Prostitution - Framing the Debate for Decriminalization Part II

Thank you for allowing us to hear your voice trisha.

 

This says it all for me:

Quote:

If men will not go to certified prostitutes, if they will not do their part to keep prostituted women safe what is the point in this whole fight. It would seem to me that whether prostitution is legal or illegal men still will do nothing to keep the women safe. On that topic why won't men do anything to keep us safe if they really see us as equal human beings?

 

If men are not willing to keep those safe whom they purchase services from, and indeed themselves, then society at large must  insert regulations for it to occur.

We don't allow men to go into other places of business, and behave how they want, endangering the lives of others. it would be ludicrous to think such.

So if we are going to be sex worker positive, and call it work, then we must do so in the correct way, that creates worker's rights, not diminishes them.

 

I don't have time either Trisha, to stay in the hourly back and forth of this discussion, so I am glad for your contributions and I will be glad of what time and attention you choose to give to this. 

The talk of legalization and the problems of regulating is very hot, but seems well carried and I am still way back at working over the topic of framing this debate.  I hope it is not diversionary to post on this now.  I know that a new thread has been opened based on the sex worker identification so before this one closes I focused on the other choices of framing the debate. 

Sorry I kept the quote below but not the name of the poster

"It's true that members of a marginalized group learn to fight most effectively when they recognize that they have been marginalized as members of that group, and therefore must fight back as a group, demand recognition, compensation, defence, as a group, for however long that may be necessary. That's when we learn how to free ourselves, and in my experience (now regrettably long), it's the only way that oppressed peoples ever are freed. (Lord save us from people who think they can free us in spite of ourselves -- I'm not an Iraqi or an Afghan, but I suspect that many of them would echo that sentiment)" --posted on Rabble.ca

I find this argument quite compelling. Even though the person who wrote this was arguing against feminists speaking for the criminalization of men who buy prostitutes.  The writer seeems to suspect feminists patronize prostituted women by fighting for the end of prostitution: a group de-gendered in this post. 

The writer seems to be led by the belief that the marginalized group is composed of and for all purposes properly limited to those who are currently in prostitution.  And in the course of accepting that, argues to prostitutes that they are better served by grouping as sex workers, in some terms a tiny group. 

This belief draws a line between those who escaped prostitution and those who did not.  It is as though the writer considers those who have escaped the institution of prostitution as not “marginalized”. The post seems not to recognize most of the prostituted, as life-long members of the oppressed group women. It assumes it can separate their marginalization from that oppression. 

It is in the best interest of the women’s movement in Canada to listen carefully to the women in prostitution not only as a way to include them in the movement but especially for their expertise on proposed solutions specific to their needs and their understanding of how men exercise power in this institution.  Better still is the opportunity to support leadership from among the oppressed against this marginalization and all marginalization of women.

But perhaps this poster challenges feminist abolition speech because the writer cannot see me or other abolitionist feminists as members of the oppressed even though it is clear that we are women.  Perhaps the writer would not agree that all women are oppressed all threatened by prostitution. But Canadian law does.  And it promises in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to take sex equality into account in any and all future law and governance.  The global women movement too recognizes our shared oppression.  We call on the forces and lessons of the rest of the fights for the advancement of women toward full human status.  It seems to me this is the best political tactic and movement-building for those of us currently caught in prostitution as well as those of us who have escaped or managed to evade the institution of prostitution in spite of being women.

The Charter and the movement recognize too that women's individual rights are not accessible unless the group rights of women as a disadvantaged group are recognized, taken into account and protected.  It accepts that any discrimination against women built into the laws (and lack of laws) of the land and Canadian public policy will adversely affect each individual woman trying to access her individual rights. 

But when we try to use the forces of feminism against this sexism we are spoken to as though this particular sexism had nothing to do with women as a group, is of no danger to us, is not a force against us and is a matter in which we should abandon prostituted women to their own devices.  In the name of their agency and autonomy.

These discussions documented that it is women who are disadvantaged by the ills of prostitution even if some women seem to, or claim to, or do benefit.  The disagreement among caring and thinking people is what to do about the plight of women in prostitution.  Almost no-one disagrees with the sexist label on prostitution now. 

When I and other women built the movement to end the assaults on wives and children by men in the family we did not insist that only those women who stayed in the family were allowed to speak, nor did we insist that those women who escaped abusive men must be silent.  We did not bury the voices of women who managed never to be beaten or raped.  Certainly we did not silence the ones who escaped incest or who evaded attacks of any kind.  We did not require women to marry in order to fight wife assault or to speak against wife assault or even to speak against marriage and its effects on women.  We spoke as a movement recognizing that this was a battlefront in the power struggle against patriarchy.  All women bring vulnerability, “marginalization”, personal experience and expertise to that discussion. 

