Feminist viewpoints on prostitution and sex work Volume 2

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
ennir

G. Pie wrote:

ennir wrote:
Is that how you think you win arguments?

No, I win arguments by falsely attributing opinions to my opponents, claiming to find humour in the patently unfunny, and then leaving in a flounce when I'm not being engaged on the terms that I decree.  I call it the Debating Trifecta and it's a beauty.

LOL

ennir

ennir wrote:

....

Have you read my posts? What do you mean, "How about the sex worker herself?"  I find it offensive that you insinsuate that I am not listening to all the voices expressed.  I have said no woman should be forced into sex work, is that not clear enough for you? Is that how you think you win arguments?

 

 

Full quote that shows the context and your distortion.  Perhaps it is not clear to you that you misrepresented me when you said, "How about the sex worker herself?"  Now either you aren't reading my posts or are incapable of comprehending that I can be opposed to any women forced into sex work and still support the women who choose it.

 

Stargazer

Ennir, I was thinking about this all day today, because for the life of me I cannot get over this need to control women's vagina's and sex. I thought immediately of the abortion debate. I think that is an excellent analogy.

And G.Pie, we have been listening to sex workers voices here. I'm not sure who you think Susan, fortunate and a few others are or do, but they are stating they do it by choice. I chose to believe them. Maybe you chose to think you know what is better for them . I do not.

As to your drug addict reference above, think about what you have said there...that someone defined a a "drug addict" (a woman) does not have the capacity to make her own decisions and again, I am floored by the infantilizing of women in that statement and in almost all these threads. 

Who defines who is a "drug addict"? You? men? Society? Who? And who are you to say that someone who does drugs does not have the capacity to consent? AA and NA considers anyone an addict who screws up once under the influence. Are methadone users addicts? And again, because they may be addicted the state has a right to step in and control them because they, according to you, have no capacity to think for themselves?

I think this is going way too far into state control, morality and an intense focus on women's sexuality. I am not the state I do not want anymore intrusions by the state into my private life or the lives of women.

Even more puzzling to me are those who appear to think it would be impossible for a woman to enjoy having sex and get paid for it.

I still have yet to hear how the abolitionists side would protect women? From themselves only? Because that is what I am getting from some of the comments here. How about focusing on the actual reality? Do you think criminalizing women further will be a good move? I want an honest answer, because that is exactly what abolition does. It makes women criminals. It destroys their home lives, puts their children in jeopardy of being wards of the state, it strips women of autonomy over their own bodies.Prostitution is NOT going to stop because you wish it would. Believe it or not, it is a viable work option for many women. Not just drug addicted street walkers. It helps pay for school, puts food in their mouths and allows them to set their own hours.

We have repeatedly said that exploited women need help - exit strategies, economic opportunities, daycare, drug or other counselling, yet you guys go far beyond this. You want the choice taken away from women in sex work who chose to do this.

I see we have gotten pretty much no where on this debate.

and remind, you were for decrim prior. What tripped you over to the abolitionist side?

 

ennir

Thank you for your post Stargazer, I agree.

 

susan davis

here, here stargazer! and ennir!!!!

Loretta

Stargazer wrote:

I am not the state I do not want anymore intrusions by the state into my private life or the lives of women.

This sounds like libertarianism at its finest - perhaps you can clarify if that's not what's meant.

stargazer wrote:

Even more puzzling to me are those who appear to think it would be impossible for a woman to enjoy having sex and get paid for it.

I don't think anyone's disputing the likelihood that some women enjoy having sex and getting paid for it and certainly, I don't see anyone rejecting that position from the women on this board who do so. The objection is that many women who are getting paid for sex do not have the power to control their circumstances like the women who post here do, for any number of reasons. So, the dispute is over whether or not is accurately portrays all (or even most) women's experience.

Stargazer wrote:

I still have yet to hear how the abolitionists side would protect women? From themselves only? Because that is what I am getting from some of the comments here. How about focusing on the actual reality? Do you think criminalizing women further will be a good move? I want an honest answer, because that is exactly what abolition does. It makes women criminals. It destroys their home lives, puts their children in jeopardy of being wards of the state, it stripars women of autonomy over their own bodies.Prostitution is NOT going to stop because you wish it would. Believe it or not, it is a viable work option for many women. Not just drug addicted street walkers. It helps pay for school, puts food in their mouths and allows them to set their own hours.

Not wanting to speak for other participants on this thread but I have made it clear that decriminalizing women who get paid for sex is the position I take. I don't see how that translates into making women criminals or puts them at risk of losing their children, or strips them of autonomy over their bodies.

Stargazer wrote:

We have repeatedly said that exploited women need help - exit strategies, economic opportunities, daycare, drug or other counselling, yet you guys go far beyond this. You want the choice taken away from women in sex work who chose to do this.

In my view, in the absence of those programs already in place, full decriminalization or legalization removes the true choices from those who are trapped. Once properly set-up and funded programs are operating, then the women who remain are truly the ones making the choice from a place of freedom.

Stargazer wrote:

I see we have gotten pretty much no where on this debate.

Nowhere meaning that those of us who don't support full decrim haven't been persuaded that this is a good move for marginalized women or, in fact, all women? I think it's an argument put forward by the privileged to absolve us of our responsibility to each other, myself.

 

G. Muffin

Stargazer wrote:
And G.Pie, we have been listening to sex workers voices here. I'm not sure who you think Susan, fortunate and a few others are or do, but they are stating they do it by choice. I chose to believe them. Maybe you chose to think you know what is better for them . I do not.

No, I stated quite clearly that I do believe them.  I don't think, however, that they represent the majority.

Quote:
As to your drug addict reference above, think about what you have said there...that someone defined a a "drug addict" (a woman) does not have the capacity to make her own decisions and again, I am floored by the infantilizing of women in that statement and in almost all these threads.

While you're under the influence of your addiction, you don't enjoy capacity to make your own decisions.  Just like when you're insane you don't.  Rail against what you call this infantilizing all you want but you're not going to change the cold, hard, scientific and legal facts.

Quote:
Who defines who is a "drug addict"? You? men? Society? Who?

