Masturbating clients ‘not sexual’ in Ontario?
Fri, 2007-09-14 09:12
#1
Masturbating clients ‘not sexual’ in Ontario?
Fri, 2007-09-14 09:12
#2
The recent decision by Justice Howard Chisvin, of the Ontario Court of Justice, “Parlour's 'manual release' ruled legal”, The Star, Sept. 11) seriously compromises the right of employees not be pressured into prostitution.
On the upside, one can applaud the fact that, for once, the law went after a profiteer and not the women he used. But then the man was exonerated with a wink and excoriation of the police officer involved. And unless this decision is successfully appealed by the McGuinty government, Canadian pimps will be breaking out the champagne.
Justice Chisvin based his ruling on President Clinton’s denial of the sexual nature of his tryst with Monica Lewinski. Will fellating men soon also be deemed “not sexual” and therefore required of massage providers?
This case echoes the 1999 Supreme Court decision against Ontario exotic dancers who organized to resist pressures by employers to force them into “lap dancing”. Dancing immediately devolved to thinly-veiled prostitution in most bars.
Another concern is whether such “not sexual” servicing of johns in massage parlours now becomes a legitimate job that no unemployed woman will be authorized to resist without losing her UI and welfare benefits.
The move towards full exoneration for pimps and johns
An Osgoode Hall law professor, Alan Young, is organizing his students to work on a constitutional challenge. He and sex industry lobby groups are trying to have Criminal Code protections against pimping, bawdy-houses and soliciting women on the street stricken off the books. One of his arguments is that since so few pimps, brothel-owners and johns are being prosecuted, these sections of the law do not deserve to stand against a principled challenge based on constitutional rights and freedoms…
This is part of a generalized move to chase women off the street using municipal bylaws and corral them into indoors organized prostitution. People who are lured into believing that this is an 'empowering' deal for women would do well to read Dr. Melissa Farley’s new well-documented exposй: "Prostitution & Trafficking in Nevada: Making the Connections” (Prostitution Research &Education, Fall 2007).
Nevada is one of the places where the male pipe dream of full decriminalization for pimps and johns is being played out.
Margaret Atwood’s visions of The Handmaiden’s Tale seem to be just around the corner.
Martin Dufresne
[email protected]
[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/255176]Parlour's 'manual release' ruled legal[/url]
[url=http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/lapdancing.html]Andrea Dworkin - "Why women must get out of men's laps"[/url]
[url=http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/nevadabook/index.html]Dr. Melissa Farley - "Prostitution & Trafficking in Nevada - Making the Connections"[/url]
[ 14 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
[ 14 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Fri, 2007-09-14 10:17
#3
I have a problem with claiming that handjobs are "not sexual". I don't have a problem with striking down prostitution laws, though.
When you claim an act is "non-sexual" then I agree that it opens the door to massage parlours requiring their employees to perform this service. I have a problem with that.
I don't, however, have a problem with declaring the act "sexual" and making it legal for massage parlours to offer the service. Professional masseuses don't have to do it if they don't want to. It should be legal.
There are lots of legit massage parlours which have registered massage therapists of both genders. They are trained professionals with a regulatory body, and sexual contact with clients is professional misconduct, for which they have [url=http://www.cmto.com/regulations/zerotolerance.htm]zero tolerance.[/url]
So, the way I see it is, if you want a professional massage, go to a registered massage therapist. If you want to get rubbed a bit and then whacked off, go to a happy-ending massage parlour.
There's no reason why they both can't be legal, as long as it's clear what they're doing and expecting.
As for this idea that women who refuse to jerk guys off at massage parlours will lose their welfare or EI benefits - I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Stripping is legal now - have you ever heard any case EVER of a woman being denied benefits because she refused to take a "legal" and available job at a strip club? I don't think so.
It's time to stop criminalizing prostitutes.
Fri, 2007-09-14 10:51
#4
[url=http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/2004projects/massage/stories/p1_p... is what criminalization of prostitutes can lead to.[/url]
If cops want blowjobs and handjobs, they should have to pay for them like everyone else!
Fri, 2007-09-14 11:05
#5
Pogo
maybe another time...
