sex workers in new zealand has stabilized- ie not getting worse as it is in canada- speaks volumes of the success of decriminalization......need i post the link.....again.....

even in countires where legalization was embraced, workers say they are safer and feel safer than under a criminlized regime....

remind, are you just a fatalist who sees no solution? are you still supporting the decriminalization of workers under the swedish model?if so? how do you propose to license and regulate those workers? what sort of testing will be necessary?what sort of training and support for new workers?....none?

having no arguement is not an arguement, saying noting will work, is not helping. please, share with us what plans you have for decriminalzing workers as we have all agreed must happen.....

remind remind's picture

Quote:
your hatred of the sex trade is hatred of me.

Respectfully one can a trade and still not hate the persons engaging in it.

Really hate the fish farming industry, but that does not mean I hate the workers at the fish farm. The same can be said for those working at the tar sands or in a support indiustry, absolutely loath the dirty oil industry, but not the workers in it.

 

Thus socially justice minded people work to change society overall, so that we all have a better one to live in.

susan davis

legalization implies seperate criminal code provisions for the sex industry....othering violence against us diminishes it and makes it seem less important. why can we not agree that labour law and standards and existing criminal code provisions can be apllied to us and our work? why must it be a criminal matter? wy is kidnapping a sex worker different from kidnapping or unlawfully confining a nurse?

it just seems to me it will mean an out for police- they will see violence against us as different and unimportant( as they do now) and we will see the same complacency that allowed 50 women to be murdered on a pig farm.....

we are not looking for no regulation or carte blanche to operate how we see fit in spite of people trying to confuse the issue. we are not looking for special treatment, we simply want equzl treatment to other canadian workers and equal protetion under the law.

i am not sure why people think decrim means no regulations. it doesn't.

susan davis

remind wrote:

Quote:
your hatred of the sex trade is hatred of me.

Respectfully one can a trade and still not hate the persons engaging in it.

Really hate the fish farming industry, but that does not mean I hate the workers at the fish farm. The same can be said for those working at the tar sands or in a support indiustry, absolutely loath the dirty oil industry, but not the workers in it.

 

Thus socially justice minded people work to change society overall, so that we all have a better one to live in.

should we criminalize the people who own the fish farms or buy the fish?to protect their emplyees i mean, from having to engage in the horrible and degrading business of fish farming.....

spanks

we don't undermine the family unit- our customers go home, we provide intimate contact for men who would not other wise find a partner....

 

ive worked for ages, why just last night and yes both dates last night of them were in relationships. i would say 85-90% r in relationships. just trying to shine the light on the truth on what we r deaing with. yes we do undermine the family unit he is havin sex behind his partners back and spending money that should ahve gone to his family. if he wasnt paying me he would actually have to work things out and how does he explain the money he gives me????

again no prob with what i do or other pro's do but let's not create some ridiculous arguments that over inflate what we do that is how we loose credibility by makin it seem we are social workers in a negligee.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
yes we do undermine the family unit he is havin sex behind his partners back and spending money that should ahve gone to his family. if he wasnt paying me he would actually have to work things out and how does he explain the money he gives me????

 

If I'm not mistaken, similar was said about Demon Whisky prior to prohibition. Alcohol was seen as a destroyer of the family unit, with men spending money on booze instead of shoes for the children, etc. In my opinion, I'm not sure how we can blame anyone but the men who make that choice. Nearly anything that isn't the family unit can undermine the family unit: gambling, drugs, booze, golf, a cult, obsessive collecting of baseball cards, etc.

spanks

i meant that to blame the men, we cant be blamed for what he does didnt write it so well.

susan davis

spanks i am sorry you do not enjoy your work, but 85% of my customers are not in relationships...and even if they are....i too find your arguement smacks of the tired old steroe types.......

the customer who just left here was not married....and i take some offense to you calling me ridiculous. i am a 23 year vetran of the sex industry. just because you don't "like"your clients and treat them with disdain, doesn't mean some of us don't take our work seriously and care about our customers. if this is truely how you feel, perhaps you are in the wrong line of work. men can be vulnerable, are beautiful and do have needs emotionally and physically. i am greatful for knowing them all.

ennir

Timebandit, in response to your point that making a choice doesn't make it feminist may certainly be true, my friend in Hollywood driving a Cadillac, wearing minkand drinking champagne was making her choice based on seeing that her body was the most valuable commodity she had, was  it a life that led her on a downward spiral, yes.  I don't think she was making a feminist choice but when a woman says to me I am a feminist and I am making this choice then I respect that.