It's not a difficult concept.  A drug (or alcohol) addict is somehow who continues to use whatever substance in such quantity and with such frequency that their life becomes dysfunctional.  If you're buying crystal meth and, as a consequence, you can't afford to feed yourself adequately, you're a drug addict.

Quote:
And who are you to say that someone who does drugs does not have the capacity to consent?

The criteria isn't "doing drugs."  It's being a drug addict.

Quote:
AA and NA considers anyone an addict who screws up once under the influence.

Never been a fan of the twelve steppers, myself.

Quote:
Are methadone users addicts?

Yes, of course.  The advantage of methadone, however, is that you don't have to sell yourself or rob someone to get it.  It's provided to you because society recognizes that it's harm reduction. 

Quote:
And again, because they may be addicted the state has a right to step in and control them because they, according to you, have no capacity to think for themselves?

Never said they couldn't think for themselves.  I'm saying if you're needing to support a $200 a day heroin habit, your "choice" to get that $200 via prostitution isn't really a choice at all.  It's a biological necessity that will never end until you break your addiction. 

Quote:
Even more puzzling to me are those who appear to think it would be impossible for a woman to enjoy having sex and get paid for it.

Who thinks it's impossible?  I haven't seen anyone claim that. 

Quote:
How about focusing on the actual reality? Do you think criminalizing women further will be a good move? I want an honest answer, because that is exactly what abolition does.

I think a good move would be shutting the sex trade down.  That's my honest answer.

susan davis

shutting it down......what job do you propose we do? where are the livable wages for women? has poverty evaporated? this idea is the reason things are as messed up as they are.

G. Muffin

susan davis wrote:
shutting it down......what job do you propose we do?

Any legal thing that you choose to do for a living. 

Quote:
where are the livable wages for women?

I suspect they're everywhere.  Full-time work at minimum wage will buy you a modest though adequate apartment in many, many towns across Canada. 

Quote:
has poverty evaporated?

Did anyone say it had?

Quote:
this idea is the reason things are as messed up as they are.

Right.  It's the people who hate the sex trade who are fucking our society up.

Stargazer

Loretta wrote:

Stargazer wrote:

I am not the state I do not want anymore intrusions by the state into my private life or the lives of women.

This sounds like libertarianism at its finest - perhaps you can clarify if that's not what's meant.

stargazer wrote:

Even more puzzling to me are those who appear to think it would be impossible for a woman to enjoy having sex and get paid for it.

I don't think anyone's disputing the likelihood that some women enjoy having sex and getting paid for it and certainly, I don't see anyone rejecting that position from the women on this board who do so. The objection is that many women who are getting paid for sex do not have the power to control their circumstances like the women who post here do, for any number of reasons. So, the dispute is over whether or not is accurately portrays all (or even most) women's experience.

Stargazer wrote:

I still have yet to hear how the abolitionists side would protect women? From themselves only? Because that is what I am getting from some of the comments here. How about focusing on the actual reality? Do you think criminalizing women further will be a good move? I want an honest answer, because that is exactly what abolition does. It makes women criminals. It destroys their home lives, puts their children in jeopardy of being wards of the state, it stripars women of autonomy over their own bodies.Prostitution is NOT going to stop because you wish it would. Believe it or not, it is a viable work option for many women. Not just drug addicted street walkers. It helps pay for school, puts food in their mouths and allows them to set their own hours.

Not wanting to speak for other participants on this thread but I have made it clear that decriminalizing women who get paid for sex is the position I take. I don't see how that translates into making women criminals or puts them at risk of losing their children, or strips them of autonomy over their bodies.

Stargazer wrote:

We have repeatedly said that exploited women need help - exit strategies, economic opportunities, daycare, drug or other counselling, yet you guys go far beyond this. You want the choice taken away from women in sex work who chose to do this.

In my view, in the absence of those programs already in place, full decriminalization or legalization removes the true choices from those who are trapped. Once properly set-up and funded programs are operating, then the women who remain are truly the ones making the choice from a place of freedom.

Stargazer wrote:

I see we have gotten pretty much no where on this debate.

Nowhere meaning that those of us who don't support full decrim haven't been persuaded that this is a good move for marginalized women or, in fact, all women? I think it's an argument put forward by the privileged to absolve us of our responsibility to each other, myself.

 

 

What would it matter if I were a libertarian? I'm not sure why this is a focus of yours. I'm actually pro choice and pro women's rights. That doesn't make me a libertarian and if it did does that somehow discredit me? Why the need to pigeonhole me? Is that for your benefit? How does it help you or me? 

There were a lot of people who inferred, assumed and stated that Susan and those who choose sex work just didn't know what they were doing. I'm am not going to pull all those quotes out of the many many threads we've now how on this topic.

Loretta, you're no an abolitionist. so my post was not directed at you.

 

All of those strategies are already in place. How many groups who are against decrim have come on here with their outlined projects, ones that are already in place. Let's not pretend that there are no resources for women who are exploited, we have a long way to go but there are many organizations out there right now who assist women in getting off the streets. The project susan and others are working on would further enhance these programs. I see that as a positive.

 

I am privileged now? Thanks. I'll have to check my bank account, my background and my current living situation. I had no idea I was privileged or elitist. You know nothing of me and I will not disclose anything else personal on babble. If you've been here long enough then you know I am far from privileged. I resent that only "privileged" people can somehow take the position I am. BTW, I'll bet you dollars for donuts that you hhave far more privilege than myself, so let's not go there okay? It is insulting really and makes your argument look weak.

Stargazer

G. Pie wrote:

susan davis wrote:
shutting it down......what job do you propose we do?

Any legal thing that you choose to do for a living. 

Quote:
where are the livable wages for women?

I suspect they're everywhere.  Full-time work at minimum wage will buy you a modest though adequate apartment in many, many towns across Canada. 

Quote:
has poverty evaporated?

Did anyone say it had?

Quote:
this idea is the reason things are as messed up as they are.

Right.  It's the people who hate the sex trade who are fucking our society up.

 

Any legal job for minimum wage susan. Line up at Tim's asap. So susan and others should be forced out of the city (is that a goal of yours?) and forced to live on minimum wage?

Okay seriously, you guys are getting less and less coherent and pro-woman and more and more about morality. Sure seems to me that telling susan to go work fa minimum wage job away from the city so you don't see the prostitution is a okay now. Really, this type of post does absolutely nothing to help your side.