[ 14 September 2007: Message edited by: Pogo ]
Fri, 2007-09-14 11:35
#6
Michelle wrote:
"Stripping is legal now - have you ever heard any case EVER of a woman being denied benefits because she refused to take a "legal" and available job at a strip club? I don't think so."
In 1984, a Montreal woman was pressured by her UIC agent into accepting a nude dancing job. She had to raise a big stink in the media to avoid losing her benefits.
I was told last year by Quebec City welfare rights advocates that female beneficiaries are pressured all the time by investigators into turning tricks instead of going on collecting welfare.
But maybe you'd rather not hear about that.
[ 14 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Fri, 2007-09-14 11:39
#7
Michelle wrote:
"If cops want blowjobs and handjobs, they should have to pay for them like everyone else!"
Ha ha. If you read the Star story, you will notice that the police officer involved pointedly pushed the woman's hands away from his penis. Which makes Judge Chisvin's comment about him even more defamatory.
Fri, 2007-09-14 12:52
#8
As we have seen in previous discussions here on the general topic of prostitution, there is no one simple answer to the problems associated with it.
I may not agree with the Judges line of reasoning, but if it liberalizes "bawdy houses" at the expense of street prostitution, the net effect, while less than a perfect solution, would be an improvement for everyone.
Fri, 2007-09-14 13:40
#9
Why?
Why is something OK if it happens behind closed doors for the benefit of a trafficker, parlour manager or escort agency owner, but justifies police intervention and judicial sanction if done by individuals on the street?
The police harassemnt of street prostitutes is one of the scourges of this hypocritical society. A lot of the women and youths who end up there do not have the option of being hired by a brothel-owner. The 'gentrification' policies being implemented will add to their victimization by the State, along with that of legitimate massage specialists.
Fri, 2007-09-14 18:44
#10
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]I was told last year by Quebec City welfare rights advocates that female beneficiaries are pressured all the time by investigators into turning tricks instead of going on collecting welfare.[/b]
As a professional and caring welfare caseworker, I really resent the implication that provincial welfare caseworkers are acting a pimps. While I would never argue that no incidents of abuse of authority occur, I would like to see evidence of this before you make such vicious accusations against a group of unionized and professional workers.
Fri, 2007-09-14 19:04
#11
Exactly.
I'm sure if this is such a widespread practice that welfare advocates are spreading the word about it, then we should be able to find something on the internet about Quebec City women being pressured into prostitution by welfare case workers, shouldn't we?
Which welfare advocacy group is making that claim, Martin? I'd be very interested in learning more about how government workers are telling welfare recipients that they need to turn tricks or get cut off their benefits. You'd think that would cause a scandal.
Fri, 2007-09-14 19:58
#12
quote:
As a professional and caring welfare caseworker, I really resent the implication that provincial welfare caseworkers are acting a pimps. While I would never argue that no incidents of abuse of authority occur, I would like to see evidence of this before you make such vicious accusations against a group of unionized and professional workers.
While I don't support Martin's general thesis concerning the sex workers, I do think that obvious problems in the welfare system and the manner in which recipients are treated leads some women to prefer the liminted option of sex work as either a supplement their income or as an economic alternative.
The abusive nature of the system has actually been very well documented by Janet Mosher a law prof at York [url=http://dawn.thot.net/walking-on-eggshells.htm]Walking on eggshells[/url]
quote:
The findings from our research project make clear that women who flee abusive relationships and turn to welfare seeking refuge and support frequently find neither. Women's experiences of welfare are often profoundly negative. Women struggle to survive with their children on little income, often going without adequate food, shelter and clothing. They encounter a system that is less than forthcoming about their entitlements, and about the multiple rules with which they must comply. Their hopes of training and employment through workfare participation are almost invariably dashed. They are often subjected to demeaning and humiliating treatment from workers within a system in which suspicion and the devaluation of recipients are structured into its very core. For many the experience of welfare is like another abusive relationship. And virtually every woman with whom we spoke was caught in one or more double binds as she struggled to be a good mother, good worker and good citizen. Disturbingly, the decision to return to an abusive relationship is often the 'best' decision for a woman, in a social context of horrendously constrained options.
