Exotic Dancing and Prostitution are not the same thing

43 posts / 0 new
Last post
Exotic Dancing and Prostitution are not the same thing













Stargazer, I am sorry that I made you uncomfortable and I acknowledge your lived experience however I cannot agree that there is no clear line between exotic dancing and prostitution. I hope that this thread can help clarify that difference.

stargazer wrote:
Girls end up going home with nothing to show for a full night's work because they refuse to do what other girls will do for 20 dollars 

That would be because they aren't prostitutes. 20$ does not buy the prostitute experience. If it did, prostitutes would be out of business.

stargazer wrote:
I am well aware of what happened prior to the end of g-strings. There was a lot of English/French animosity over that one. Things changed. Lapdances where no one got to touch you, let alone blow on you are gone and they are not coming back.

Other countries have successfully rolled things back. The sexual exploitation of women is not inevidable. If women believed that nothing could change we still wouldn't have the vote.

Given that you are aware of what happened prior to the end of g-strings then you must also be aware that the liberalization did not improve women's lives. It liberalized what men could do to women. First the g-strings were gone, then lap-dancing came in, then blowing because it isn't touching, now touching...

Doesn't sound like female empowerment to me.

It used to be all a girl had to do was strip down to a g-string to go home with a purse full of money.

stargazer wrote:
What constitutes prostitution is purely arbitrary in the sexual sense. I'm pretty sure you know exactly what I mean. You categorically deny the reality of what happens in strip clubs when you deny that there are a hell of a lot of men paying money to do more than blow on a woman these days,  in Toronto clubs anyways.

If a man is paying to be jerked off, or to put his penis in a someone's mouth, anus or vagina, it's called prostitution.

And yeah, that can happen in strip clubs. When it does, it's not exotic dancing, it's prostitution taking place in a strip club.

Prostitution and exotic dancing are not the same thing. Current lap dancing and prostitution are not the same thing, yet. Legalize prostitution and lap dances will take place with the man's penis inserted in the dancer. I don't think that is "liberating" for women.

The current controversy is over the full decriminalization of all laws surrounding prostitution.  The euphemism "sex worker" is not useful if it encompasses activities that are already legal.

To me it serves to make invisible the lived experiences of actual prostitutes. Only prostitutes can speak from the lived experience of prostitutes.



Catchfire Catchfire's picture

This thread is a personal attack.


How so? An argument was presented that exotic dancing and prostitution are so similar as to practically be the same thing. I disagree with that point of view and I am explaining why I disagree with it.  I think I expressed my perspective respectfully.


Okay I was thinking a lot about this last night so here are my thoughts:

- Many women who strip are also prostitutes (there was a story in the Star a couple of days ago about one woman's story as a prostitute and a stripper -  there are many many more).

- I agree completely that once g-strings came off it was all about what one would do for 20 dollars and the industry lost a lot of women (and men) who refused to dance without the g-string. The ones who stayed are doing extras for money, because that is the norm now. Even feature dancers do private things for money. In the past that wasn't so.

Here is where I think we differ:

Stripping is a legal occupation. Stripping often involves a lot of prostitution. The only difference between these two industries is that sex work is conducted legally, while the other is legal but every act surrounding it is illegal.

The big one: if prostitution was decriminalized, there will not all the sudden be demands for more perverse, exploitave sex acts (as we saw with the exotic dancing industry). Transactions between a sex worker and a client are already either good, bad or very bad in terms of what client's ask for. That is as it always has been in the field of prostitution. As we saw with stripping, things are getting worse and more and more sexual demands are made on the women and men doing this job. Not so with prostitution.It would be nice if the stripping business could get cleaned up in the sense that women who need to make the money can at least do so without having to masterbate a man for 20 dollars. It would be amazing if stripping also fell under the term sex work and became a regulated industry (and I don't mean the way it is now, but the way susan was outlining) so women did not have to do these things if they didn't chose to and they couldd still make money.

I'm not entirely sure if you're stating these two jobs are entirely different to prove some kind of point (if so I'd like to hear it so I can address it) or if you truly believe there is really any difference, sort of stripping being legal. Maybe you would like there to be distinct differences because stripping is legal, and you don't want protitution decrimninalized, I don't know. But any sex act done in exchange for money constitutes prostitution, regardless of where it happens (a club, someone's house, a hotel, an alley).