 

Move away and take a minimum wage job so I can feel better without hookers in my city. How nice. How quaint. How totally and excessively elitist of you.

susan davis

GPie, prostitution IS legal........where are my rights as a worker?both sides agree we should decrim workers.....? or are we now seing your true colours.....?round us all up and get rid of us.....yeah that will work......

in vancouver i could not afford an apartment on minimum wage, so i would have to move, destroying my social capitol and further isolating me...sounds fun!where do i sign up?

Loretta

Stargazer, I find your posts quite confusing. First, you go after people in this thread as if we all prefer the status quo. I'm not aware of one person who is posting here who says that's OK but each time that is pointed out, it gets glossed over or ignored.

Secondly, I want to hear about existing services that support women. Where I live, and I don't think it's unusual, there are some (very limited) non-profits who help women and children in very limited ways. Where I live, people cannot live on the amount they receive for income assistance, without supplementing it in some way.

Let's be honest about that -- no-one can live on $550 per month when one needs to pay for shelter, food, etc, no matter how good a money manager. The only exception to that would be if one had the access and ability to being self-sufficient, such as through gardening, etc. I know families that have lost their children simply because of lost jobs and poverty, period.

That doesn't even touch on the myriad of associated issues, such as addiction services (where I live, they are accessible as out-patient services through the psychiatric unit), abuse - historical and current, etc. Women's centres and shelters have been cut back, as have victim's services.

So, in my view, choices is something that many women don't have, especially when faced with the complications of addictions, single parenting (not much help on that front either), etc. That's what I mean when I say that the freedom argument is one that comes from the point of view of the privileged, not that everyone who argues it is privileged.

 

wage zombie

G. Pie wrote:

Quote:
where are the livable wages for women?

I suspect they're everywhere.  Full-time work at minimum wage will buy you a modest though adequate apartment in many, many towns across Canada. 

Wow.  Full time work at minimum wage (apparently readily available) will buy you an adequate apartment in many towns across Canada.  I guess the economy and social safety net must be in pretty good shape then.  You believe that?  The things people say to win arguments.

If you find yourself saying things you don't actually believe in order to support a position, it's a pretty good sign there's a problem with the position.

wage zombie

Loretta wrote:

Stargazer, I find your posts quite confusing. First, you go after people in this thread as if we all prefer the status quo. I'm not aware of one person who is posting here who says that's OK but each time that is pointed out, it gets glossed over or ignored.

I think what's going on is that the people who don't support full decriminalization (of sex workers and their clients) are not providing clear solutions to the status quo.  And without outlining workable solutions, while not being receptive to the decrim solutions being proposed.

So, for example, some here are in favour of decrim for sex workers and not for their clients.  Decriminalize women, the act of selling sex, because we don't want to punish prosituted women for trying to survive in their situation.  But leave buying sex crimimalized, because it's objectionable behaviour that encourages the objectification and commodicfication of women's bodies in society as a whole.  And because many here have no concern whatsoever for men who are inconvenienced because their personal desire to buy access to women's bodies is illegal.

Now as a moral argument this is quite coherent and one that proponents can feelpretty good about having.  Loretta, please correct me if i'm wrong, i feel this is close to your position.

The problem is that this morally coherent argument is not very workable at all.  And sex workers posting here have explained why.  Sure, if a sex worker on the street has a legal right to negotiate in public that's great--but if her prospective client does not have the legal right to do so, then it's not going to work.  If the guy in the car does not have the legal right to negotiate in public then he's not going to do so.  So "the sex worker on the street", the one that everyone cares about, is going to be forced to get in the car before being able to set her rates and limits.  This puts her in very precarious position.

The scenario has been brought up several times but i have not seen it addressed.  The moral argument feels good but it does nothing to change the status quo.

Advocates of partial decrim (for the sex worker only) have not put forward any workable solutions to the status quo,  And they're not in favour of full decrim.  So what do they prefer?  There's the status quo, and then there's full decrim which would make things safer for women than the status quo.  Which do you prefer?  If neither are acceptable, then put forward a solution that would actually make things safer for sex workers.

Advocates of decrim for sex workers only have been asked multiple times to provide details about how that would work, but details are sparse.  If you can't provide a workable alternative to the status quo, and you have moral objections to proposed workable alternatives to the status quo, then...it will be hard for people not to get confused into thinking you prefer the status quo.

Stargazer

Loretta wrote:

Stargazer, I find your posts quite confusing. First, you go after people in this thread as if we all prefer the status quo. I'm not aware of one person who is posting here who says that's OK but each time that is pointed out, it gets glossed over or ignored.

Secondly, I want to hear about existing services that support women. Where I live, and I don't think it's unusual, there are some (very limited) non-profits who help women and children in very limited ways. Where I live, people cannot live on the amount they receive for income assistance, without supplementing it in some way.

Let's be honest about that -- no-one can live on $550 per month when one needs to pay for shelter, food, etc, no matter how good a money manager. The only exception to that would be if one had the access and ability to being self-sufficient, such as through gardening, etc. I know families that have lost their children simply because of lost jobs and poverty, period.

That doesn't even touch on the myriad of associated issues, such as addiction services (where I live, they are accessible as out-patient services through the psychiatric unit), abuse - historical and current, etc. Women's centres and shelters have been cut back, as have victim's services.

So, in my view, choices is something that many women don't have, especially when faced with the complications of addictions, single parenting (not much help on that front either), etc. That's what I mean when I say that the freedom argument is one that comes from the point of view of the privileged, not that everyone who argues it is privileged.

 

I had no idea my posts were so confusing. Personally I think they are fairly straightforward.

There obviously has to be more resources for women. That is something I have been saying for my entire adult life, and I am very aware of single parents and the issues facing them, as I was a single parent at 17. So you can imagine how tough that was and still is. Not to mention the draconian rules surrounding social assistance benefits. The problem is not me, or you. The problem is that we have lived under governments that do not care about women. We need to change that. 

Your third paragraph should be directed at G.Pie, as she was the one who thought Susan and other women should move out of the city and get a minimum wage job. I did not put that forward, she did.