I think the social context of horrendously constrained options describes the circumstances that many marginalized women find themselves in sex work due to barriers that prevent them accessing other resources. This is not to suggest that the women doing the work should be veiwed as helpless victims when in reality they are resilient people doing the best they can to survive. For this reason I think there needs to be changes to sex laws so that the women in the trade can determine how best to work and to protect themselves.
Just to add:
I am not suggesting that all welfare workers are horribly abusive, I have dealt with some that are very nice, however the system is designed not only to discourage and harrass applicants but it also often prevents workers from responding to clients in a compassionate way.
[ 14 September 2007: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
Sun, 2007-09-16 07:50
#13
Makwa wrote, in reply to my statement that "I was told last year by Quebec City welfare rights advocates that female beneficiaries are pressured all the time by investigators into turning tricks instead of going on collecting welfare.":
[b]As a professional and caring welfare caseworker, I really resent the implication that provincial welfare caseworkers are acting as pimps.[/b]
I am afraid Makwa is twisting my words. I did not say that these investigators were acting as pimps, such as seeking a cut from welfare recipients selling sex. They were pressuring these women to put their "good looks" to use on the street or with escort agencies, in order to strike them from welfare rolls. No kickback to them was involved (unless you count success quotas).
The people who informed me of this strong-arm tactic among investigators (not caseworkers) work at the Association pour la dйfense des droits sociaux Quйbec Mйtro.
And Michelle is quite naive about the system if s/he really thinks it is easy to get such pressures documented, published and/or sanctioned.
Finally, I imagine that if the Left was more aware of the ills of forced sex - instead of buying the neo-liberal claptrap about "free agency" - there would be more chances of such pressures being aired and denounced on leftist websites.
[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sun, 2007-09-16 08:12
#14
quote:
Why is something OK if it happens behind closed doors for the benefit of a trafficker, parlour manager or escort agency owner, but justifies police intervention and judicial sanction if done by individuals on the street?
I didn't say it was "OK" it's just safer.
I wonder how many street prostitutes will "move on" only to be found later in a farmer's field decomposing before we finally come to a consensus on a magic bullet solution regarding prostitution of all stripes?
One would be too many, in my books, but, you know, everyone has their different levels of patience.
Sun, 2007-09-16 10:00
#15
There is a huge amount of evidence disputing that legalizing the off-street prostituting of women by pimps, such as massage parlour owners, is any safer for women.
I keep track of murders of women by men in Quebec (http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=2682) and a growing number of recent such fatalities involve the killing of women indoors by johns or pimps. Indeed, a common justification of street prostitution is that women can look out for each other. Not the case with indoors prostitution, one that also involves a higher ratio of trafficked/enslaved women.
Another factor is the numbers involved. Trivializing and decriminalizing men's privileges to prostitute women leads to more of such behaviour, hence more sexual exploitation/violence against women.
Finally, contrary to the industry's promises to nervous property owners, decriminalizing indoors prostitution does not end the street prostitution of women, epecially those rejected by escort agencies and brothel owners. These women will merely be harassed and chased further from downtown/residential zones because of the agenda involved in decriminalizing less visible prostitution.
This strategy of harassing women using municipal bylaws rather than using the criminal code against pimps and johns is explicitly endorsed by the Liberals' and the NDP's representatives in the December 2006 report of the federal Justice subcomittee on solicitation laws.
[url=http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=2682]List of 838 women and children killed by men (or unknown parties) in Quebec since the Montreal Polytechnique massacre[/url]
[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sun, 2007-09-16 18:20
#16
The main problem with your arguments thus far Martin is that you have not put forward anything concerning what sex trade workers themselves want.
Sun, 2007-09-16 18:24
#17
one could ask the ladies in Amsterdam if they would prefer to have a pimp or to continue as they are, being in control of the service they offer.
Sun, 2007-09-16 18:26
#18
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
[b]As a professional and caring welfare caseworker, I really resent the implication that provincial welfare caseworkers are acting a pimps. While I would never argue that no incidents of abuse of authority occur, I would like to see evidence of this before you make such vicious accusations against a group of unionized and professional workers.[/b]
In British Columbia a welfare caseworker told my ex-boyfriend to lie on his resume and claim he had high school graduation when he never passed grade 12. This is a product of a penny-pinching system run by cheap bastards who wouldn't give a dime to a homeless person without making that man practically grovel in front of everybody else first.