My point is that selling your body for sex acts and money, regardless of where, is prostitution. Just because it is legal in a strip joint doesn't mean that a) women are not exploited and b) that there is a huge difference between the two industries. I'm sure you'll agree that the majority of women who chose to stay after the g-strings were off, and those who have recently entered it as a nude dancer, are performing sexual acts on clients for money.

The difference you speak of doesn't really exist. legal or not legal - that's the difference and I submit, that is the only real difference.

remind remind's picture

Could you explain why you think so catchfire?


I have read, and reread it, several times trying to figure out how it could be percieved to be so.

In fact, I thought Info's acknowlegement of Stargazer's perceptions and feelings were heart felt, as was her apology.

But that still does not mean that a premise is agreed with.


These are sex worker's voices we are hearing, and I for one am not going to impose my parameters, and what I want to hear them say, upon them in their own forum.

And here I just did it anyway, as I used sex worker in respect to Info, and she has stated quite clearly she resents the use of that term in application to herself, and perfers the truth of the word prostitute.



In terms of "rolling things back" - I do not think the government has any plans whatsoever do do squat about the plight of exotic dancers. They weren't giving a rat's ass when g-string laws were struck down and women were fighting to keep them on. In the end business won out. Likewise they aren't doing much about prostitution by crimninalizing the women who do the work. I'm sorry but I have zero faith nor trust in governments to help out women in any kind of sex work. Sripping has changed and it's been this way for what? 20 years or so? No improvements for dancers at all. Nada.

It would be naive to expect the government to take action and help any sex worker. They simply do not care. Thus the charter challenge. Making women who do sex work, at minimum not criminals, is a good starting point. The ideas that susan has put forth can be entirely workable and I believe that will help women at least gain some agency over their own bodies. We don't need to be treated like babies. We need to have an idusyry where workers control what happens, and bad johns or bad clients from the srip club (johns really) can be put on a national list so women are aware of who they may be encountering and who to watch for. It would also provide women owned brothels with regulations, health standards, saftey codes etc. pretending that stripping is completely different than prostitution will not help anyone. If all the sex work was put under the same umbrella all women would have a chance to be sfare where they work. Exploited women (and there are many in stripping) will be able to at least have an agency or governing body in which to make formal complaints, and change the conditions of their work together, as a collective.

Now we have for each their own and that is not making anyone safer. The sheer competition amongst women in strip clubs is doing them in. Set up a system as proposed above. Decriminalize sex work. Empower those who stay with agency and safety, and for those who are exploited, provide means to get out, report bad johns, report bad safety conditions (personal and property). It seems like a win win to me. For exploited women make sure we have systems of punishment set up and actually enforced. If it was a recognized industry then the police have no choice but to act different, as there would be entirely different rules and laws than there are now. And the most exploited sex workers now, today, have absoluteky zero recourse. Likewise strippers.


Sorry if my spelling sucks. I cannot get the Firefox spellchecker to work


If the Charter challenge is successful, I am curious how it would affect PEI - as strip clubs are still not allowed here. Someone did try to open one about 10 yrs ago and it was closed on opening night.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

With the first sentence of Info's post, she links this thread to Stargazer's personal experience, obliquely making the point that Info has authority to speak on sex work that exceeds Stargazer's authority. Considering the context of the other threads, the OP--which could not even keep up its pretention to anonymity beyond the first sentence--my conclusion was that this thread was not 'about' whether stripping is identical to prostitution as Info defines it (which is a reduction of Stargazer's original point, which is essentially that they are both sex work) but rather, it is 'about' whether Stargazer is a worthy speaker on the subject of sex work in general. Which, she has proved emphatically and repeatedly, that she is impassioned and eloquent in that regard.

Excuse my cynicism, but the way these threads have been going lately, a topic like this would squeeze the last bit of good faith from a chocolate chip cookie.


Ghislaine, if I remember correctly this is also tied up in the issue of Zoning bylaws. Saint John had the same debate a few years ago. The strip council was going after is closed but another one is open in the uptown.


I felt a bit odd about the national list for john's I made reference to above. I wanted to point out that I am not in favour of disclosing identifiable information about anyone, unless that person has proven to be a danger to others (has a police record for sexual assault etc.). 