Lastly, I am unsure how I can be speaking from a place of privilege when I am not privileged. Are you implying that I am am under the spell of the elitists?

 

Stargazer

wage zombie wrote:

Loretta wrote:

Stargazer, I find your posts quite confusing. First, you go after people in this thread as if we all prefer the status quo. I'm not aware of one person who is posting here who says that's OK but each time that is pointed out, it gets glossed over or ignored.

I think what's going on is that the people who don't support full decriminalization (of sex workers and their clients) are not providing clear solutions to the status quo.  And without outlining workable solutions, while not being receptive to the decrim solutions being proposed.

So, for example, some here are in favour of decrim for sex workers and not for their clients.  Decriminalize women, the act of selling sex, because we don't want to punish prosituted women for trying to survive in their situation.  But leave buying sex crimimalized, because it's objectionable behaviour that encourages the objectification and commodicfication of women's bodies in society as a whole.  And because many here have no concern whatsoever for men who are inconvenienced because their personal desire to buy access to women's bodies is illegal.

Now as a moral argument this is quite coherent and one that proponents can feelpretty good about having.  Loretta, please correct me if i'm wrong, i feel this is close to your position.

The problem is that this morally coherent argument is not very workable at all.  And sex workers posting here have explained why.  Sure, if a sex worker on the street has a legal right to negotiate in public that's great--but if her prospective client does not have the legal right to do so, then it's not going to work.  If the guy in the car does not have the legal right to negotiate in public then he's not going to do so.  So "the sex worker on the street", the one that everyone cares about, is going to be forced to get in the car before being able to set her rates and limits.  This puts her in very precarious position.

The scenario has been brought up several times but i have not seen it addressed.  The moral argument feels good but it does nothing to change the status quo.

Advocates of partial decrim (for the sex worker only) have not put forward any workable solutions to the status quo,  And they're not in favour of full decrim.  So what do they prefer?  There's the status quo, and then there's full decrim which would make things safer for women than the status quo.  Which do you prefer?  If neither are acceptable, then put forward a solution that would actually make things safer for sex workers.

Advocates of decrim for sex workers only have been asked multiple times to provide details about how that would work, but details are sparse.  If you can't provide a workable alternative to the status quo, and you have moral objections to proposed workable alternatives to the status quo, then...it will be hard for people not to get confused into thinking you prefer the status quo.

 

Thanks for this post wage zombie. You make a lot of excellent points.

There has been discussion of the issue you referred to here:

If the guy in the car does not have the legal right to negotiate in public then he's not going to do so.  So "the sex worker on the street", the one that everyone cares about, is going to be forced to get in the car before being able to set her rates and limits.  This puts her in very precarious position.

Unfortunately it is in the Support for decrim thread which none of the anti-decrim people bothered to post in. Your argument is the corner stone of the charter challenge. Have a look in the thread. Also susan an others have set out all sorts of programs, exit strategies, safety and health concern solutions in multiple threads, but again, they are largely ignored.

That is the crux of this argument - we have people who say they support women, but who also do not seem to want to post any solution short of criminalizing johns or stopping men from buying sex (the latter is not going to happen) so it makes for extremely frustrating discussion when so much has been put out as a solution on the decrim side, which actually doesn't require we step outside of reality within this discourse.


susan davis

thankyou wage zombie.

wage zombie

G. Pie wrote:

Quote:
As to your drug addict reference above, think about what you have said there...that someone defined a a "drug addict" (a woman) does not have the capacity to make her own decisions and again, I am floored by the infantilizing of women in that statement and in almost all these threads.

While you're under the influence of your addiction, you don't enjoy capacity to make your own decisions.  Just like when you're insane you don't.  Rail against what you call this infantilizing all you want but you're not going to change the cold, hard, scientific and legal facts.

You're not providing any scienttific or legal facts there.  None at all.  Drug addicts don't lose the legal capacity to make this own decisions.  This is just bizarre.

Quote:

Quote:
Who defines who is a "drug addict"? You? men? Society? Who?

It's not a difficult concept.  A drug (or alcohol) addict is somehow who continues to use whatever substance in such quantity and with such frequency that their life becomes dysfunctional.  If you're buying crystal meth and, as a consequence, you can't afford to feed yourself adequately, you're a drug addict.

Chances are if you're spending all your money on crystal meth then you're not very hungry.  But i digress.

Quote:

Quote:
And who are you to say that someone who does drugs does not have the capacity to consent?

The criteria isn't "doing drugs."  It's being a drug addict.

What about all the tobacco addicts?  Do they have the capacity to consent?

 

Quote:

Quote:
Are methadone users addicts?

Yes, of course.  The advantage of methadone, however, is that you don't have to sell yourself or rob someone to get it.  It's provided to you because society recognizes that it's harm reduction. 

 

OK--so now we're now we're definitely not talking about scientific facts here.  Methadone is more addivtive than heroin, but because it's available in some places to addicts in the name of harm reduction, methadone addiction is less disruptive to every living.  Hmm.  That's how it goes.  If cigarettes were made illegal tomorrow, and people had to pay $200 a pack on the streets to get them, then prositution rates would skyrocket.

But we're no longer talking about sex trade policy here, we're talking about drug policy.  I'm not sure why you're getting confused.

As long as there is a war on drugs there will be drug addicts with no choice but to prostitute themselves.  No matter what happens with sex trade policy.  Please don't confuse the issue.

Quote:

Quote:
How about focusing on the actual reality? Do you think criminalizing women further will be a good move? I want an honest answer, because that is exactly what abolition does.

I think a good move would be shutting the sex trade down.  That's my honest answer.

And how would you propose doing that?  Honestly i see 2 scenarios.

One way would beto go totalitarian styles, and cut back on the rights.  Take paper cash away so that everything is electronic and traceable.  Women standing on a corner wearing short skirts would have their body cavities searched for semen.  If you want to have sex with someone you'd need to apply for a license together.

Or i guess a socialist utopia would wipe out the sex trade too.  Guaranteed minimum income and everyone having all their needs taken care of what shut down the sex industry.  Why would anyone sell their bodies?  There wouldn't be a need for money!

But really absent those 2 pretty unlikely scenarios i really don't any way of "shutting down" the sex trade.  And i think any move to shut it down would necessitate compromising the rights of women.

