quote:
It's not about sexual "release", that's for sure.
In some cases it is. Masturbation isn't as socially stimulating as having sex with another person and some people are too isolated, busy or socially enept to find a girl friend or boyfiend.
Masturbating clients ‘not sexual’ in Ontario?
Tue, 2007-09-18 18:38
#52
Tue, 2007-09-18 18:59
#53
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[b]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?[/b]
The idea that male gay sex is the "feminization" of men, and therefore, qualatively fits within the realm sexist roll modelling, and therefore sexist. Its overtly homophobic. And that is just a prominent example of her re-writing judeao-christian phobias as feminist critique.
I personally have been at dyke nights where young dykes were exploring their sexuality by producing amateur lesbian SM porn movies, made for and by lesbians.
[Some of these people were also working in various aspects of the sex trade.]
It is just to simple to dismiss these kind of expressions as being false expressions of female sexuality within a patriarchal paradigm. If I wanted to spend time psychologizing other people, I could come up with numerous neo-freudian analysis to explain this behaviour. But really it is none of my buisiness, whether butch dyke roll playing is "play therapy," or "repressed patriarchal stereotypes" or merely sex as parody of the ruling sexual ethos, or even, just [i]fun[/i]?
What I saw was people apparently having a good time playing with sex rolls and film and photography for themesleves, volunutarily, and for free, basicly.
Dworkins analysis excludes these possibilities and aligns itself with the far right conservative mainstream view of sex and sexuality, simply lumping all this behaviour as yet more misguided women trapped in a patriarchal relations, and firmly rejects them as healthy activities, since, of course, by her defintion, all porn is fundamentally patriarchal, even when voluntarliy engaged in by women, as either an expression of repressed patriarchal emotions latently embodied in Butch/Fem stereotypes, or as porn production for the pleasure of men.
Again, and again, Dworkins analyis finds a way of regurgitating societal attitudes towards "abberant" sexual behaviour as feminist critique.
[ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2007-09-18 22:49
#54
quote:
"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.
How is this dealt with in regards to other types of work which some people wouldn't want to do for religious or cultural reasons?
Like could a Jewish person on welfare be forced to work in a pork processing plant? Or could anyone on welfare be pressured to do jobs which violate their beliefs?
i believe that the current laws against prostitution result in increased victimization of the men and women who work in the sex trade, but i wouldn't want the state to force anyone to work in the sex trade either.
in Holland and Germany, which both have legal prostitution, women are not forced into sex-trade work in order to get welfare.
Wed, 2007-09-19 13:21
#55
Dana wrote:
In Holland and Germany, which both have legal prostitution, women are not forced into sex-trade work in order to get welfare.
That's not the issue. The issue is to what extent is it harder for them to have/keep welfare or UI benefits given that alleged legitimate work awaits them in sexploitation jobs. And can they resist prostitution in the jobs they do have.
[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Wed, 2007-09-19 14:10
#56
Dana writes:
"I believe that the current laws against prostitution result in increased victimization of the men and women who work in the sex trade..."
ALL such laws? Such a fundamentalist-liberal position is no gift to people pressured into prostitution. Part of the silencing of women happens because prostitution legislation or decriminalization is too often presented as an all-or-nothing proposition. "Support the pimp if you want to support the people he prostitutes..."
On the contrary, groups such as the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres* and the Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle are fighting to end BOTH the police/judicial harassment of prostituted people AND their exploitation by pimps, traffickers, brothel-keepers and johns. Abolishing the legislation that curtails these low-life is no step forward. I don't believe that the victimization of prostituted people would cease or wind down if laws against sexual exploiters were taken off the books and their being given free rein. Neither do most prostituted people, most of their organizations, or most of the front-line workers who support them day in day out in our inner cities.
Please go read the federal sub-committee hearings transcripts referenced above if you disbelieve this.