There can be websites set up to report, informally, bad clients which the police can only access through the regular channels. It would be for sex workers and it should be safe.



Is this your basic argument?

1) That the line has been blurred between stripping and prostitution since the liberalization of laws concerning exotic dancing.

2) That if prostitution were decriminalized, regulation would become possible which would protect prostitutes and exotic dancers.

Given that exotic dancing is already legal and has been for a long time, why not fight for regulations that would protect exotic dancers and prove your point? 

The situation in strip clubs proves that liberalization of laws disempowered dancers. So far dancers have managed, for the most part, to resist outright prostitution because it's still illegal.

Stargazer wrote:
The difference you speak of doesn't really exist. legal or not legal - that's the difference and I submit, that is the only real difference.


"They've closed 20 strip clubs in three years. I've got exotic dancers who are now asking me how they can work safely as escorts when they never wanted to have full contact. Now they're being forced to choose sex work that's beyond their physical boundaries.

There is still a difference. Exotic dancers are not prostitutes. That stripping is legal hasn't lead to destigmatization.

It would strengthen the argument for decriminalization of johns, pimps and brothels if industry regulation gave exotic dancers more power against strip club owners.

Until then, decriminalize solicitation to protect prostitutes from arrest.

remind remind's picture

Catchfire wrote:
With the first sentence of Info's post, she links this thread to Stargazer's personal experience, obliquely making the point that Info has authority to speak on sex work that exceeds Stargazer's authority.

Thank you for your response, though I am hesitant, to answer it in this thread, especially given the discussion between sex workers going on. And we non-sex workers, are having an aside drift. Thereby imposing how we see things into a forum not directed, or mandated, to have that non-sex worker voice be heard other, than in a supportive role to all sex workers.

Having said that, I see Info's post as making a connection between sex workers, as having shared experiences and acknowleging that, while indicating that there are areas where that shared experience do not exist. And do not see it as designating any hierarchy, or authority, of one voice over another, just indicating the differences, and setting the known parameters, between the differing fields of endeavours, under one umbrellla title, which stargazer herself so elegantly detailed above, and that I addressed  parts of in another thread.

They both have indicated that they personally know what is going on and are willing to share their voices and lived expereinces with us. For which I know know I am thankful for and appreciative of. And part of that is, as we can see, established dialogue between those whose forum it is.

I know I have no right to be critical of how they vocalize things that are their perceptions, in their forum, and I also know that neither need rescuing by my concern for their safety. If I should have any that is, and I do not.

Their  interpersonal dialogue seems to indicate a sense of personal safety is being experienced by both,  in their forum, at least to me.

Though they may not now, that we have intruded ourselves upon their dialogue flow.

As such I will  not carry this further and will address points I choose to, in the  what is a sex worker thread, that is dedicated to all of us non-sex workers, being able to voice positions without over running sex worker voices, in their forum.

susan davis susan davis's picture

Stargazer wrote:

I felt a bit odd about the national list for john's I made reference to above. I wanted to point out that I am not in favour of disclosing identifiable information about anyone, unless that person has proven to be a danger to others (has a police record for sexual assault etc.). 

There can be websites set up to report, informally, bad clients which the police can only access through the regular channels. It would be for sex workers and it should be safe.


these lists already exist and are widely used.


Thanks susan. Excellent idea.


Info, I can't be bothered to go over that whole spiel again so let's just agree to disagree with no animosity.


hey..I may have a career in rapping!

susan davis susan davis's picture

in BC we successfully revised the provincial liquor regulations for exotic dancers. thanks to the NDP we were able to negotiate in a conference call with liquor inspectors and staff and basically got everything we wanted!!

dancers were not allowed to accept tips in BC but now they are!!

also, dancers wanted vidoe cameras in private dance areas in order to discourage prostitution. dancers felt that the camers could empower workers to refuse customers advances citing they would just have to say, i can't- the boss is watching.prostitution is illegal in an exotic show lounge and should remian as such. i don't we can afford to allow the demise of a non contact work opportunity in the sex industry, dancers need jobs people!!

a guy called me and is trying to open a show lounge in belleville ont. he is just getting the hardest time!!i tols him i wished i could help but that we are in vancouver and really not up and runnng anything yet...also, i could not in good conscience support a business owner i knew nothing about and had never met.....

if workers in belleville were organized and had contacted me on his behalf?that would be a different story.

exotic dancers  choose exotic dancing over escorting for a number of reasons. and i for one support creating more job opportunities for exotic dancers. 20 show lounges have been closed in vancouver in recent history, leaving some dancers with no work options. they end up becoming escorts and that is not right. no one should be forced to do sex work. part of our coop plan was to have dancers coordinate and profit from performances in the restaurant.

as for pei- some one should challenge their policy- it doesn't sound legal to me.exotic show lounges are legal and legitimate businesses.