So in this case the group is women; a group that includes but is not limited to those women who are caught in prostitution.  Many of the forms of relief that could aid women caught in prostitution are needed by all women: income security, social and legal interventions to protect us from men’s violence against women, childcare, healthcare, public education, progressive immigration policies, international protections for migrants, labour laws to minimize the informal unregulated economy etc. 

We seek routes for all women to move toward autonomy as the group moves forward.  We have arguably done better than most movements at protecting the agency and individuality of each woman in our shared struggle to release each other from the prescribed social roles and forced impoverishment and subjugation. 

Clearly some feminists are arguing that women as a group are not served by decriminalizing the behaviour of men who act in predatory ways toward our group.  We observe and consider that most of those badly affected by the institution of prostitution are members of our group and should be defended by our group.  The debate is how best.

In this case of buying sex, it often seems the debate gets a bit reversed. Abolitionist feminists continue to articulate our position to decriminalize the prostituted.  In debates we find those who would legalize or decriminalize agreeing with us that we all want those being prostituted to be decriminalized.  

We are debating with each other about the wisdom and usefulness and the political value of criminalizing those who buy sex, those who buy women outright to sell as sex objects, those who set up businesses to sell, or rent women, or sell sex, or sell sex with children as the case may be.  And we Abolitionists are saying, with some evidence, that allowing that sale, increases the demand for more and more of such sales.

So it seems a distortion, a mis-shaping of, and mis-informing of discussion to talk of protecting the rights of the individual women to sell sex.  Not only because many of us are fighting for the right not to prostitute but because it is not women who stand to gain rights in this current Canadian debate.  On the whole, what we disagree about is the individual and group "rights" of men to have sex on demand, even if for dollars and the "right" of anyone to buy or sell access to bodies of children and women.  These rights do not exist yet in Canadian law and are in fact the aspiration of the current cases.

 

 

LeeLakeman wrote:

... discussions documented that it is women who are disadvantaged by the ills of prostitution even if some women seem to, or claim to, or do benefit.  The disagreement among caring and thinking people is what to do about the plight of women in prostitution.  Almost no-one disagrees with the sexist label on prostitution now. 

When I and other women built the movement to end the assaults on wives and children by men in the family we did not insist that only those women who stayed in the family were allowed to speak, nor did we insist that those women who escaped abusive men must be silent.  We did not bury the voices of women who managed never to be beaten or raped.  Certainly we did not silence the ones who escaped incest or who evaded attacks of any kind.  We did not require women to marry in order to fight wife assault or to speak against wife assault or even to speak against marriage and its effects on women.  We spoke as a movement recognizing that this was a battlefront in the power struggle against patriarchy.  All women bring vulnerability, “marginalization”, personal experience and expertise to that discussion.

Thank you for an authentic hands on herstory summation of the VAW movement and a united voice against accepting patriarchy and its exploitation of women.

trisha's, commentary about men not caring abou women's safety in this realm,  and others is extremly salient.

I find the educated cultural elite, open regulation stance alarming.

There are no other social contract work place actions that would have such a status.

To make such a non-regulated status, in a realm that is already functioning poorly at best, because of no regulations, is hardly a fix.

 

 

I know, and neither am I, but it still does.

Thank you for this JMartin, it would be hoped that your voice is heard,  noted and respected.

Much damage is done to society, when people claim non-bias and wanting to hear  equal voices, but then act in an opposite manner.

Apparently, by it's inherent nature, based upon the name of the forum itself, it  is perceived that it cannot be for both sides.

 

So far, there is only 1 experiential voice  here, who is willing and wanting to call prostitution, sex work

 

While there are at least 3 other voices of experience, who reject the use of the sex worker title designation, for themselves.

 

....thus if they used said forum, and accepted a label being forced upon them, that they did not recognize and dislike, then they would be allowing themselves to be victimized and their voices and experiences to be diminished.

 

Should they do that, because someone else wants to label them in a manner that they do not want to be labelled?

 

One can clearly see how troubling  negative labelling  would be to them,  as they have already been stigmatized, marginalized, and exploited,

....and now, in supposedly safe parameters, they are suppoosed to accept  further removal of their rights, by additional marginalization and unwanted labellling, all of which further diminishes their voices.

 

why would they do that to themselves, in order to appease those that want to labell them?

 

....after a call for their voices has gone out, so that people here can see and hear their lived experiences, in order to determine the best way forward  with this, one would think every effort would be made to address all's civil rights, when they do show up.

 

the 3 experiential voices are clearly stating, either create another venue, that recognizes their lived experiences and opinions as valid,  or make the sex worker forum name more unbiased and inclusive, if you want to hear our voices.