* [url=http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=2189]CASAC - Prostitution is Violence Against Women[/url]
[url=http://sisyphe.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=48]More information on these issues[/url]
[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Wed, 2007-09-19 14:17
#57
Cueball
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
quote:
Dana wrote:
In Holland and Germany, which both have legal prostitution, women are not forced into sex-trade work in order to get welfare.
quote:
[b]That's not the issue. The issue is to what extent is it harder for them to have/keep welfare or UI benefits given that alleged legitimate work awaits them in sexploitation jobs. And can they resist prostitution in the jobs they do have.[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ][/b]
All stories supporting the thesis that in Germany it is harder for women "to have/keep welfare or UI benefits" have been completely discredited. This is not going on. Job Centers do not post jobs for people in the sex trade. Nor are they required to.
If said organizations wanted to advertize through job centers, they would have to do so by lying, so that the job center was unaware of what they really were. Therefore the job centers do not officially particiapte in recruiting prostitutes, and can therefore not cut off government benefits, because they are not at all involved in the hiring process.
Please read the above posts which show that rumours to this effect are [i]hypothetical[/i] case scenarios,(much the same as the ones you are posing in this thread) that were posed by German journals as "what if" stories that have then been picked up by the English press (Telegraph) and told as if they were real events.
In other words your case scenario is not valid. It is based on media distortion.
Fearmongering.
[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2007-09-19 14:26
#58
I have a feeling that Martin is a Troll.
Wed, 2007-09-19 14:28
#59
"All stories supporting this thesis have been completely discredited."
You can lead to a horse to water...
I didn't refer to the Germany story.
I posted two such examples here in Canada: one UIC scandal that created a big media stir in Montreal in 1984, and one that was relayed to me two years ago as an established pattern among welfare investigators by a grass-roots activist in a long-established welfare-rights organization in Quebec City. He was quoting the very women being pressured. I gave this organization's name, I signed my post.
All you could offer in rebuttal was your anonymous suggestion that I probably made the whole thing up.
Slim pickings, sir.
Wed, 2007-09-19 14:34
#60
Cueball
You have posted no relevant links.
Your response was a direct response to Dana who was talking about Germany.
All stories about Germany turned out to be fearmongering and cheap sensationalist journalism. Therefore, if anything what had been shown is that it perfectly possible for governments to costruct laws in such a way that the events you are [i]saying[/i] have transpired (without proof) here in Canada, have not happened in places where prostitution has been legalized.
Germany proves that what you describe as a necessary outcome, is not in fact a necessary outcome. That in fact the legalization process did not result in women being forced into the prostitution of stripping by threat of losing their benefits, (though some people had a strange fascination with the idea) because they simply have a policy against it.
Simple enough.
[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2007-09-19 16:13
#61
I didn't find Dufresne's speculation offensive. Nor would I go so far as to call it fear-mongering. I think he's taken a real life example of judicially bizarre logic and applied it to two examples that he knows about, and then speculates about what kind of precedent this may set in other arenas. He may be jumping a bit too far ahead, but it doesn't hurt to sound an early alarm about trends in society that are now perceptible.
Anyway, thanks for your response to my above query, Cueball. Great answer.
Wed, 2007-09-19 16:47
#62
"Cueball" writes, to explain why Dworkin (a lesbian) is homophobic in his opinion:
"The idea that male gay sex is the "feminization" of men, and therefore, qualatively fits within the realm sexist roll modelling, and therefore sexist."
Let's forget the wayward orthography and syntax: Exactly where has Dworkin written or said what you claim is her analysis?
In [b]Pornography: Men Possessing Women[/b], she shows how patriarchy builds this lie in so-called gay porn; she has never, to my knowledge, identified this feminization construct with all gay male sex.
But I am sure you have a substantive quote to justify your pathetic smear job, having been "raised on this stuff".
[url=http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v7n4/kendall74.txt]Christopher N. Kendall's explanation of how gay pornography hurts gay men in Dworkin's and Stoltenberg's analysis[/url]
[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Wed, 2007-09-19 17:16
#63
Cueball
Thanks for bringing in more material that directly references my statement.