But please, dilineate how we can go about shutting the sex trade down.

SparkyOne

Why is prostitution illegal in Canada yet an 18 year old woman can get paid to have sex with an "actor" on camera?

G. Muffin

Stargazer wrote:
Your third paragraph should be directed at G.Pie, as she was the one who thought Susan and other women should move out of the city and get a minimum wage job. I did not put that forward, she did.

I most certainly did not!  I have no opinion as to where Susan should live or what wage she should negotiate.

Stargazer

G. Pie wrote:

susan davis wrote:
shutting it down......what job do you propose we do?

Any legal thing that you choose to do for a living. 

Quote:
where are the livable wages for women?

I suspect they're everywhere.  Full-time work at minimum wage will buy you a modest though adequate apartment in many, many towns across Canada. 

Quote:
has poverty evaporated?

Did anyone say it had?

Quote:
this idea is the reason things are as messed up as they are.

Right.  It's the people who hate the sex trade who are fucking our society up.

 

Actually it was you but perhaps you did not mean it as literally as it was taken?? Some confusion here.

G. Muffin

wage zombie wrote:
You're not providing any scienttific or legal facts there.  None at all.  Drug addicts don't lose the legal capacity to make this own decisions.  This is just bizarre.

When you're under the influence, you do lose capacity.  That's why drunkenness can be a mitigating factor in criminal sentencing.  It's why civil contracts can be set aside.  Society understands that when you're high you're not 100% responsible for your actions.  You can't be.

Quote:
Chances are if you're spending all your money on crystal meth then you're not very hungry.  But i digress.

Okay, marijuana then.  Whatever.  If you're abusing substances to such a degree that you can't look after yourself, you're a drug addict.

Quote:
What about all the tobacco addicts?  Do they have the capacity to consent?

Yes, of course they do.  Tobacco is not a mind-altering substance. 

Quote:
OK--so now we're now we're definitely not talking about scientific facts here.  Methadone is more addivtive than heroin, but because it's available in some places to addicts in the name of harm reduction, methadone addiction is less disruptive to every living.

Correct.  It's better that a heroin addict receive regular (and free) methadone than be casting around for ways to come up with enough money to get heroin.

Quote:
If cigarettes were made illegal tomorrow, and people had to pay $200 a pack on the streets to get them, then prositution rates would skyrocket.

No.  People don't go to such extremes to feed their nicotine addiction and, anyway, there are plenty of forms of nicotine available other than cigarettes.

Quote:
As long as there is a war on drugs there will be drug addicts with no choice but to prostitute themselves.

That's the big lie.  You do have a choice.  You can choose to stop using drugs.

Quote:
But please, dilineate how we can go about shutting the sex trade down.

What's to delineate?  You could set a period of time before new law came into effect and provide appropriate supports for exiting the sex trade.  After six months, a year, whatever, the sex trade is closed and it's no longer a legal way to earn an income.

Stargazer

SparkyOne wrote:

Why is prostitution illegal in Canada yet an 18 year old woman can get paid to have sex with an "actor" on camera?

 

Hi Sparky, it's actually not illegal, but everything surrounding it is. A person is free to engage in sex for money but not free to talk about the money prior nor "live off the avails" of that money. So in short, the law is screwed.

A sex worker is not allowed to actually live off the money he or she makes. I'm sure the original intent was to strip pimps from any power (which clearly isn't working) but instead they stripped women from having any power. The law should have been a lot more clear exactly who it was targeting, thus why i think this Charter challenge will win.

Some facts which you may find interesting: did you know prostitution is not limited to sexual intercourse (I know you'd think otherwise with the amount of times people here have talked about selling their vaginas but hey).

“Prostitution refers to lewd acts for payment for the sexual gratification of the purchaser. The phrase "lewd" ... is broad enough to encompass acts that do not include genital touching but are intended to be sexually stimulating" (R. v. Bedford 2000 143 CCC 3d 311 at http://www.canlii.com/en/on/onca/doc/2000/2000canlii2487/2000canlii2487.html).

Please let's remember this whenever massage parlours and lap dancing is brought up.

From one of my favourite layman's legal resources:

http://duhaime.org/LegalResources/CriminalLaw/LawArticle-121/Prostitutio...

From the link above:

 

 

Secondly, the Code prohibits the operation of a bawdy-house “for the purpose of prostitution”.

While a variety of venues would qualify as a bawdy-house, Canada's Supreme Court, in 2005, in what was probably an attempt to “keep the state out of the bedrooms of the nation”, excluded private swinger clubs, even when the members engage in orgies within a licensed bar.

But that case can be distinguished from prostitution as it stated that there was no harm to society in swinger or orgy clubs as “no one was pressured to have sex, paid for sex, or treated as a mere sexual object for the gratification of others”.

Bawdy-house offenses require some degree of control and knowledge of the prostitution activities allegedly occurring therein, by the "keeper".

Thirdly, the Code prohibits anybody from procuring or attempting to procure or solicit a person to have illicit sexual intercourse, who entices a client to a bawdy-house for the purposes of prostitution or who lives on the veils of prostitution of another person (i.e. pimping).

Illicit sexual intercourse apparently refers to sex outside of marriage.

Because the law covers procurement, evidence of sexual intercourse is necessary.

Canadian criminal law's fourth weapon against prostitution is the offense created by any person “who in a public place or in any place open to public view communicates with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute”.

In R. v Swift 143 AR 173 (1993), the following conversation occurred between an undercover female police officer and the accused:

Officer: Hi.
Accused: Hi, how are you?
Officer: Do you want to talk to me?
Accused: Are you a talented lady?
Officer: Oh, yes.  What are you looking for?
Accused: Some head.  Are you big up top?
Officer: Yeah, make me an offer.
Accused: Are you a cop?  Can you prove you're not a cop ... lets see your tits.
Officer:  Business first pal.
Accused: $40 for head?
Officer: OK

The accused was then told to drive around the block and pick her up.  He did not do so.  Instead, he drove off.

In the result, he was acquitted of the charge of communication for the purpose of obtaining the sexual service of a prostitute as the Court had a reasonable doubt as to whether the conversation was to procure prostitution.