 

 

Pretty simple  and clear cut  equity civil liberty rights, IMV.

civil liberty in this case, to which I was refering, was their statement...not legal principles, that they would be adhering to their own right, to  stand in their civil liberties,  which gives them the right to reject negative labelling...

after all this exercise is supposed to be about them, their rights, and voices, and not about phoney posturing, is it not?

 

in as much as people have the right, maybe in some instances, to negatively label peoples,  said  labelled people have a right to reject it publically, and vocally, across the nation, in any venue, if they wish.

 

...  those in the majority, who have come here, after a call to action was given,  are testifying that they find themselves being placed in a position, that requires them to relinguish their self identity, from the get go.

 

How offensive is that, after a call out was made to hear their voices? Indeed a call out that stated their voices would be weighted more heavily, as they are the voices of lived experiences.

That they come here now, only to find that their voices are not really wanted, unless they conform,  is a huge disgrace...

 

This has serious implications, for allies and alleged friends,  who use babble as a progressive hub,...

 

thus...as I see it, their comments here regarding the forum title, are a notification to rabble, and babblers, if you will,  that they were/are:

 

not accepting the labels  that are being forced upon them, by the dominant elite non-prostituted  babblers,

 

not accepting the class oppression actions of labelling them against their will  that is going on here,

 

are giving, and have gave,  formal notice of rejection of what they see, as more oppression, at what has been alleged to be progressive site that said it wants their views.

 

are watching to see how events play out, in respect to recognition of equity, before considering their next actions

~

It is pretty damn tacky, at best, to ask for voice to come in and speak, and when they do, have a framework already built that excludes them.

 

The discontinuity in social justice "walking the talk" being exhibited,  is astonishing to say the least. And has far reaching consequences, both now and in the future.

Okay. So what is the way forward for respectful discussion if people feel it isn't taking place now over these issues?

martin dufresne wrote:

 

(BTW, how come I don't see "moderator" under your name, Unionist?)

That's not all you don't see lately, martin.

 

Lee Lakeman wrote:

Obviously my comments on the quote begin above at can someone answer

Whose answer are you looking for? If someone wants a new forum created, they normally go to "rabble reactions", open a thread to that effect, and ask the question. If a moderator doesn't see it right away, you can PM or email the moderators. Hope that helps.

 

I'm sorry if my question was not put in the right place. I need some assistance in navigating through Rabble and Babble as it's something that's very new to me. 

However, the reason I deemed this an acceptable place to ask my question is because the moderator in this thread openly discussed her decision to make a safe place for "sex-workers" to advocate for their rights. My post was both a question and a response to her post. There were also several posts on the demographics of previous threads and the credibility of the voices in those threads based on their gender, and lived experience.  

Infosaturated, I also consider "sex industry" to be a misleading term. I'm just not sure if there are any terms that are neutral to both perspectives. The polarity between the two sides makes it very difficult to make a safe place for experiential voices where both are welcome. 

Enough digression for my sake. 

Quote:

Sex workers, by the very nature of their job, are exposed to many men all of whom could be carrying dangerous diseases. Men pay a hundred dollars for a room and more for the service worker. Surely they can bear the expense of registration and regular testing.

Ah, yes, registration and regular testing. May I also suggest that men require a note of permission, signed by both parents and both sets of grandparents? Should any be deceased, three copies of a notarized death certificate could suffice.

I mean, that's the goal here, right? Make it as difficult as possible? Some good old fashioned obstructionism?

Remind mentioned that in primary health care a patient must disclose whether they have certain diseases like TB. I don't recall hearing how these patients needed to be regularly tested for TB and carry around a "Safe Patient" registration card.  Somehow disclosure was sufficient, but not for sex, right?  You can self-identify as HIV+ (or not) before your blood starts spilling, and that's OK, but men having sex would need some kind of photo ID? 

Are you sure you're really OK with men only having to register, get regularly tested for a host of illnesses, and carry a card? What if they had to wear the card on a chain around their necks for all to see? What if they could be forced to display a copy in the windshield of their car?

This is so transparent. My eyes just rolled so hard I think I screwed up my vision.

What I'd be against is an arbitrary, different protocol for sex workers than we have for hospital workers.  If self-reportage is good enough for medical treatment I'd say it should be good enough for sex.  And if it's mandatory that health care workers get checked, but not patients, then I guess I'd favour the same arrangement for sex work, absent any particularly compelling reason otherwise.

As I said, "absent any [i]compelling[/i] reason otherwise".

How about a skill-testing question first.  Has anyone thought of that?  What if a prospective John had to find the sum of all prime numbers between 0 and 1000 before having sex?  That would most definitely prevent the sex, while giving the illusion that nobody's against the sex (or the John) at all.  We just need him to complete a bit of paperwork first, and sum those primes, and it's all good!

Absolutely.

To do otherwise indicates that arbitrary protocols are happening, apparently just so men can have an ejaculation response whenever they want.