Regarding prostitution - the fact that someone would seriously suggest telling a woman, down on her luck, to start 'turning tricks' is a product of the same mentality that debases anyone who doesn't have the good fortune to live in a stable, non-abusive, household.
[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ]
Sun, 2007-09-16 18:44
#19
Cueball
The main problem with Dufresne's discussion points is they seem largely based on hearsay anecdotes, and hyperbolic arguements about potential hypothetical outcomes.
I have spent a lot of time with sex-trade workers in my life, and also people on various kinds of social assistance, and I have never once heard anyone complain about social workers preassuring women to take stripping jobs, or to start turning tricks. Quite the opposite, most people I know who were on the dole and also doing tricks were very concious of not letting their social worker in on the real story, because they would get cut off, [i]because they were making [b]undeclared income.[/b] [/i]
The problem is reveresed from how it is being presented. Most social workers do not want their clients working as prostitutes. Period. If on the other hand they do make undeclared income it is their job to adjust benefits to reflect this fact.
Women who are casually working doing tricks, or working as strippers under the table, and collecting benefits are usually merely supplementing their income by getting benefits -- The primary source of their income are the so called side jobs, and the benefits negligible concern overall financially.
Not many sex-trade workers would be willing to give up prostitution or stripping in order to hold onto their welfare cheque. The numbers just dont add up. So it is hardly a threat.
In fact, social workers, will often turn a blind eye to these other sources of income precisely to avoid preassuring the client. I have never heard anyone complain that a social worker even suggested that woman should become a prostitute to get off welfare.
This is just needless fearmongering and muckraking for the sake of a well intentioned cause.
[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2007-09-16 19:00
#20
N.R.Kissed wrote:
"The main problem with your arguments thus far Martin is that you have not put forward anything concerning what sex trade workers themselves want."
I don't see how this is a problem with my argument. I doubt that NRK can answer that implicit question; I know I can't because there are differing demands - and differing levels of empowerment to speak out - in the various people involved in prostitution.
A telling criterion lies in the expression "sex trade workers", an essentializing label openly rejected by most of the women and youths in prostitution, most of them in passing and absolutely refusing to be identified as such.
Some women who have been and/or remain in prostitution have spoken out at length about how 'empowering' prostitution wasn't and what they wished for: e.g. financial support, decent housing, de-tox facilities, counseling, access to job training, refugee status or citizenship in the case of sex-trafficked women and an end to police harassment. (If NRK really cares, I suggest s/he read Rose Dufour's "Je vous salue...", Йditions Multimondes, 2005, or any interviews/testimonies of women critical of the industry.)
Extremely few of women in prostitution have supported the legalization of pimping or that of licensed brothels - the current program of the sex liberals. Most of these women - and indeed of prostitutes' organizations - reject this prospect emphatically.
One major problem is in how women in prostitution people are (literally) framed in neo-liberal discourse. Anyone can call him or herself a "sex trade worker" - it is political label, not a reality-based description. At one of Quebec's main prostitution advocacy groups, you are a "sex worker" if you have ever done lingerie modeling, erotic dancing or phone sex, etc, even once, even years ago.
Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if you could call yourself a sex worker if you claim to empathize with women who are (Who is going to dare challenge or verify your claim?). Prostitutes' very disempowerment facilitates this abuse of their agency.
How someone who has never turned a trick and who certainly isn't being forced to do so to survive can be said to speak for those who do and who are is something I can't fathom.
Personally, I have never claimed to speak for women and young men in prostitution. But I think that I - as everyone here regardless of their life conditions - can and do come at this as a responsible, justice and equity-minded citizen, angry at the current male privilege to exploit women and youths, and careful not to let the voice of the industry and its liberal flunkies drown out the voices of the people prostitution hurts and kills.
[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sun, 2007-09-16 19:09
#21
Cueball is missing (or trying to obscure) my point. The information I relayed was not about strippers or prostitutes being pressured; it was about non-prostitutes and non-strippers being pressured by [b]investigators[/b] - the activist I spoke too was adamant about this [b]not[/b] being the practice of caseworkers - to take up such jobs in order to strike them from welfare rolls. Let him sling mud at this information if this practice doesn't sit well with his worldview, but let's be clear about it.