It is important to note, as did Justice Wilson in Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, that the Code: “does not prohibit prostitution which remains a perfectly legal activity. It does not even prohibit solicitation; it only prohibits solicitation in public places”.

Fifth, the Criminal Code has other offenses which suppress prostitution-like activity including the offense of a parent or guardian procuring sexual activity, that of a householder permitting sexual activity and the offense of corrupting children.

Note that some jurisdictions have also been successful in controlling prostitution by using the tort claim of public nuisance.

 

G. Muffin

Stargazer wrote:
Actually it was you but perhaps you did not mean it as literally as it was taken?? Some confusion here.

Where did I say that Susan had to work for minimum wage?  That she should just have a modest apartment and no nicer?  That she should live in a smaller town?  I never said (nor would I ever say) any of those things.

I just pointed out the truth about minimum wage buying a life in response to this ludicrous idea that women have to enter the sex trade in order to survive.  They do not. 

G. Muffin

wage zombie wrote:
Wow.  Full time work at minimum wage (apparently readily available) will buy you an adequate apartment in many towns across Canada.  I guess the economy and social safety net must be in pretty good shape then.  You believe that?

Believe it and live it.  I live in the third (I think) most expensive city in BC.  I'm underemployed (by choice) and live comfortably in a nice home.  All my medical expenses are covered and I get lots of other free goodies too.  So, yeah, I think I'm better off than most citizens of the world.

Quote:
If you find yourself saying things you don't actually believe in order to support a position, it's a pretty good sign there's a problem with the position.

And if it were true that I didn't believe my own statements, then I guess you might have a point.  As it is ....

wage zombie

G. Pie wrote:

Quote:
What about all the tobacco addicts?  Do they have the capacity to consent?

Yes, of course they do.  Tobacco is not a mind-altering substance. 

If you're addicted to nicotine and there's none available i suspect it's pretty mind altering.  Tobacco is more addictive than any illegal drug.  I thought we were talking about addiction.

Quote:

Quote:
As long as there is a war on drugs there will be drug addicts with no choice but to prostitute themselves.

That's the big lie.  You do have a choice.  You can choose to stop using drugs.

How do you choose to stop using drugs if you don't have the capacity to consent or make decisions?  Addicts can't be responsible for their actions, remember?

Quote:

Quote:
But please, dilineate how we can go about shutting the sex trade down.

What's to delineate?  You could set a period of time before new law came into effect and provide appropriate supports for exiting the sex trade.  After six months, a year, whatever, the sex trade is closed and it's no longer a legal way to earn an income.

Ahhh.....now i understand.  It's an inspiring plan too.  We can just make something illegal and it'll just go away.  Next we'll make violence, hunger and bad luck illegal and we're set!  What's to dilineate?  Utopia here we come.

Stargazer

G. Pie wrote:

wage zombie wrote:
You're not providing any scienttific or legal facts there.  None at all.  Drug addicts don't lose the legal capacity to make this own decisions.  This is just bizarre.

When you're under the influence, you do lose capacity.  That's why drunkenness can be a mitigating factor in criminal sentencing.  It's why civil contracts can be set aside.  Society understands that when you're high you're not 100% responsible for your actions.  You can't be.

Quote:
Chances are if you're spending all your money on crystal meth then you're not very hungry.  But i digress.

Okay, marijuana then.  Whatever.  If you're abusing substances to such a degree that you can't look after yourself, you're a drug addict.

Quote:
What about all the tobacco addicts?  Do they have the capacity to consent?

Yes, of course they do.  Tobacco is not a mind-altering substance. 

Quote:
OK--so now we're now we're definitely not talking about scientific facts here.  Methadone is more addivtive than heroin, but because it's available in some places to addicts in the name of harm reduction, methadone addiction is less disruptive to every living.

Correct.  It's better that a heroin addict receive regular (and free) methadone than be casting around for ways to come up with enough money to get heroin.

Quote:
If cigarettes were made illegal tomorrow, and people had to pay $200 a pack on the streets to get them, then prositution rates would skyrocket.

No.  People don't go to such extremes to feed their nicotine addiction and, anyway, there are plenty of forms of nicotine available other than cigarettes.

Quote:
As long as there is a war on drugs there will be drug addicts with no choice but to prostitute themselves.

That's the big lie.  You do have a choice.  You can choose to stop using drugs.

Quote:
But please, dilineate how we can go about shutting the sex trade down.

What's to delineate?  You could set a period of time before new law came into effect and provide appropriate supports for exiting the sex trade.  After six months, a year, whatever, the sex trade is closed and it's no longer a legal way to earn an income.

Okay is this a joke? I mean seriously?

 

First, if what you said is true (which it isn't), then men who claimed to be drunk while raping a woman would get no charges laid. The law recognizes that drunkeness is not a defense to rape. Nor is drunkenness a defense for consent. So you're wrong here. I concur it is a mitigating factor in sentencing, but not the offense.

Second, You're actually seriously saying that people would stop smoking if cigarettes were 200 per pack? Not going to happen. Cigarettes are the most legally addictive drug on the market. People will sell their souls for a cigarette when in need, and some will trade sexual favours. I know, I have seen it happen many times.

Third, you do have a choice, you can stop doing drugs? Hahahahaha. I am not mocking you but I'm not sure you are actually believing this. That's like saying no women has to be a prostitute, that it is a choice, and she can stop at any time (which completely goes against your argument that these women are forced into sex work and have no choice). So, in your world a drug addicted prostitute with absolutely no income and no hopes for gainful employment can just simply make the choice to stop being a prostitute and the world be be all butterflies and light.

 

The sex trade is closed? You didn't answer wage zombie. How is the sex trade going to be closed? Exactly how? Are you all in for criminalizing women more? Because that's your solution. That the sex industry will magically disappear after we make it illegal (which almost everything around it already is and no sign of the sex industry "stopping"). Under your proposal all women in sex work will be in jails, their kids, if they have them, wards of the state, and their lives financially ruined.

Do you have an actual solution that will actually work, like, in the real world?

 

G. Muffin

wage zombie wrote:
If you're addicted to nicotine and there's none available i suspect it's pretty mind altering.  Tobacco is more addictive than any illegal drug.  I thought we were talking about addiction.