Wed, 2007-09-19 17:27
#64
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by jas:
[b]I didn't find Dufresne's speculation offensive. Nor would I go so far as to call it fear-mongering. I think he's taken a real life example of judicially bizarre logic and applied it to two examples that he knows about, and then speculates about what kind of precedent this may set in other arenas. He may be jumping a bit too far ahead, but it doesn't hurt to sound an early alarm about trends in society that are now perceptible.Anyway, thanks for your response to my above query, Cueball. Great answer.[/b]
Since Dufresne has introduced no independent evidence to support his allegations of this happening, and we can show how certain "what if" stories circulated from the German press to the British press where they were purported as fact, and Dufresne has made no statement that he has personal knowledge of the events he believes have happened, (only being able to allude to some "grass roots" activists as his source) , I am very inclined to believe that his recounting of these events are actually another version of these other stories regurgitated as urban legends and set in Canada, especially since he offers not a single sourceable journalistic accounting of the events in Canada, or anywhere.
Not one.
Further, I am not necessarily suggesting the Dufresne is fearmongering, but am saying, as much as anything, he is a victim of fearmongering.
[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2007-09-20 08:16
#65
quote:
Cueball" writes, to explain why Dworkin (a lesbian) is homophobic in his opinion:
Homophobia is a systamatic prejudice. Everyone in this society has a curnal of anti gay sentiment within them, just like we're all a little bit sexist and a little bit racist. Given the state of North American culture, it is all too possible that a radical, leftwing lesbian femminist who was a native of this chronically repressed continant could be a homophobe.
[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Thu, 2007-09-20 08:44
#66
I know Judge Chisvin, and generally think he is an intelligent and modern fellow.
Has anyone actually read the decision they are criticizing?
Would one of those who has done so please post it so we can have it for reference?
Thu, 2007-09-20 09:04
#67
Cueball
How interesting. Do you know any other powerful people? Perhaps you can use your connections to prestigious persons in society to get the judge in question to attend the thread directly, and explain their judgement?
If not, perhaps you could use your no doubt excelent legal research skills to look for the ruling yourself?
If I were a suspicious person I might think that the entire purpose of your post was to name drop, assert you status, and infer a lack of legal expertise on behalf of the other entrants to this thread. But, curiously you then ask others to find links for legal material which one would think you would easily have located yourself, if you had any legal expertise.
So which is it? Are you asserting your social authority as an expert, or exposing your inabilities?
[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2007-09-20 10:59
#68
[url=http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?language=en&searchTitle=Advanc... Actual Decision [/url]
Thu, 2007-09-20 11:01
#69
Cueball, the personal attack was really unnecessary. Please don't.
Thu, 2007-09-20 11:01
#70
Cueball
Anyone with a link to the actual pornography in question, so that we can see it and judge for ourselves on what basis the decision was made?
Thu, 2007-09-20 11:17
#71
Ha! From the decision, we get the officer's testimony:
quote:
Constable Cole said “yes”. Then “she put more oil on her hands and then brought her hot hand back onto my penis ...
"Her hot hand"? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] Cue the music: Chicka-chicka wah wah...
"Dear Penthouse Letters, I never thought this would happen to me, but..."
Thanks for the detail, Constable Winky!
Okay, so kidding aside, it looks to me like the reason the judge found that nothing sexual had happened wasn't because masturbation isn't sexual, but because the officer couldn't prove that she actually negotiated sex for money. His decision was not, as Martin told us, based on his belief that masturbation is not sexual. This is what the judge said:
quote:
I am not satisfied that the Crown has shown the activity, using the community standard test, constitutes acts of sexual gratification in return for the payment of money.[29] The payment of money as I have found it was for a full body massage. The act of masturbation was optional, at no additional fee.
Now, of course, he went on to say that he wonders whether masturbation in all cases could be considered sexual, which is weird. But it's clear that his finding in this case did not hinge on whether masturbation is sexual, but whether or not the masseuse actually asked for money for it.
It's not clear at all that she did. She charged $40 for the massage. She charged an extra $20 to do it naked. After that negotiation, she then asked him whether he wanted her to masturbate him, but she did not charge him extra for that. And there wasn't a lower charge for a massage without masturbation.
That's pretty clearly what his ruling hinges on. Yeah, his comments about Clinton were stupid, but that's not really what he was relying on to make his ruling, the way I read it.