It will become government policy soon enough when such jobs and massage parlour hand/blow jobs are confirmed across the board as "not sexual". (Not the job market I want to live in.)
[url=http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/PornWhores.html]"The new pornography is left-wing and pornography is the graveyard where the Left has gone to die." (Dworkin)[/url]
[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sun, 2007-09-16 19:24
#22
quote:
Extremely few of women in prostitution have supported the legalization of pimping or that of licensed brothels - the current program of the sex liberals. Most of these women - and indeed of prostitutes' organizations - reject this prospect emphatically.
Of course women are not interested in working for pimps or brothel owners. They are interested in having control over their own working conditions, having safe working conditions and not facing harrassment from the police and criminal justice system. Nothing you have said has addressed the concerns of those who do sex work. You keep going on about Nevada and pimps and brothel owners which really have nothing to do with what sex trade workers are asking for.
What seems apparent from your posts is that you argue that you are fighting patriarchy but you are only replicating forms of oppression by claiming to speak for people you have no right to speak for and for deciding what is good and necessary for them. You seem very much similar to the 19th christian social reformers that were out to save fallen women. Those who do sex work are intelligent and competent people who can decide and speak for themselves in terms of what they need.
I am not claiming to speak for them but as someone who has worked as a community worker for over ten years, I have been in contact with many women and men who did sex work and in conversations with these men and women they have unanimously expressed a desire to have control and safety in working conditions and not to be harrassed by the criminal justice system or children's aid.
It is also apparent that you are unable to differentiate between people defending the rights of those that do sex work and people defending explotation and gender inequality. If for a moment you could drop your obnoxious self-rigtheous ranting you might realize that most people here support the former and oppose the latter.
quote:
Personally, I have never claimed to speak for women and young men in prostitution.
Then why not let them speak for themselves
[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]
Sun, 2007-09-16 21:42
#23
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b] Cueball is missing (or trying to obscure) my point. The information I relayed was not about strippers or prostitutes being pressured; it was about non-prostitutes and non-strippers being pressured by [b]investigators[/b] - the activist I spoke too was adamant about this [b]not[/b] being the practice of caseworkers - to take up such jobs in order to strike them from welfare rolls. Let him sling mud at this information if this practice doesn't sit well with his worldview, but let's be clear about it.
[/b]
But as far as we can see you made it up. This is not the practice. There is no evidence that this is endemic. No one here who has experience in these matters agrees. You are hypothesizing at the far extreme based on tendetious logic.
Now, I am not going to argue that prostitution and stripping is empowering, for in the majority of cases, as far as I could see most sex trade workers I know were very ambivalent about the whole thing, including the pimps.
The question simply becomes does one further marginalize prostitutes by making their activities illegal by forcing them into the legal grey zones of society where they are both vulnerable to criminals and the police, or do you simply legalize it?
Most prostitutes I know favour it being legalized. In fact I have never heard a prostitute argue for it being illegal.
You may think that de-criminalizing the sex trade, merely legalizes exploitation, and that women who argue for decriminalization are merely duped patsies of an injust system, and I can not disagree on some of these points, at least in theory, but then we are talking about what is to be done, I can't help but argue the case that it is the victim who has the primary right to determine what is best for them, and so let them speak for themselves, and in most cases prostitutes, wether they are self-deluding patsies to patriarchy or not, argue that first and foremost they would like to see prostitution legalized.
If in the case that prostitution becomes a legally exploitable commodity, which then becomes the domain of private interests exploiting the product for their own personal profit, in the form of legalized brothels, how does that differ really from waitressing, or truck driving? The whole economic system is defined around exactly that kind of exploitation, and one can not simply attack that one job description at a time.
At least in a legal form, it could be regulated.
Exploitation is the principle upon which the social order is based. It is its primary motivating factor. It is not called capitalism for nothing. Challenging patriarchy is just one piece of the puzzle. Dworkin really only sees one part of the equation, unfortunately.
Anyway, get off your charger, your ass must be getting sore.