Further on you said, "it diminishes all women by putting a price tag on our physical selves" and that evoked a long forgotten memory of myself at fifteen trying to leave home and the kindly old man at the corner restaurant offering to hire me and to help me get my social insurance number, I think I had just turned fifteen.  So, on the way to get the number he said he had to stop for a moment and I should come up, being a child and trained to be compliant to adults I did though it felt weird.  Upstairs he offered me money for sex, when I stuttered that I did not do, had not done, would not do, he doubled his offer, it was a lot of money.  I hid in the bathroom, he realized that I was unwilling and I was fortunate because then he took me and I got my social insurance number and I never went to work for him.  He had moved up the from the states and it left me with the lasting impression that people from there  thought money could buy anything but it did not leave me feeling diminished or shamed or less.

You also said, "some choices are not inherently feminisht", by whose definition?   

Snert, I appreciated your reference to Pride Parades and the division that exists within the gay community. 

I can't imagine it for myself but then I know I am equally incapable of being a dental technician or hairdresser even, I just don't want to get that close but I know there are people who are much more at ease being physical with others and so I find it plausible that there are women who choose this and are not disempowered by that choice.

Susan, thank you for sharing some of your experiences.

 

remind remind's picture

susan davis wrote:
remind wrote:
Quote:
your hatred of the sex trade is hatred of me.

Respectfully one can a trade and still not hate the persons engaging in it.

Really hate the fish farming industry, but that does not mean I hate the workers at the fish farm. The same can be said for those working at the tar sands or in a support indiustry, absolutely loath the dirty oil industry, but not the workers in it.

Thus socially justice minded people work to change society overall, so that we all have a better one to live in.

should we criminalize the people who own the fish farms or buy the fish?to protect their emplyees i mean, from having to engage in the horrible and degrading business of fish farming.....

Good question, a socially and ecologically just society would make fish farms illegal and prosecute the owners, and charge the purchasers of the illegal fish, with purchasing an illegal food product.

 

susan davis

would it be in the criminal code ?or part of a consumer, industry regulation?

thanks to you too ennir foryour continuing efforts here!!

kropotkin1951

remind wrote:

susan davis wrote:
remind wrote:
Quote:
your hatred of the sex trade is hatred of me.

Respectfully one can a trade and still not hate the persons engaging in it.

Really hate the fish farming industry, but that does not mean I hate the workers at the fish farm. The same can be said for those working at the tar sands or in a support indiustry, absolutely loath the dirty oil industry, but not the workers in it.

Thus socially justice minded people work to change society overall, so that we all have a better one to live in.

should we criminalize the people who own the fish farms or buy the fish?to protect their emplyees i mean, from having to engage in the horrible and degrading business of fish farming.....

Good question, a socially and ecologically just society would make fish farms illegal and prosecute the owners, and charge the purchasers of the illegal fish, with purchasing an illegal food product.

 

Wow jailed for eating the wrong kind of fish. I don't think I like your Brave New World. Are you for arresting all drug users as well or only fish users?  How about oil sands workers, should we arrest them because I tell you they are far more destructive to the planet than a few fish farms. How about those living off the avails of the oil sands project?   How many prisons to you think we will have to build to accommodate all the perps?

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

Ghislaine

Laughing @ kropotkin.

remind remind's picture

Kropotkin that is a bit overblown, I take the blight of fish farms seriously, they are destroying ocean habitats and salmon stocks.

Just as poaching endangered species carries a criminal charge, so should the destruction of a fish species.

 

People are charged for having a bear gall bladder  or a foot, so too for farmed fish species who are destroying natural fish stocks.

 

Nothing brave new world about it.

 

Unless of course you believe everyone has a right to have a bear gall bladder, or a rhino tusk...

susan davis

remind, i wonder how you feel about this as a big proponent of mandatory testing........