Nicotine is incredibly addictive and it's very hard to do without it once you're hooked.  Ditto with caffeine.  That doesn't make them mind altering drugs.

Quote:
How do you choose to stop using drugs if you don't have the capacity to consent or make decisions?  Addicts can't be responsible for their actions, remember?

You require legal capacity to, for instance, enter into a contract.  You don't require it to decide you've had enough of your own lifestyle.  I didn't say that addicts were never responsible for their actions.  I said that while they're under the influence they don't have capacity.

Quote:
Ahhh.....now i understand.  It's an inspiring plan too.  We can just make something illegal and it'll just go away.

No.  It'll never go away.  But it can be easily curtailed. 

Stargazer

Stargazer wrote:

G. Pie wrote:

susan davis wrote:
shutting it down......what job do you propose we do?

Any legal thing that you choose to do for a living. 

Quote:
where are the livable wages for women?

I suspect they're everywhere.  Full-time work at minimum wage will buy you a modest though adequate apartment in many, many towns across Canada. 

Quote:
has poverty evaporated?

Did anyone say it had?

Quote:
this idea is the reason things are as messed up as they are.

Right.  It's the people who hate the sex trade who are fucking our society up.

 

Actually it was you but perhaps you did not mean it as literally as it was taken?? Some confusion here.

 

I have bolded it, and posted it again, in case you missed it the first time.

wage zombie

G. Pie wrote:

No.  It'll never go away.  But it can be easily curtailed. 

How?

G. Muffin

Stargazer wrote:
First, if what you said is true (which it isn't), then men who claimed to be drunk while raping a woman would get no charges laid. The law recognizes that drunkeness is not a defense to rape. Nor is drunkenness a defense for consent. So you're wrong here. I concur it is a mitigating factor in sentencing, but not the offense.

That's exactly what I said.  Can be a mitigating factor in criminal sentencing.  I never said a drunk rapist couldn't be charged.  That's preposterous.

Quote:
Second, You're actually seriously saying that people would stop smoking if cigarettes were 200 per pack?

Many would. 

Quote:
Cigarettes are the most legally addictive drug on the market.

No, cigarettes aren't a drug.  Nicotine is. 

Quote:
People will sell their souls for a cigarette when in need, and some will trade sexual favours. I know, I have seen it happen many times.

I guess I travel in the wrong circles.  I don't know anybody who would prostitute herself for a cigarette.

Quote:
Third, you do have a choice, you can stop doing drugs? Hahahahaha. I am not mocking you but I'm not sure you are actually believing this.

So you think people can't recover from drug addictions?  This is troubling news. 

Quote:
That's like saying no women has to be a prostitute

And I am saying that.

Quote:
that it is a choice, and she can stop at any time (which completely goes against your argument that these women are forced into sex work and have no choice)

I never said that all women in the sex trade are forced.  I freely acknowledge that Susan Davis et al choose freely to participate.

Quote:
So, in your world a drug addicted prostitute with absolutely no income

This makes absolutely no sense.  If she has "absolutely no income" then why does she bother working as a prostitute?  Is she a volunteer prostitute?  If she has "absolutely no income" then how does she purchase her drugs?

Quote:
and no hopes for gainful employment can just simply make the choice to stop being a prostitute and the world be be all butterflies and light.

No, it certainly won't be all "butterfies and light."  She'll have a massive hill to climb in getting over drug addiction.  Once that's taken care of, she can put the sex trade behind her.

Quote:
Are you all in for criminalizing women more? Because that's your solution. That the sex industry will magically disappear after we make it illegal (which almost everything around it already is and no sign of the sex industry "stopping"). Under your proposal all women in sex work will be in jails, their kids, if they have them, wards of the state, and their lives financially ruined.

My proposal says nothing about putting sex workers in jail.  I don't support jail for anything except violent offences.

remind remind's picture

Loretta wrote:
.. don't think the comparison between physiotherapy or massage therapists and prostitution holds, given the power and social location of phsyiotherapists/massage therapists in comparison to most women forced into prostitution through lack of options.

Agreed...

Quote:
Also, this article is written from the point of view as someone who makes the comparison between what the services offered might look like, as a recipient. It strikes me as the author is saying, "It feels so good that I can relate to the people who purchase prostitution services". I doubt any of us here don't get that men who purchase sex feel good as a result, otherwise what would be the point? Is that the measure of whether women are better or worse off through complete decriminalization?

 

Apparently given the slant here it seems so....and it is about as absurb as thinking that those who oppose decriminalization for john's procurers, pimps and bawdy houseowners, are the problem in this equation.

Meanwhile, stats show that societal's increased focus on penus pleasure has not been good for women, as per susan's posted stats in this thread, my anecdotal life experience, and by the stats, as long cited here, showing 1 out 3 women have be raped nowadays, as opposed to the historical 1 out of 4.  And remember that is reported rapes.

 

Keep in mind too though these numbers only go, for some reason, to 1999, so are 10 years old, and are also unsourced by susan.

 

NUMBER OF HOMICIDES OF SEX WORKERS

 

1960-1964    0

1965-1969    0

                                                                                                       1970-1974   0 

1975-1979    3

1980-1984    8

1985-1989   22

1990-1994   24

                                                                                                      1995-1999   55

 

G. Muffin

Stargazer wrote:
I have bolded it, and posted it again, in case you missed it the first time.

Asked and answered, Stargazer.  I have no opinion as to where Susan should live or how much she should earn.  I put that in about minimum wage affording an apartment in response to the ludicrous claim that women have to enter the sex trade in order to live.  Please move on.

Stargazer

I am seriously interested in how prostitution can be "easily curtailed?" since this has apparently been the goal of the government and it isn't working, despite the law.

So again, what is your solution, short of making it "more criminal"?

G. Muffin

wage zombie wrote:

G. Pie wrote:

No.  It'll never go away.  But it can be easily curtailed. 

How?

By charging $200 a pack.

G. Muffin

Stargazer wrote:
So again, what is your solution, short of making it "more criminal"?

I can't give you my solution "short of making it more criminal" because my solution is to make it more criminal.  You don't agree.  I respect that you don't agree.  Try to do the same.

wage zombie

G.Pie, post #45: I don't know how meaningful the concept of choice is when you're addicted to drugs and have no other way to feed your addiction.