[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Thu, 2007-09-20 12:34
#72
Well, if one can choose what to quote in the Chisvin decision, I find the following more telling, at points 12 and 13:
The job was described to her as providing a full body massage, which included providing “release”. Ms. Almaniyazova was clear that release meant masturbating the customer as part of the full body massage. Ms. Almaniyaova indicated that this activity was part of the job as described to her by Mr. Ponomarev in the course of the interview. She was fully aware that this activity was part of the full body massage she was to provide to clients. Mr. Ponomarev explained both in the language he used, and by means of hand gestures the nature of the conduct that was to be part of the massage. (...)
[13] Ms. Almaniyaova in the course of her evidence did concede that she signed the documents, which stated that she was not to provide any sexual services, nor have any sexual contact with any of the customers. [b]Ms. Almaniyaova indicated that notwithstanding the date on the document itself, she actually signed it after she was charged with the offences and after Mr. Ponomarev was charged with the offences. [/b] This was done at Mr. Ponomarev’s request or at the request of a person Ms. Almaniyaova believed to be a lawyer for Mr. Ponomarev and herself.
(emphasis added)
It seems that the good judge based his decision more on this transparent cover-up than on the facts of the job requirements at the massage parlour.
Thu, 2007-09-20 12:39
#73
Cueball
It seems to me that the judge is trying to protect the woman from police harrassment, and you want her in jail.
[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2007-09-20 12:42
#74
I think the charges were actually against the guy running the place, right?
Anyhow, we weren't talking about the evidence. We were talking about the judge's decision, the subject of the thread. In the decision, the judge seems to be saying that his reasoning is that he doesn't think it's been proven that she has negotiated MONEY for sex.
Thu, 2007-09-20 12:46
#75
Cueball
This is harrasment I am talking about:
quote:
It strikes me that Constable Cole’s actions were not only unnecessary but outside a protocol of investigative techniques of offences of this nature and bordered on no more then attending for self gratification. His actions were completely unnecessary for the investigation and caused me great concerns with respect to these proceedings.
Thu, 2007-09-20 12:54
#76
Cueball
In anycase, the judge did not find that "Masturbating clients" was "‘not sexual’" as Dufresne stated in the OP and in the thread title.
The ruling reads that the judge was left wondering [b]"as to whether or not the community might consider the act of masturbation in all situations to be sexual."[/b] He did not say that it was not sexual. He said that it was possible that it [i]might not be[/i] based on community standards.
The key word is "might".
It turns out that Dufresne is yet again subjecting us to more of his fairy tales, bad research, hyperbolic hysteria, and is pandering to peoples fears for the purpose of asserting the dominance of his own moral agenda.
Perhaps Dufresne will do us the service of changing the thread title to reflect a more truthful reading of the judgement, as opposed to allowing the libel to stand?
[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2007-09-20 19:51
#77
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[QB]Dana writes:
"I believe that the current laws against prostitution result in increased victimization of the men and women who work in the sex trade..."ALL such laws? Such a fundamentalist-liberal position is no gift to people pressured into prostitution. Part of the silencing of women happens because prostitution legislation or decriminalization is too often presented as an all-or-nothing proposition. "Support the pimp if you want to support the people he prostitutes..."
The current laws prevent sex-workers from unionizing, they stop them from working co-operatively in a house together, and makes their job much more dangerous.
The current laws push sex-workers out from the umbrella of police protection and into a situation where they are very vulnerable.
Legal prostitution would also greatly reduce the number of accessible victims for psycho killers like Pickton.
A properly regulated, legal sex-trade system would reduce if not eliminate "pimps" and make sex-trade workers (and the general public) healthier and safer.
Fri, 2007-09-21 07:58
#78
As long as we don't try to mimic the draconian German system, where prostitutes are treated like criminals, can't afford to set up there own brothels and are ghettoized, everything will be fine.
[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Fri, 2007-09-21 20:36
#79
"Cueball", you seem to be given a wide berth here dumping filth on people, but you remain mum about a simple question I asked you after you smeared Dworkin 2 1/2 days ago:
"Exactly where has Dworkin written or said what you claim is her analysis?"
Fri, 2007-09-21 20:44
#80
Cueball
I am not dumping on you.
You have openly distorted what is clearly said in the court record. You entered this discussion with a patently false statement. You said that a judge in Ontario has ruled the mastrubating a client is "not sexual."