[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2007-09-16 23:41
#24
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]it was about non-prostitutes and non-strippers being pressured by [b]investigators[/b] - the activist I spoke too was adamant about this [b]not[/b] being the practice of caseworkers - to take up such jobs in order to strike them from welfare rolls.[/b]
I haven't heard of this happening here since I don't see how people could be required to accept work that is itself essentially illegal. It did happen a couple of years ago in Germany where prostitution is legal. [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.... here.[/url]
Mon, 2007-09-17 00:00
#25
Cueball
That says "faces possible cuts." Reading it over that sounds more like an adminstartive problem, than anything else.
Notice that "the government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars." So in other words the job center can not prejudice a referal by saying, btw, that is a whore house.
Then, there is this and that systemic problem. It would be easy enough to make exceptions, and there is no way that this policy would be acceptable.
The Wiki article:
quote:
Early in 2005, English media reported that a woman refusing to take a job as a prostitute might have her unemployment benefits reduced or removed altogether.[12] A similar story appeared in mid-2003; a woman received a job offer through a private employment agency. In this case however, the agency apologized for the mistake, stating that a request for a prostitute would normally have been rejected, but the client mislead them, describing the position as "a female barkeeper". [b]To date, there have been no reported cases of women actually losing benefits in such a case, and the employment agencies have stated that women would not be made to work in prostitution.[/b]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Germany]Prostitution in Germany[/url]
[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2007-09-17 00:08
#26
Cueball
Apparently according to Snopes, this is also a red herring, and the story was mistranslated from the German press, who were merely making a hypothetical "case history" as part of one of its story. This hypothetical story, much the same as that which was posed in the OP, was later parlayed as truth by the Telegarph.
[url=http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp]Snopes[/url]
quote:
This was another story where, like a game of "telephone", a story was sensationalized for political purposes, and passed from one news source to the next, and somewhere in the rewriting and translating process what was originally discussed as a mere hypothetical possibility has now been reported as a factual occurence.
I mentioned fearmongering before.
Mon, 2007-09-17 00:13
#27
Cueball
It is getting great play on "lifesite" dedicated to enslaving women everywhere: [url=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jan/05013106.html]Asshats.com[/url]
I must say the intenet has become a dangerous tool of mad misinformation spread by the reaming right and their endless stream of broken blog-a-phone hype and disinformation. Check out this racist crapola over here, posted just the other night: [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=38&t=000516]M... of the page post by Fat-sow.[/url]
[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2007-09-17 07:33
#28
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]So, the way I see it is, if you want a professional massage, go to a registered massage therapist. If you want to get rubbed a bit and then whacked off, go to a happy-ending massage parlour.
[/b]
I wonder if women going for a happy ending massage can get the same happy ending. I would certainly hope so, if they pay same price as the male customers. I would presume if it's built into the job descrition of the massage parlour workers then
they shouldn't really be able to discriminate based on the sex of the customer.
Mon, 2007-09-17 08:38
#29
Yes, why necessarily see the issue in terms of the male client's interest?
How about the interests of a woman looking for a job - or trying to survive a welfare investigator's pressures - and not wanting to be pressed into masturbating johns, be it as a massage provider, or bar waitress, or dancer, or home care provider, etc.?
Frankly, I am surprised that it seems this hard to have this acknowledged as a labour issue on rabble.ca.
[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Mon, 2007-09-17 08:46
#30
P.S.: What does the expression "hoodies" remind you of? American Apparel has got to be the most sexist of Canadian advertisers. How disgusting to see them flaunting their banner here!
But I see the issue has already been raised on Babble - unsuccessfully it seems:
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=recent_user_posts&u=00014... Apparel's prostitution-type pics challenged[/url]
[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Mon, 2007-09-17 09:39
#31
It reminds me of a sweatshirt with a hood on it. Is it supposed to remind me of something else?
Mon, 2007-09-17 09:51
#32
yeah, not quite sure what you're gettin' at there, Martin.
Mon, 2007-09-17 09:53
#33
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a sweatshirt is just a sweatshirt, but if somebody really wants to see sexual imagery in a hooded sweatshirt they might think the hood resembles a foreskin on a penis.