G. Pie, post #48: Yes, I believe that the drug addicted, while addicted, do not have the capacity to exercise free will.  I said nothing about anyone having or not having a right to disagree.  Try to stick to arguing what people actually say.

G. Pie, post #57: While you're under the influence of your addiction, you don't enjoy capacity to make your own decisions.  Just like when you're insane you don't.

G. Pie, post #73: That's the big lie.  You do have a choice.  You can choose to stop using drugs.

G. Pie, post #79: You require legal capacity to, for instance, enter into a contract.  You don't require it to decide you've had enough of your own lifestyle.  I didn't say that addicts were never responsible for their actions.  I said that while they're under the influence they don't have capacity.

So maybe you can see why some of us are confused here...

Stargazer

You're wrapping yourself up in your own stuff G. Pie, in all honesty. I have answered your question, pointed out where you said it, and you refuse to acknowledge it. I'll let it go but you seriously have to be aware of the huge contradictions in your arguments in these last few posts.

BTW, some women actually DO enter the sex trade to make a living. Do they "have" to? No, I suppose if they had no education, a spicy past with a criminal record or kids then they may chose to work for minimum wage, live in a rooming house and live a life of sheer poverty. Not exactly the life I'd like to see my sisters lead but hey these drug addicted prostitutes who are often the target of both bad johns and the police can just suck it up, pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get a better job because they have a ton of choices.

See, it is very very easy for the pro decrim side to see the plight of women in severe poverty and actually care about these women, our fellow sisters.  We can and have provided solutions, we want to see the government help women far more than they do now and we respect sex workers who chose to do this work. All in all I'd say we're a rather rational and compassionate lot.

G. Muffin

wage zombie wrote:

G.Pie, post #45: I don't know how meaningful the concept of choice is when you're addicted to drugs and have no other way to feed your addiction.

G. Pie, post #48: Yes, I believe that the drug addicted, while addicted, do not have the capacity to exercise free will.  I said nothing about anyone having or not having a right to disagree.  Try to stick to arguing what people actually say.

G. Pie, post #57: While you're under the influence of your addiction, you don't enjoy capacity to make your own decisions.  Just like when you're insane you don't.

G. Pie, post #73: That's the big lie.  You do have a choice.  You can choose to stop using drugs.

G. Pie, post #79: You require legal capacity to, for instance, enter into a contract.  You don't require it to decide you've had enough of your own lifestyle.  I didn't say that addicts were never responsible for their actions.  I said that while they're under the influence they don't have capacity.

So maybe you can see why some of us are confused here...

Yes, I see what you mean.  Drugs fuck you up.  But even when you're fucked up you can recognize that drugs are fucking you up.

Stargazer

So, in all honesty then, your posts aren't really about the welfare of prostituted women, they are about making it disappear. Sorry if I have you wrong but I can see absolutely nothing good coming from putting more of our sisters in jail. Not sure how you can support women and want to see these drug addicted prostitutes in jail, their kids taken away and their lives forever ruined. That's the solution? I want no part of that. No way, no how. 

 

 

susan davis

the numbers of deaths of sex workers is from the VPD civilian staff member' grant background we use in proposals orgionating from the SIWSAG committee,sex industry workers safety action group.

so the numbers are VPD numbers

G. Muffin

Stargazer wrote:
You're wrapping yourself up in your own stuff G. Pie, in all honesty. I have answered your question, pointed out where you said it, and you refuse to acknowledge it. I'll let it go but you seriously have to be aware of the huge contradictions in your arguments in these last few posts.

No, Stargazer.  You claimed that I told Susan she should move to a small town and earn minimum wage.  When I pointed out this was false, you quoted and bolded (twice!) my comment that minimum wage will get you a modest apartment.  Twice (!) I explained that this was not meant to suggest what Susan (or anybody else) should do and I told you twice (!) why I posted that comment.

Quote:
See, it is very very easy for the pro decrim side to see the plight of women in severe poverty and actually care about these women, our fellow sisters.  We can and have provided solutions, we want to see the government help women far more than they do now and we respect sex workers who chose to do this work. All in all I'd say we're a rather rational and compassionate lot.

I don't see prostitution as a solution to poverty.  And I don't want the government to see it that way either.  If that makes me irrational and whatever the opposite of compassionate is, then so be it.

Stargazer

Best defense is just admit your logic has some fallacies. No harm in that.

wage zombie

So i'm still a bit confused--is a drug addicted prostitute who is selling sex for drugs or money to buy drugs making a choice to do so?  Or is it only a choice if she chooses to get off drugs?

Edited to add: This was directed to G.Pie, should've quoted her post.

G. Muffin

wage zombie wrote:
So i'm still a bit confused--is a drug addicted prostitute who is selling sex for drugs or money to buy drugs making a choice to do so?

I think of it as her drug addiction making the choice, not her.

G. Muffin

Stargazer wrote:

Best defense is just admit your logic has some fallacies. No harm in that.

Well, whenever you're ready then.

G. Muffin

Stargazer wrote:
So, in all honesty then, your posts aren't really about the welfare of prostituted women, they are about making it disappear.

These are the same things.  Prostitution (for most) is a horrible life.  If it disappears, women are better off.

Quote:
Sorry if I have you wrong but I can see absolutely nothing good coming from putting more of our sisters in jail.

Okay, I guess you missed where I said I didn't want anyone involved to go to jail.

Quote:
Not sure how you can support women and want to see these drug addicted prostitutes in jail

The drug addicted belong in treatment, not in jail.

Quote:
their kids taken away

While they're incompetent, yes.  And if you're a drug addict, you're not a competent parent.

Quote:
and their lives forever ruined. That's the solution? I want no part of that. No way, no how.

Then, fine.  Again, we don't agree on the sex trade.  Feel free to continue your discussion with someone who does agree with you.

Stargazer

G. Pie, you do not get to dictate whom and when I can discuss this with.

I put up many posts, links and rational ideas. You twisted yourself in knots trying to get out of some and justify your opinions. I won't be the one doing any editing or changing of my posts.

I'm not taking this personally, but I can see you are.

 

 

rework

Wage Zombie post # 65

BINGO

Pages

Topic locked