 

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48800

 

LILONGWE, Oct 10 (IPS) - It was, Malawian police say, a routine sweep for criminals at one of the country's busiest border posts. They were looking for criminals.

But when police arrested 14 prostitutes as part of their search, and then allegedly forcefully tested them for HIV and charged them for "deliberately trading in sex while having a sexually transmitted disease", human rights organisations had to step in.

The forceful HIV testing of the sex workers was a violation of the women's rights, human rights organisations say. But Malawian police have claimed that it was nothing more than just a routine part of their of job

 

 

remind remind's picture

 hmmmm......should I get human rights to fight for my right not to be TB and rubella tested, and to ensure that i do not have to notify if have Hep, or HIV?

susan davis

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/04/01/sex.workers.prefer.remote.screening.sexually.transmitted.diseases

 

Researchers at the University of Westminster have used a simple and convenient method for screening female commercial sex workers (CSW) for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) without the need for them to attend clinics. The women were given tampons that they could use to collect their own samples and post them to the laboratory. The results showed that the women in the study found self-collection of samples very easy and much preferred this method of screening for STIs and in addition the testing methods used proved to be more accurate than traditional tests. Dr Patrick Kimmitt who presented the group's findings to the Society for General Microbiology meeting in Harrogate today (Wednesday 1 April) pointed out that despite their risk of exposure to STIs, female CSW are reluctant to attend clinics for regular screening for these infections. This may be due to unsuitability of opening times, fear of stigma or the false concern of the possibility of being reported to the police. "Point of care testing" delivered at their workplace is more attractive to this patient group.

Polunatic2

Quote:
 a socially and ecologically just society would make fish farms illegal
As an aside, more than half the fish eaten in the world is now grown on fish farms due to unsustainable wild, fishing practices. Banning fish farming would deprive millions of people of their only (or main) form of protein. Fish farming can be made made sustainable. It doesn't have to be made completely illegal. Check out "Bottom Feeder" by Taras Gresco

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

susan davis wrote:

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/04/01/sex.workers.prefer.remote.screening.sexually.transmitted.diseases

 

Researchers at the University of Westminster have used a simple and convenient method for screening female commercial sex workers (CSW) for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) without the need for them to attend clinics. The women were given tampons that they could use to collect their own samples and post them to the laboratory. The results showed that the women in the study found self-collection of samples very easy and much preferred this method of screening for STIs and in addition the testing methods used proved to be more accurate than traditional tests. Dr Patrick Kimmitt who presented the group's findings to the Society for General Microbiology meeting in Harrogate today (Wednesday 1 April) pointed out that despite their risk of exposure to STIs, female CSW are reluctant to attend clinics for regular screening for these infections. This may be due to unsuitability of opening times, fear of stigma or the false concern of the possibility of being reported to the police. "Point of care testing" delivered at their workplace is more attractive to this patient group.

So how do they know that the sample belongs to the person it's supposed to belong to?  Couldn't they submit a surrogate sample from someone else?  I'm not sure the honour system is a good idea.....

fortunate

Loretta wrote:

susan davis wrote:

 

Article 6

  • 1. The states parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safe guard this right.

 

  • 2. The steps to be taken by a state party to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include technical and vocational guidance and training programs, policies and techniques to achieve stead economic, social and cultural development and full and productive employment under conditions safe guarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual.

Not to equate both jobs but I doubt that the Charter of Human Rights would justify the right of a paid assassin to work. I don't think this argument holds water.

Last time I checked, murder was illegal in Canada, even according to the Charter of Human Rights I suspect.  Prostitution is legal, but points for trying to link murder and prostitution, and therefore the people who do sex work as akin to murderers.

remind remind's picture

Polunatic2 wrote:
Quote:
 a socially and ecologically just society would make fish farms illegal
As an aside, more than half the fish eaten in the world is now grown on fish farms due to unsustainable wild, fishing practices. Banning fish farming would deprive millions of people of their only (or main) form of protein. Fish farming can be made made sustainable. It doesn't have to be made completely illegal. Check out "Bottom Feeder" by Taras Gresco.

was hoping that someone would step in and provide the midway point, that it has to be made sustainable in a "environmentally" just world, through rules and regulations, and all their attendant aspects.