The judge did not say anything of the kind. It is a lie. He said that the "community" [b]might[/b] see it as "not sexual". The thread title is libel, I think you should change it.
I am merely pointing out the falsehood. If you dont want people to point out when you are purpounding falsehoods, then don't make them. If you make them by accident, appologize and correct them.
[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Fri, 2007-09-21 22:58
#81
You obviously are betting that people here can't read the sentences you rephrase to 'base' your accusations on. When one has to resort to such cheap tricks to advance one's positions, nothing more needs to be said. Babble on... we have clearly seen how you fizzle down when confronted about your blatant misrepresentation of a honourable feminist.
[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Fri, 2007-09-21 23:05
#82
Cueball
Where does the judgement say that masturbating someone is "not-sexual."
quote:
The ruling says: "Indeed, [b]I wonder,[/b] and am left in a [b]doubt[/b] as to [b]whether or not[/b] the community [b]might[/b] consider the act of masturbation [b]in all situations[/b] to be sexual."
Or perhaps you are confused by the fact that the ruling asserts that no money was paid for the masturbation, but only for a massage, the hand job being "optional"? And are conflating the two points?
He seems to be saying that the payment and negotiation must be for a sexual act specifically.
At no point did the judge say that "servicing" of a hand job was "not sexual", so therefore there was no prostitution, as you alledged.
What he did say was that he found that no money had been paid for the masturbation.
Then he then went on to say that he was in doubt about wether or not "the community [b]might[/b] consider the act of masturbation [b]in all situations[/b] to be sexual."
[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Fri, 2007-09-21 23:49
#83
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
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 [b]excoriation of the police officer involved.[/b] And unless this decision is successfully appealed by the McGuinty government, Canadian pimps will be breaking out the champagne.
So, it seems you are a little upset that Justice Chisvin excoriated the police office involved?
Can you explain why it was necessary for Cole to attend the massage parlour twice? Why he needed to have the attendants strip for him? And why he is allowing them to repeatedly touch his dick?
[ 22 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sat, 2007-09-22 16:59
#84
[url=http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1664115,00.html?xid=rss-to... Amsterdam Brothels May Close (Time)[/url]
Sat, 2007-09-22 17:15
#85
Cueball
So you agree then, that Justice Chisvin did not actually rule, that masutrbating someone was "not sexual."
Seems you got hyped by the leading Toronto Star story.
Sun, 2007-09-23 08:39
#86
LE SOLEIL, 20 sept. 2007 - Point de vue
Forcйes de masturber leurs clients ?
Milaine Alarie et Geneviиve Lafleur*
Pour la Collective des luttes pour l'abolition de la prostitution (CLAP)**
La CLAP (Collective des luttes pour l'abolition de la prostitution) dйsire s'opposer а la dйcision du juge Howard Chisvin de la Cour de l'Ontario qui dйclara non-coupable M. Valeri Ponomarev, un gйrant de salon de massage exigeant de ses employйes qu'elles masturbent leurs clients, sous prйtexte que la masturbation d'autrui ne serait pas un acte sexuel, donc que les lois relatives а la prostitution ne s'appliqueraient pas а ce genre de pratique.
Cette dйcision s'avиre кtre trиs nйfaste en ce qui concerne le droit des femmes et la lutte contre l'exploitation sexuelle.
Conditions de travail des massothйrapeutes en danger
Le jugement rendu crйe maintenant un prйcйdent sur le plan de l'interprйtation des lois en matiиre de prostitution. Affirmer que la masturbation d'autrui n'est pas un acte sexuel banalise la pratique, ce qui pourrait influencer les patrons des salons de massage а exiger de leurs employйes qu'elles offrent ce «service» а leurs clients. De plus, nier la valeur sexuelle de la masturbation d'autrui offre aux clients le droit d'exiger ce genre de pratique en toute impunitй, minant ainsi le recours des femmes а dйnoncer le harcиlement sexuel au travail.