I think susi points out the real focus for dancers.  You need to focus on the city council and work on the bylaws for the cities with the dance lounges.  I think susi also mentioned there is a zero tolerance for any physical contact, including the guys cannot put the dollars in the bra or g string or whatever.  They have to leave it on the stage for her to pick up.  When you have a zero touch LAW on the books, that will protect the dancers from even being approached.  It doesn't prevent the dancers who want to also do sex work on the side but those arrangements would have to be off the premises.    A great number of men who go to strip clubs go specifically because they are not looking for sexual contact, just flirting and fun with incredibly attractive women.  If they wanted to be sure of a sexual encounter, they would not seek it there where the outcome would be so uncertain.  

remind remind's picture

Thing is they want no laws, so the outcome is not uncertain, ever.


However, that won't happen, some show lounges are closed because they have allowed contact, thus they have lost their licensing, because it breaks health standards regulations, just to start,


Remind, who said they want no laws? They said there are ALREADY laws that deal with exploitation, assaults and human trafficking. It keeps getting told but apparently no one listens. Or are you referring to something else??

remind remind's picture

 is this not what the court action is over? No laws?

Please do read back over my  posts in other threads  regarding  the legalities of starting a industry and business in Canada.


Because until those legal functions are in place there are NO laws, in place thus it  would stand apart from every other industry and business, as it would have no laws governing it.


...exploitation, assaults and human trafficking would not be enforcable either, it would be he said she said.


And  people here have lots of knowlege and awareness of who the police side with in he said she said situations.


Annie Temple

Remind - what is being said is that deciminalizing sex work means NO LAWS directly affecting adult consensual sex work - except maybe a safe sex law, like in New Zealand.  The laws that protect ALL people would still be in place.  They are laws that protect people from violence, trafficking, etc.  We do not have laws regulating every industry.  What are you talking about?  We may have rules and protocols for each industry, but the law does not make it illegal for a construction worker to discuss payment details.  Get it?

remind remind's picture

Annie Temple wrote:
what is being said is that deciminalizing sex work means NO LAWS directly affecting adult consensual sex work - except maybe a safe sex law, like in New Zealand.

Exactly, as I said,  NO LAWS directly affectting sex work, and as I have been indicating, in several threads, there is way more to "safe sex laws" than a trite  phrase indicates.

Consensuality plays no part in job industry parameters, in any industry. Just because someone says they will work for below minimum wage, does not make it legal for an employer to do so. It is still illegal.


We do not have laws regulating every industry.  What are you talking about?  We may have rules and protocols for each industry, but the law does not make it illegal for a construction worker to discuss payment details.  Get it?

Yes, we do have laws governing every  industry, if you can find an industry that does not have laws, please do cite it here so that we can look at the parameters of how it is functioning and its legality.


The law states it is illegal  to pay a construction worker less than the minimum wage, no matter what the worker says about it, that is just the way it is.

If a worker wants more pay then they negotiate that of course, unless constrained by union contract parameters.



After weeks of reading threads on sex work and weighing all the arguments, I am at this time persuaded to throw my lot in with decriminalizing crowd rather than the abolitionists.

remind remind's picture

Caissa wrote:
After weeks of reading threads on sex work and weighing all the arguments, I am at this time persuaded to throw my lot in with decriminalizing crowd rather than the abolitionists.


...i did not know this was a vote register kinda thing, on the part of those not in the industry, and never will be.


Seems to me it silences voices of those who are, and have been.


No social justice understanding is shown, by anyone doing so, IMV






susan davis susan davis's picture

remind, th laws protecting construction workers are LABOUR LAWS not CRMINAL CODE PROVISIONS...


Wow, Remind, you attribute a lot to my one line statement.

remind remind's picture

No, Caissa, it was a pontification, and a weighing down on one side, with no epression of reasoning, or why conclusions were made.