 

used rhetoric to make my point, of course, but given the rest of the romantic heroine rhetoric going on here, why not....

 

Polunatic2

Further thread drift as I can't figure out how to hook this back to the thread - Grescoe has nothing good to say about BC Pacific ocean fish farms. 

remind remind's picture

Timebandit wrote:
So how do they know that the sample belongs to the person it's supposed to belong to?  Couldn't they submit a surrogate sample from someone else?  I'm not sure the honour system is a good idea.....

Agreed it isn't, and it could not be and won't be....should coitus ever be made into a commodity industry.

 

That example is about a country where it is illegal, thus they do not want to attend for regular testing....

In a society where it  would legal and regulated,  it just means mandatory compliance, just the same as everyone else in other fields of endeavour that are high risk health risk occuptations.

fortunate

susan davis wrote:

spanks i am sorry you do not enjoy your work, but 85% of my customers are not in relationships...and even if they are....i too find your arguement smacks of the tired old steroe types.......

the customer who just left here was not married....and i take some offense to you calling me ridiculous. i am a 23 year vetran of the sex industry. just because you don't "like"your clients and treat them with disdain, doesn't mean some of us don't take our work seriously and care about our customers. if this is truely how you feel, perhaps you are in the wrong line of work. men can be vulnerable, are beautiful and do have needs emotionally and physically. i am greatful for knowing them all.

I think she needs to do better screening and possibly raise her rates. No one respects someone who does not show they respect themselves by properly valuing their services.  Most people who do this have better sessions in general.  But allowing the first person who calls you up, and providing services at lower than standard rates, tends to attract an undesireable client.  I have yet to hear a real complaint from an sp who charges 400-500 per hour about the people they see lol. Or someone like us who build a rapport with potential clients to ensure they are suitable.

fortunate

Timebandit wrote:

susan davis wrote:

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/04/01/sex.workers.prefer.remote.screening.sexually.transmitted.diseases

 

Researchers at the University of Westminster have used a simple and convenient method for screening female commercial sex workers (CSW) for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) without the need for them to attend clinics. The women were given tampons that they could use to collect their own samples and post them to the laboratory. The results showed that the women in the study found self-collection of samples very easy and much preferred this method of screening for STIs and in addition the testing methods used proved to be more accurate than traditional tests. Dr Patrick Kimmitt who presented the group's findings to the Society for General Microbiology meeting in Harrogate today (Wednesday 1 April) pointed out that despite their risk of exposure to STIs, female CSW are reluctant to attend clinics for regular screening for these infections. This may be due to unsuitability of opening times, fear of stigma or the false concern of the possibility of being reported to the police. "Point of care testing" delivered at their workplace is more attractive to this patient group.

So how do they know that the sample belongs to the person it's supposed to belong to?  Couldn't they submit a surrogate sample from someone else?  I'm not sure the honour system is a good idea.....

I'm sure you must be joking, right?  As far as I know, testing is not mandatory, or something they are trying to circumvent to avoid prosecution or something lol.   Of course the only reason they are submitting the sample is because they actually want to know the results, for themselves.  Seriously, that is the weirdest thing I've seen yet, in spite of the fish farming debate, which is also pretty weird.

susan davis

i know, dude i was pretty shocked when i came across it too!!!   lol   tampons.....it states that it works really well though....weird.....

susan davis

also, time bandit....why .....do sex workers have no honor? .....nice.....

remind remind's picture

Testing would have to be mandatory, if there was a legal industry created....and it could not be self regulated. WCB, and EI, for 2 examples of the worker's social net, could not be accessed.

Also, for reasons such as the following public health breach below, we cannot have a state sanctioned industry, that has potential to harm so many, if there were no regulations.

 

Fact: Increased public access means increased consumer participation, and increased consumer participation means larger portions of contact sex workers, and society at large, would be affected by any potential breaches. And keep in mind Hep C, is the biggest concern, and it is not even classified strictly as a  STI.

 

Quote:
aroslava Hrabáková is an epidemiologist at the Regional Hygiene Centre in Cheb.