Mon, 2007-09-17 11:07
#34
From The Free Dictionary website:
wood·y (wd)
adj. wood·i·er, wood·i·est
1. Forming or consisting of wood; ligneous: woody tissue.
2. Marked by the presence of wood or xylem: woody plants.
3. Characteristic or suggestive of wood: a woody smell.
4. Abounding in trees; wooded.
n. also wood·ie (wd) pl. wood·ies
1. A station wagon with exterior wood paneling.
2. Vulgar Slang An erection of the penis.
[url=http://www.knowmore.org/index.php/American_Apparel%2C_LLC]Knowmore.org Exposй of American Apparel[/url]
[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Mon, 2007-09-17 14:32
#35
Cueball
"Woody."
Ok I am trying real hard here but the sexual inuendo is just not working on me. Totally falcid, sorry.
Mon, 2007-09-17 14:50
#36
Cueball
I'll tell you my problem with Dworkin. Dworkin's thesis is predicated on the idea that the prevasive nature of patriarchy is such that no woman can escape the confines of its ideological imprint. So much so that all women are psycholgically wedded to it, and brainwahsed by it, so that many women will align themselves with patriarchal power structures, even though it goes against their clear self-interests. Fair enough, I can agree that this is in fact a real mechanism that subverts women's intersts in society.
More crudely this thesis [i]sometimes[/i] appears in discourse as a means of silencing women who dissent from her world view by merely dismissing them as chumps of patriarchy, who do not know what is good for them.
That said, the logical conudrum which appears is of course how Dworkin herself has freed herself from the all pervasive mechanisms of the overweaning aspects of patriarchal indoctrination, so as to be able to clearly critique, while other women can't? Also fair enough, given the initial premise.
Does this conundrum subvert the entirety of her thesis?
I say no.
Dworkin for all that is good and necessary in her life work is not exempt from the influence of the reigning ideology, and for all that she did explain and see, she failed to identify in herself one aspect of patriarchal opression that is latent in her work.
Dworkin was ultimately a feminist who was also a judeo-christian conservative, in matters of sex and sexuality.
[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2007-09-17 15:37
#37
Nothing like batting down a straw-man argument before dinner, eh?
Mon, 2007-09-17 15:43
#38
Cueball
Let me put it this way, I have read extensively Dworkin -- in fact I was raised reading those people. And that is my opinion based on what I have read, and this is the best summary I can provide for an internet chat forum.
If you choose to contest it feel free, otherwise you can go fuck yourself.
[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2007-09-17 16:35
#39
One could just as soon say that the pro-prostitution crowd has not liberated itself from the tyranny of the market.
I'm NOT a Dworkin fan for a number of reasons. But I have been exposed to the situation in Amsterdam and Hamburg, where a majority of prostitutes are trafficked sex-slaves from Eastern Europe and the Third World. Legalisation has not solved the problem.
No, I don't have any miracle solution, and I certainly hope all people here are in favour of the greatest possible protection of the life and limb of people caught up in the sex trade.
Mon, 2007-09-17 17:05
#40
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
[b]One could just as soon say that the pro-prostitution crowd has not liberated itself from the tyranny of the market.
[/b]
Of course. And this is in fact another problem with Dworkin, because she reduces all issues of opression to issue of patriarchy. This is why Bell Hooks is right when she talks about the "white-supremist, capitalist patriarchy."
The fatal flaw here is clearly seen in the way the issue is reduced to an issue of legalizing or not legalizing prostitution, and issue of patriarchal relations. The problem elucidated by the OP is that when sex becomes a legal commodity, it then becomes legally exploitable within capitalist norms.
So the analysis fails because it does not critique the capitalist relations themselves, only the patriarchal ones.
[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2007-09-17 17:45
#41
The question is not whether prostitution should be legalized(it should be) but how it is legalized. New South Wales has done a much better job of decriminalizing prostitution then Holland has.
Mon, 2007-09-17 17:50
#42
quote:
Legalisation has not solved the problem.
Then for the love of god, have them tigten up the anti trafficking laws, don't campaign to have prostitutes punished for simply doing their jobs.
Tue, 2007-09-18 00:05
#43
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
[b]The question is not whether prostitution should be legalized(it should be) but how it is legalized. New South Wales has done a much better job of decriminalizing prostitution then Holland has.[/b]
Practically speaking yes. I don't think that one can confront the systemic exploitation inherent in capitalist relations in this issue alone. So really, in an everyday sense, beyond abstract theory, I think it has to be confronted on the level of how one best one can deal with the situation within the context of capitalist relations.