Thus, it was a vote statement.


As a non-sex worker, I have not felt comfortable, with making any such statements, nor will I ever here, hence why people have accused me of being here and there with it, and why I have stated I am walking a fine line between it all.


I am looking  the practicalities of having a legalized sex industry, from a a health, worker and industry canada standing.


These are critical acctualities that we know about, or can know about in some cases.


Decriminalization without consideration of these  critical acctualities, and without implimention of them before hand, will be a disaster for women, and other people who are marginalized.


Society has just created a class of people, that it would be legal to exploit. And prompted a degradation in circumstances of said people, as opposed to enhancing it.


I was dressed as a Cardinal today for Halloween so I suppose a pontification would be one step up.

I suppose with keeping with that spirit, I don't believe the argument you are making in post #27 one iota.

remind remind's picture

Fair enough, but it is still a vote statement and nothing more. You have not desconstructed anything I have stated and given evidence otherwise.

As you are not a health care worker, a sex worker, a prostitute, a front line sex worker, nor a woman,  nor an un-educated man, nor a POC, I  have to rate your vote extremely low on any measured scale.

remind remind's picture

It was not meant to be hurtful, nor do I think it was.


Just plain facts of it all.

martin dufresne


I read a very astute statement on a feminist list today, coming from a working-class Quebecoise ironically commenting on the ease with which men were climbing on the libertarian bandwagon of decriminalizing pimps, brothel-owners, procurers and soliciting by johns. She wrote (my translation):

Have you noticed that many men who show much enthusiasm in defending women's "freedom" to prostitute seem suddenly much less concerned with women's freedom to access non-traditional jobs? I'll know I'm dreaming on the day where I hear one of them speak of a female trucker or welder and say "She is a vaccinated adult and free to practice her profession of choice!" Beside, at is has been said on this list, most of the women who prostitute as adults have started doing so before the age of 18. I would be very much surprised if pro-prostitution males defended just as strongly men's right to prostitute...

On the blogs, when pay equity is broached, there is always someone to come up with the classic example of the firewoman who is unable-to-carry-a-400-pound-man-down-from-a-10th-floor-story. As far I know, I see no one challenging a female nurse's right to practice her profession, despite the existence of very heavy patients to be lifted, and attendant workplace injuries.

It appears that the only professions for which women are deemed too weak for dangerous or physically challenging tasks are those much valued among men. But women appear to be resilient enough to undergo the difficult and dangerous conditions (rapes, battering, illnesses and psychological damage) that can accompany the practice of prostitution..."




And how would you term yourself martin? You wish dearly to see women have ZERO agency over their own bodies.  You know, some women and men actually CHOSE to do sex work. I know, hard concept for you but it is true. You want to see it stopped. So exactly what are you stopping? Women who wish to do sex work. You are trying to prevent women from making that choice so hey, from where I stand, you are the exact same as those you don't like. You are trying to control their bodies too.

I feel like we have walked into the Victorian era. I mean come on. It is quite clear that people can enter into sex work without having to meet a bunch of critieria first that would fit "exploited". You have said you would be respectful and listen but you guys are not listening. You don't want to listen and I think it actually really pisses you off that there are women who chose sex work.

Again, these are grown women, not kids, grown women, who have been sharing stories and experiences with you and they have been mocked, harassed and made to feel unwelcome. Why is that? How can you martin, claim to speak FOR women when you don't even want to listen to them when they don't fit your idea of poor, drug addicted and exploited? How can any respectful discussion continue?

Why not leave them and what they do with their bodies alone? You wish to eradicate prostitution. Fine. Noble even to some degree. But that doesn't give you the right to pretend that somehow, magically, prostitution will disappear.

It is not disappearing. You could give half the men on this planet salt peter and that is not going to stop them from wanting sex. You can continue to ply the arguement that no sex work is good work but it doesn't make it real.

Also, why continue to ignore the reality that there are laws, already in existence that cover trafficking etc.? It doesn't give your side any credibility when you want what is not going to happen. It's like the War on Drugs. Some people are addicted and their lives are screwed. Others can handle doing drugs quite well and actually function highly in society. To pretend that everyone who does drugs is an addict is not only false, it makes people into one-dimensional cutouts, not a representation of our vast and broad society.

