Prostitution - Framing the Debate for Decriminalization Part II

107 posts / 0 new
Last post

I'd like to help out but I'm still realing from the line I read yesterday that sex work (or prostitution) is not "really" work.



martin dufresne

Yes, that was Chavez's quote.

In fact, everyone here seems confident that this is what recipients could answer if EI or welfare officers started referring Canadian women (men?) to such "jobs."


Oh, for pity's sake, martin -- we already had that conversation.


There are other laws that define non-consensual sex as assault. No employment agency, EI or welfare officer could "refer" anyone to sex work who did not freely consent to it.

martin dufresne

So you recognize prostitution as not really work, as something else. Sorry but AFAIK, the jury is still out as to whether an officer would be compelled to maintain benefits for someone not consenting to such "work."


That to me is a totally illogical conclusion, martin. People who choose to do sex work choose it as such. But everyone may also at any time refuse to consent to sex itself, and there is very strong law backing up that choice, law that is not going to change.


Unless people are being denied benefits now for not applying for jobs at strip clubs and porn studios, both of which are "legal" and considered "work", I doubt that it's going to happen if prostitution is decriminalized or legalized.

Anyhow, this is long, so I'm going to close it and people can continue the conversation in a new thread.


Topic locked