“We found out in March this year...that she was the woman who between 2001 and 2004 infected two men here with HIV. The men then infected their partners. So we launched a search for other clients of hers to discover the whole network. We want to make these people start treatment, but mainly to stop the infection from spreading further into the population.”


Drawing juxtapositions of loving the people, hating the profession/business,  is very valid...and extending the metaphor into regulations is just as valid.

.... this all comes back to me, as a eco-feminist, as a waste of public resources and money, when the most vulnerable, will still be left just as vulnerable.

People who make 500/hr, in any profession, are not vulnerable, and in need of social justice assistance by society at large, IMV. Nor do their rich customers.

 

But maybe that is just me....

susan davis

remind, we already qualify for WCB and EI ......i don't know how many times i have to remind you.....

i do not make $500 an hr nor will i discuss my rates with you. your complete dismiss of empowered sex workers as not needing social justice is a single dimensional as always.

a $500 an hour sex worker is only as stabile as the current legal frame work allows her to be. all it would take is one over zealous police man and her life is upside down and over...criminal record, loss of housing.....when she finally hits the street, then will you consider her worthy? when she takes up drug use out of a sense of desperation will she then be worthy? or does she have to be trafficked, rescued and repent the evils of sex work or "selling coitis" before she is worthy on your eyes?

i find it ridicualous that sex workers are blammed for the impacts that criminalization have had on us and that those having not yet experienced those harms are vilified as "a list" or "not vulnerable"...."not in need of social justice".....you really just don't get it ....we are all linked by the stability of the others....is that so hard to grasp?

the high end escort is the drug addicted street entrenched worker.......the drug addicted street entrenched worker is the high end escort........

Stargazer

Well worth repeating susan. Thanks for that post.

 

"a $500 an hour sex worker is only as stabile as the current legal frame work allows her to be. all it would take is one over zealous police man and her life is upside down and over...criminal record, loss of housing.....when she finally hits the street, then will you consider her worthy? when she takes up drug use out of a sense of desperation will she then be worthy? or does she have to be trafficked, rescued and repent the evils of sex work or "selling coitis" before she is worthy on your eyes?"


remind remind's picture

genital contact sex workers/prostitutes do not qualify for WCB and EI,  other sex workers do....which is why I keep repeating to you, that you do not.

 

yes i do get linked by the stability of others, which is why i do not agree with the further commodification of women's and men's organs

susan davis

yes i have posted friggin links before....we do damn well qualify, all you are required to do is pay in......? we are even mentioned by profession- escort i one spot. i included a link to self employed wporkers in BC.........

http://www.worksafebc.com/claims/worker_benefits/wage_loss_benefits/pop_compensation/default.asp

 

 

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Michael Nenonen wrote:

Frustrated Mess: I think that begs the question.

I would hazard a guess that a labour activist is someone who supports the right of labour to organize in order to promote and defend the interests of labour.  That seems to require a commitment to unions in some form or another. Now, that's not to say that every labour activist will agree on a single definition of the interests of labour, or how to go about advancing those interests in an organized fashion. Furthermore, a labour activist could condemn features of the union movement in particular times and places...such as mob infiltration, collusion with managerial elites, etc. A labour activist could very well condemn certain unions and certain practices of unions and remain a labour activist.

At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth, I would hazard a guess that a feminist is someone who, by definition, supports organized action to promote and defend the rights of women. What exactly those rights are, however, and how to go about organizing to promote and defend them, seem to me to be up for debate among feminists.

The problem, as I see it, is that there's a temptation to foreclose debate by imposing a premature uniformity upon the feminist movement. A labour parallel might be the attempt in early 20th Century to impose a definition of labour activism that explicitly excluded Communism from the American labour movement.

This is not to say that a strong case can't be made against decriminalization; indeed, I think a number of strong arguments have been made to that effect. However, I have not seen any argument that would justify excluding the proponents of decriminalization from the feminist community.

Beyond all this, however, I am concerned that Susan is, apparently, being accused of attempting to "divide and conquer" the feminist community on Babble on behalf of the sex trade industry, and that she is being defined in such a way that places her outside the feminist community. This strikes me as being unfair.  