Un pas en arriиre pour la lutte des femmes contre l'exploitation sexuelle
En plus d'avoir un impact nйgatif sur les conditions de travail des femmes dans les salons de massage, cette dйcision attaque directement les droits des femmes en banalisant l'exploitation sexuelle de ces derniиres. Les rйpercussions de ce jugement pourraient кtre immenses. Les femmes prestataires de l'assurance-emploi pourraient кtre obligйes d'accepter un emploi de massothйrapeute, et ainsi, кtre forcйes а masturber les clients, sous menace de perdre l'accиs а l'aide financiиre gouvernementale.
Cette inquiйtude peut sembler farfelue, mais pourtant, un cas semblable est survenu en 1984 lorsqu'une chфmeuse montrйalaise a refusй, malgrй les pressions de la Commission d'assurance-chфmage, un «emploi» de danseuse nue.
Elle a dы alerter les mйdias pour gagner sa cause et ne pas avoir а accepter ce «travail». Il importe de se questionner aussi quant aux rйpercussions d'une telle dйcision sur la notion d'agression sexuelle. Par exemple, une femme ayant йtй forcйe а masturber un homme pourra-t-elle encore l'accuser d'agression sexuelle ?
Bref, il est primordial de comprendre que les consйquences de dйfinir la masturbation d'autrui comme un acte non-sexuel vont au-delа des conditions de travail des masseuses. En ignorant la valeur sexuelle de cette pratique, la Cour de l'Ontario mine le droit de toutes les femmes а vivre dans un monde oщ elles ne seraient pas contraintes а la prostitution, oщ elles ne seraient pas victimes d'oppression sexuelle, oщ elles pourraient кtre considйrйes comme des кtres humains а part entiиre, et non simplement comme des objets au service du plaisir sexuel des hommes.
*Йtudiantes а l'Universitй d'Ottawa
**CLAP - [url=http://sisyphe.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=90]http://sisyphe.org/rubri...
[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sun, 2007-09-23 08:48
#87
A Handjob is not really sexual to me, but I am speaking from my own experience. It's more lie a chore. I guess it is sexual, but it is on another totally different level than oral sex.
Sun, 2007-09-23 10:31
#88
One thought that occured to me in our examination of this redefining of sex acts as "not (always) sexual" in reference to community standards, the use of euphemisms ("full body massage", "happy endings") and an employee's signed-after-the-fact "promise" to not perform sex acts is that it seems to lead to a perception of sex as increasingly being about excess, power over, transgression, constraint. I wonder if this strategy - designed to cover pimps - is something to rejoice about.
Sun, 2007-09-23 10:42
#89
Cueball
No Martin. The judge did not define masturbating a client as "not (always) sexual."
He wondred if the community might think that it might be "not sexual," in all cases.
This actually had nothing to do with the ruling. What he ruled was that in this case money was exchanged for a massage, not the sexual act. It was quite clear that if he had found out that money was exchanged for the hand job he would have found the defendant guilty.
All kinds of factors contributed to this decision, not the least of which, I think was that the officer, never actually negotiated for a hand job, and never got one. He assumed that he was going to get one.
Though he did frequent the bawdy house, and get strip shows and mananaged to get one of the women working there to repeatedly touch his dick.
--------------
Also, Martin, the phrase "Happy Endings" does not actually appear in the text of the Judgement, and only in the Toronto Star article. Perhaps one of these days you will get around to reading it, as opposed to making up what the it says.
[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2007-09-23 11:40
#90
I think it was very useful to have the actual decision referenced, since it turns out that it says something different than what was claimed.
Sun, 2007-09-23 13:49
#91
Cueball
Defintely Jeff. Thank you for making this suggestion. I appologize for my earlier comment, though in truth you could located much easier than any of us, in all likelyhood.
Sun, 2007-09-23 17:50
#92
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Sun, 2007-09-23 18:03
#93
Cueball
And guliblity is not a word in the English dictionary. I know it for a fact because I read it in the Star.
Go check, if you don't believe me.
[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2007-09-23 18:07
#94
Cueball
Devide the sentence up into small parts and then calculate.
You will see that he says that he is "wondering" if the community (not himself btw) "might" view that masturbating someone is "not sexual."
He is not concluding that the community "does": feel this way.
Sun, 2007-09-23 19:00
#95
Liberals will hang you just a few inches from the ground.