Criminalizing prostitution only makes it even more exploitable. The reality is that even now, there are full scale brothels and massage parlours operating, without any kind of legal control now. Brothels are not something new that will come into existance, because some judge or other does not rule that touching someones weenie is sexual. These brothels exist now.
The only difference legalization would make, if it was done properly, would be to make them regulatable. It might be possible to ban them, but make prostitution itself legal, but it is hard to tell what effect this would have.
[ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2007-09-18 08:12
#44
To reiterate a point I tried to make above:
according to the judge's ruling, female patrons of massage parlours should also receive the hand job, [i]by the female masseuses[/i], if they so desire and have paid for it.
By the same token, straight male masseurs should be able to get jobs there, and also be able to give the "release" to straight male customers since none of this is "sexual", right?
I urge anyone in the vicinity of this particular massage parlour to put this ruling to the test. And if you're denied service or a job there? Take it to the labour board /human rights commission/ newspapers.
Tue, 2007-09-18 09:42
#45
Why stop at massage parlours?
In jas' consumer-driven ethos, one should be able to require "not sexual" masturbation support from home care personnel, hospital staff, therapists of all kind, employees...
Soon to be added to your job description, folks.
[ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Tue, 2007-09-18 09:54
#46
Hardly. Sex requires consent from both parties. I see your point that it's legally "not sex" but I have a feeling that could be overturned. Certainly it won't become common practice. Most professions consider any sexual contact with the client to be professional misconduct, and they set the standards for what is considered "sexual" themselves.
This is fearmongering.
[ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Tue, 2007-09-18 09:58
#47
remind
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]In jas' consumer-driven ethos, one should be able to require "not sexual" masturbation support from home care personnel, hospital staff, therapists of all kind, employees...
Soon to be added to your job description, folks.
[/b]
Your focus on ascribing morality to sex, and a person's natural sexual drive, is doing you a disservice.
There is already "non-sexual" masturbation support occuring in the health care profession, or at least in certain segments of it. And frankly it could be improved upon and further accessed to meet individual needs.
Tue, 2007-09-18 10:13
#48
quote:
Decriminalization views prostitution as a legitimate and necessary business. Its implementation entails removing prostitution related offences from the Canadian Criminal Code, for adults involved in this profession. In places that have decriminalization, such as the state of New South Wales, Australia, sex pros may operate freely, without the threat of criminal charges and/or the state seizing their assets.
[url=http://spoc.ca/decrimlegal.html]The differences between prostitution in Germany and NSW Aus[/url]
Tue, 2007-09-18 15:27
#49
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
for all that she did explain and see, she failed to identify in herself one aspect of patriarchal oppression that is latent in her work.Dworkin was ultimately a feminist who was also a judeo-christian conservative, in matters of sex and sexuality.
I don't know, I would tend to listen to someone who has actually been in that world over someone who is merely theorizing.
The article cited above is certainly not her best, but I like Dworkin. I think it's still valid to raise the question of the need for prostitution and pornography. Why do so many men need to buy (or take) sex from others? It's not about sexual "release", that's for sure.
Anyway, without resorting to the inaccurate and often reactionary "anti-pornography=anti-sex" equation, what about her did you find is conservative?
Tue, 2007-09-18 15:47
#50
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]There is already "non-sexual" masturbation support occuring in the health care profession, or at least in certain segments of it. And frankly it could be improved upon and further accessed to meet individual needs.[/b]
What's 'non-sexual masturbation'? Does Ontario Health Insurance pay for it? Are there 'professional masturbation specialists'? Are these masturbators medical school graduates? How can massaging someone's genitals be 'non-sexual'?
Tue, 2007-09-18 15:56
#51
remind
quote:
Originally posted by marzo:
[b]What's 'non-sexual masturbation'?[/b]
You forgot the addition of the word "support".
And really is masturbation sex?
quote:
[b] Does Ontario Health Insurance pay for it? [/b]
Do not know about Ontario.
quote:
[b]Are there 'professional masturbation specialists'? [/b]
yes
quote:
[b]Are these masturbators medical school graduates?[/b]
They are trained yes.
quote:
[b]How can massaging someone's genitals be 'non-sexual'?[/b]
I was not speaking about massaging someone's genitals.