BTW, do you think that men who do this work are exploited? I'd like to see you participate in and start threads on exploited male sex workers.

Not going to are you? Why? Because it male bodies? Because you think it is impossible or because it doesn't meet with the same standards you impose on women?

I used two words with all caps. I may be morphing into Kanye West.




remind remind's picture

Unfair accusations stargazer,   do not believe for one minute your side is listening to anything anyone else is sayiing either, all you are doing is hurling around thought terminating cliches, such "victorian.....whatever', "angry",  using people's lived experience confessions againt them, all that shit is just like that which was hurled at feminist, long go.


Did not stop us fighting for women's rights then, won't stop us now.


We have seen it and heard it all before. Lived it every step of the way.


Makes you feel better  and empowered to negatively label us, go  for it.


...fully 3, prostitutes have  courageously voiced their voices here, but yet they go ignored by all of you, while  you all are claiming you want to stop exploitation and are willing  and  indeed wanting to listen their voices.


Are you  all you really?







Remind sorry but what you accuse me of you are more than guilty of yourself. And can you stop sticking up for martin? He's a grown man, I'm sure he can stick up for himself.

I worked in this business too. I see both sides and have read and listened to both.

The big difference between the stance I take and the stance you and martin take is that I do not wish to control the bodies of women who chose sex work. Martin does.Frankly I am surprised you defend that.

Enough of this crap. Every time someone does not come down on the side of abolutionists like martin I have to pretend he is listening.Not going to happen. You guys are not listening.

Pot meet kettle.

Anyways, I can see that 100,000 sex workers can come here and there will still be people denying their voices.

I'm not playing the "oh you don't listen to us" crap anymore. There are threads after threads in which women have been infantized, and they continue. If you';re comfortable with that then hey, great. I am not.


Unfair accusations? Please! Have a look in the mirror.

susan davis susan davis's picture

here here stargazer!!

martin dufresne

I do not wish to control the bodies of women who chose sex work. Martin does.


It is a bit embarrassing - and akin to harassment - to read you repeating this falsehood about me, in one form or another, post after post, without any proof, even after I have denied it many times. But hey, if you really think it's your best shot against critics of full decriminalization on Babble, flail away...


Martin I really don't care how you feel to be honest. You know what you're up to. All you do is deny deny deny. It's your standard approach. Carry on dude, seriously, I am not the one feeling even remotely embarrassed and screw off with the "oh you're harassing, attacking, smearing" crap. Are you a grown up? You're harassing the sex workers in here. That's my take.


And really,  if you wish, file your harassment charge against me,  or take it to the mods. Good luck.

remind remind's picture

Stargazer wrote:
Remind sorry but what you accuse me of you are more than guilty of yourself. And can you stop sticking up for martin? He's a grown man, I'm sure he can stick up for himself.


Sticking up for martin? LOL, omg LOL

Not one person has addressed what Trisha, and jamrtin hd to say, is what I am stating, I have listened to everything susan has stated and kept up an ongoing dialogue with her.

While trisha and jmartin are marginalized and ignored.

Even susan when she said she would be alright with changing the forum name from sex worker, she was ignore, thus IMV, all sex workers and prostitutes voices have bee ignored.

Was not meaning you in particular stargazer, in fact I suppose i was refering to rabble/babble itself.

Though in second thought jmartin and Trisha were ignored by all, except Susan.




Didn't someone comment on TRisha's experience? I hope they did, because hers was a powerful read and emotional as well.

I'm not upset at all with you remind, but I am getting really leary of men on any side wanting to control what we can do with our bodies. I just don't see that behaviour as an ally and I cannot get past the fact REAL Women of Canada are on that same side. That is not a good thing.

First, I can't cook, sew, or shop responsibly and I hate cleaning house and second, I like girls as much or more than I like men so REAL women would love to see my kind gone.

I cannot believe I just came out of the proverbial closet on Babble.