Sun, 2007-09-23 19:15
#96
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
You will see that he says that he is "wondering" if the community (not himself btw) "might" view that masturbating someone is "not sexual."
Well, instead of pretending to dissect such deliberately obtuse phrasing, why don't you just take it for its intended meaning: he is asking - although if it has nothing to do with the ruling itself, as you say, we kind of have to wonder why - can masturbation in all cases be considered sexual?
In other words, in what situations would masturbation [i]not[/i] be sexual?
I know there are some types of massage in which the genitals would receive as much attention as any other part of the body, and the touch is not intended to be sexual, or sexually arousing. In the case of massage parlours, however, the true purposes of which most of us are fully aware, and which employ non-registered massage "people" (I don't think we could call them therapists) who have had no formal massage training or certification, it's a pretty disingenuous question to ask, and I support Dufresne in bringing that to our attention.
For some reason, he's pushed a few people's buttons here. I wonder why.
Sun, 2007-09-23 19:26
#97
Cueball
I think that what he is asking is for the vague definition of what is a "sexual act" be determined by something other than the very vague standard of "community standards." So in other words he would be looking for a detailed list of what constitutes a "sexual act."
I think that he is raising this hair raising possibility here, because he is specifically pissed off with the cop in question for repeatedly visiting the massage parlour, (when only one visit could be deemed possibly necessary for trial purposes) for getting the women there to strip (even though that is completely unecessary for the massage process) and for letting them touch his dicky more than once.
And this is the more subtle point, if the cop feels that having his dicky touched is not a "sexual act" then is it really the case that having someone putting there hand on your dick constitutes a "sexual act" at all. At what point is dicky touching sexual?
Its a fine line here, yes? What actually constitutes masturbation?
In other words, if any hand touching of the dick is sexual then in fact the cop had the woman involved massage him and then strip for him before he engaged in "sexual acts" with her.
[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2007-09-23 19:43
#98
JAS: "...For some reason, he's pushed a few people's buttons here. I wonder why."
So do I. Even without following "Cueball" down the road of his specific meanderings, I think this is an indication of the wasteland where too many men's sexual intelligence and ethics could be.
As a man, I suspect that many of us primarily want sex-as-we-know it to remain available to us on demand, well protected from women's possible, suspected, eventual disinterest. Money, pornography would be a kind of political Viagra - conduits to the rehashing of an "identity" predicated on ejaculation.
This could go some way to explain why some can trounce the most elementary equity principles if suitable rhetoric allows brothels to remain open and thrive, as the well-oiled machinery of virility consolidation...
[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Sun, 2007-09-23 19:47
#99
Cueball
I am not really interested in what makes you tick.
But, since this theory about "sex-on-demand" extends to "many" men, apparently, and since officer Cole is a man perhaps you can explain why officer Cole needed to visit the massage parlour more than once in the pursuit of his investigation when he had already deposed (interogated) two males who explained to him what was going on inside the massage parlour.
Because the way it seems to me is that you are attacking this judge for protecting women in the sex-trade from police officer who are getting free jollies while supposedly performing their sworn duties.
Is the judge "wondering" if the community feels that being masturbated is "not sexual" in the case where the person being masturbated is a law enforcement officer, for instance?
[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Mon, 2007-09-24 08:29
#100
quote:
As a man, I suspect that many of us primarily want sex-as-we-know it to remain available to us on demand, well protected from women's possible, suspected, eventual disinterest. Money, pornography would be a kind of political Viagra - conduits to the rehashing of an "identity" predicated on ejaculation.
Do you really think that all Johns go to sex workers in order to expeirence "sex as they know it"? Surely there are many men who go to prostitutes in order to have a more sensual sexual expierence with a sexual partner who is skilled in many sexual techniques. Now, those men could probably benifit from some couples counciling if they are married, but that is beside the point.
[ 24 September 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
Mon, 2007-09-24 08:50
#101
Cueball
That said, there is nothing like the feelings of sexual power that come with having "non-sexual" relations with a woman, and then handcuffing her afterwards and taking her down to the police station. Or was that "sexual relations"?
At what point did the touching of Coles Dick become "non-sexual?"