So I can't be a labour activist without being pro-union, but I can be a feminist without being opposed to the commodification of the female body and mind. Okay. Now, can I be both a labour activist and represent and promote a company union?

 

susan davis

and here we are named specifically;

EA 761021 Massage Parlour,Steam Bath,Escort Srv 0.84 0.89 6.0% 22

 

http://www.worksafebc.com/publications/newsletters/assets/pdf_bod/20031021_01.pd

f

kropotkin1951

Thread drift alert

FM it really is a slippery slope.  We all might agree that CLAC is a company union but after that there are many labour activists who would see certain "mainstream" unions as nothing more than company unions. Can you be pro union and a syndicalist is the question I wonder about because as a syndicalist you are the company.  

Since I am not really interested in jailing people for selling sex I worry about a regulatory regime that is very intrusive.  To be anything more than a joke it has to have enforcement mechanisms that eventually lead to jail otherwise it will be laughed at not complied with. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

susan davis wrote:

also, time bandit....why .....do sex workers have no honor? .....nice.....

Like most people, it probably depends on both the individual and the situation.  Not that it has anything to do with the discussion.  Nice use of the "red herring" fallacy, though.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

susan davis wrote:

i find it ridicualous that sex workers are blammed for the impacts that criminalization have had on us and that those having not yet experienced those harms are vilified as "a list" or "not vulnerable"...."not in need of social justice".....you really just don't get it ....we are all linked by the stability of the others....is that so hard to grasp?

the high end escort is the drug addicted street entrenched worker.......the drug addicted street entrenched worker is the high end escort........

How so?  Just repeating a claim over and over doesn't qualify as evidence for it.  

rework

I realize I am dealing with some heavy hitters here with years of practice.
(by the time I have formed a comment, the thread is closed)

I posted hear after reading "Framing the Debate" , "Who's a Feminist" and thinking I could contribute.
But I keep getting this, men are not welcome here, impression.
 
? Should all men butt out of this forum,
even if they believe they support feminist goals, and wait for it.........buy sex
 (under a very narrow set of rules).

remind remind's picture

Your  2nd link does not work.....your first just indicates that someone, anyone, can apply to be covered, if you are self employed, but you would have have an industry designation to be self employed in, first, and then your application would have to be approved..

 

and no, I do not believe those classifications you mentioned cover genital contact and coitus, because said activities have no Industry Canada designation, and they can't, because communicating for the purposes of selling coitus and genital contact, as a commodity, is illegal.

 

So if you listed your self as an self employed escort,  you cannot be performing coitus, or genital contact, and you know this.

 

In BC, even tatoo parlours have a health industry designation.

 

 

Polly B Polly B's picture

G. Pie wrote:

And who are these men who would never find an intimate partner? 

I am totally aware we all frown on anecdotal shite here, but....

Young man I know very well.  Overweight, horrible case of adolescent acne which left scars.  The weight plus the pimples made him a bullied beat up scared young man for all five years of high school:  he withdrew.  Capital W.  Lived online, gamed and chatted, where he could be whoever he said he was. Somewhere around 22 years of age he decided he had to join the real world.  Step outside his Moms basement.  Get a job.  He had zero idea of how to be a real-lifer (his words not mine).  Socially inept to be nice about it.

It was pretty awful for him.

He got a complex about boy-girl stuff (again his words).  He wanted to reach out, to make friends, to date, to hit the holy grail of one day getting-laid.  Had no idea how.  His uncle decided for his 21st to "buy him some fun".

This is where susan comes in (okay not susan but someone like susan, who likes men, even young unattractive men.)  I can't and won't ask for details, but the result was a changed man.  This woman, and I send my anonymous thanks, convinced this young man that he was funny and desirable.  (And he is, and was.  But no-one else would tell him that!)  It was a one-nighter, bought and paid for, but it made a difference.  He admits happily that his first was a birthday present, and he doesn't seem to mind.  She really was good for his self esteem.

Does it seem tacky to talk about it?  Well, ya.  But I also know that this kid was talking suicide on his forums, that he was in the "no reason to stay" category.  He had been turned down and joked about for all his formative years, and it had turned him into a sad lonely person.  Sure his self esteem was bought and paid for, but I shudder to think what might have happened.

Pages

Topic locked