I really don't think that many of the anti-decrim have the slightest clue about what exactly it means or what results are likely to come about if the 3 things are removed.   For one thing, these three laws have nothing to do with Prostitution itself.  The simple exchang of $ for sexual services is legal.  Also, placing ads offering sexual services for $ is legal, so any potential client can call up an advertiser and discuss her rates and services.   This phone call has been determined to be private and not public solicitation, so one of the three laws is not broken.   If these activities take place at her residence, she is breaking one of those laws.  So, she is prevented from engaging in a perfectly legal activity in a location that offers her safety, comfort and access to complete control over her environment.  Removing that one law makes it possible for her to do a perfectly legal activity in a place that is safe for her.  Removing the same law will enable her to share that space with another sex worker, thus enabling both of them to have a safety net.  

But that is assuming that they need one.  One of the things many sex workers do is screen these potential clients; it might be a phone conversation, it might be requesting some basic background information.  A lot of the time, however, these checks are to ensure that vice officers don't show up and charge them.   Not for prostitution, which is legal, but for providing their services in a safe place.  Possibly for working without a license, though lol, because some city bylaws sell licenses for escorts and then the real risk is being charged or fined for not paying the city for a license to work as a prostitute.  Cool

So basically anyone anti-decrim believes that these laws protect sex workers.  How so?  It makes it illegal for them to pay someone to drive them to an appointment, and remain as a backup?  It makes it illegal for them to work from home, in a safe place?  It makes it illegal for them to meet someone in a public place before committing to any appointment, where they could possibly discuss rates and services over coffee? 

Given that the job is legal, what is it about these laws that make it OK to others?  The work is legal for those 18 and over.  So, it is a given that underage is not allowed, and a criminal offense.  Already covered.  Next?  Trafficking?  The majority of asian sex workers in Vancouver are working illegally, not working under duress.  They come in using tourist or student visas, meaning not only they are here for a short time but they are NOT permitted by law to work in Canada.   They are usually experienced sex trade workers in China, and the majority of their customers are Asian, and Canada is about the last place they can continue to make a good living at it considering their age is 30+.  They get raided because they work illegally, okay?  Already covered by other laws, nothing to do with prostitution, trafficking, whatever.  Next?  Something something blah blah blah Sweden, Iceland, blah blah blah.   I personally am in Canada.  Only things affecting or actually happening CURRENTLY in Canada should be of concern to me, and anyone else really, on this issue.  I could care less what happens in Sweden if those people who continue to bring up Sweden continue to ignore New Zealand, okay??  

Most sex workers started before 18, and have a history of abuse, and so on?   Really?  Most?  How many, exactly, is MOST?  Or is this MOST coming from street workers?  Because if it is, I can agree.  I also want to point out that street workers are not MOST sex workers.  They are the minority at 10-15% of the total.  Susi's work will hopefully help ease transitions for those who want it, but the majority of them would just like a safer place to work.  Not listening to what sex workers want for themselves has got to be the main focus of anyone's attention.   Not being listened to?  Well, as a woman over 40 I really really got used to that in my life, with gender inequality.  As a sex worker, I really have no patience for any feminist (male or female) who will not listen to me now.  I have no history of anything in my past, and started this work in my late 30's.  My story is not the minority.  My voice is not alone.  When susi says she speaks for many, she does.  She has the support of hundreds of women who are more like me than the street workers who most of "polite society" would like everyone to view as "typical".  They are not typical, they are not the majority, they are in a vulnerable place, and I would hope that the majority of the public would accept the fact that they, and I, am not going to choose to clean toilets rather than do this work. 

I have to add that considering that at least half of the men I see do not get blow jobs or even have full sexual contact, exactly how is it that anyone can assume that all men are demanding, expecting or getting what you imagine they are.  Someone in another thread mentioned that escorts would not be someone a "john" takes out for dinner or engage in conversation with.  Then why do s many escorts have social rates, and dinner date rates, and overnight rates, and weekly rates?   You must think a lot of the sexual capacity of these guys to think that conversation, or social interaction is not being sought by men who use the services of sexworkers.   

Oh, and I meant to remind remind that I think you need to rethink your focus a bit.  A lot of sex workers would be considered self employed, and would not have employers per se.  Some work through agencies or massage parlours, true, in which case some of your ideas should or could be implemented, but the rest set their own hours, limits, rates, etc and seek out their clients independently.  This would be similar to any self employed person, so maybe come up with some ideas that more accurately reflect this reality?







Annie Temple

Bravo!  *standing ovation for fortunate*

susan davis susan davis's picture

here, here annie!!bravo fortunate! thanks for backing me up babe!!

love youse all!!