Yres. And a "bareback" one if they can swing it.
I am still awed that susan davis would pooh-pooh as "out of context" my account of a Stella educator explaining that insisting on a condom for fellatio will cost women referrals from escort agencies. What context could make such advice acceptable?

martin dufresne wrote:

Absolutely.

To do otherwise indicates that arbitrary protocols are happening, apparently just so men can have an ejaculation response whenever they want.

Yres. And a "bareback" one if they can swing it.

I am still awed that susan davis would pooh-pooh as "out of context" my account of a Stella educator explaining that insisting on a condom for fellatio will cost women referrals from escort agencies. What context could make such advice acceptable?

poopoo?
i did not poopoo you.....
i stated we are all dimayed at the degradation of safety as a result f high competition for jobs indoors....

Quote:

Self reportage is not good enough, in differing situations. And it would be rejected out of hand, as ignorance of facts, or insanity..

In which situations is a prospective patient required to present a "Safe Patient" card before treatment?  I'll assume "none", but please tell me otherwise.

Quote:

anything that is transmittable such as Staff infection for example

Did you say you're a nurse?

so you support regulation and decriminalization then remind? i mean, i have only been promoting the notion for months....

i am not a slave and i have repeatedly stated we need occupational health and safety training and standards. these do not need to be a part of the criminal code. all industries are regulated, so shall the sex industry be. we are not criminals and deserve equal treatment.

the criminal code is not intended to implement labor law. and slavery, trafficking, torture, rape, murder,assault, kidnapping, unlawful confinement, robbery, fraud....need i go on? are already illegal. why 2 sets of laws?

instead of argueing about the name of the forum why not start a thread about it?to be honest, i don't mind if it is renamed the sex industry forum....people seemed to be alright with it. then prostituted people and abolitionists could feel included. as i stated before i will respect all perspectives.

 

Snert wrote:

Quote:

Self reportage is not good enough, in differing situations. And it would be rejected out of hand, as ignorance of facts, or insanity..

In which situations is a prospective patient required to present a "Safe Patient" card before treatment?  I'll assume "none", but please tell me otherwise.

If they are having invasive procedures, where body fluids will be involved, they present, their safe patient card exactly the way I detailed above, that you must have missed, or I worded poorly so that you did not get it.

So.... again I will say, invasive procedures, where  significant exchange of body fluids come into play, or a break in the skin's integrity has been, or is going to, occur, all require a lab technition to check  blood of said patient/client before it occurs.

Said patient/client either goes to an independant lab before any procedures occurs and their "blood work" is done, or in the hospital a lab tech comes to said patient and a blood  sample is taken, so "blood work" can be done.

This how some women/men find out their partner has given them something, that does not pronounce obviously, as a mater of fact.

The lab check of your blood is the safe patient card, that everyone, literally everyone, has to adhere to.  You don't get to have some procedures done without it.

PAP smears are not undertaken when a woman is menstruating, because of the high risk of damage to the body integrity of the woman, and high risk of any type of contamination of the Dr, and the space in which it is done.

As such, they occur between menstruational periods, to minimize risks all the way around. They also do not happen if the woman is having a Herpes breakout.

Quote:

Quote:

anything that is transmittable such as Staff infection for example

Did you say you're a nurse?

[/quote]

 

That is lame  flame snert, looking back over my post now I made many spelling errors and typos...

 

Not that I owe any explanations, because it is so lame, and perhaps  indicates that you know that you cannot address the substance of what I was saying,  because it is fact and truth,  so you thought you would try and discredit me as a person, and a voice of knowlege about this, instead?

Which I am not saying you are, but if you were, I will indicate that it is offensive on many levels, and a form of personal attack, by attempting to indicate that I am lying about my lived experiences,  and my professional credentials.

having said all of  that now, will give you one anyway though, as it also has an educational component in it, too.

 was actually going to link to several easily transmitted diseases, as I did to other things in the post to you,  because this serious to me, and indeed it should be to everyone actually, when I read back over it and saw gaps. 

 am trying to treat the discussion of it in  the manner it deserves,  by trying to give people as much pertinent information as I can, because it is NOT common public knowlege, even though it is accessable to the public  to learn it too, but perhaps they do not have the time to access it themselves.

Indeed my posts contain some insider info on things that most people here have done themselves, numerous times, without even realizing what exactly was taking place, but accepted it anyway, as part of what takes place within the medical professional industry.

But I was running out of time, as I wanted also to address Caissa's comment,  before I had to  go out and participate in real life, so I was rushy and decided not to bother putting any in other than a quick example.

so...Ii quickly threw "Staff" in there, an immediate image and knowing of what type of possible disease tranmissions could happen was there. This was to facilitate us all being at least on the same page of understanding health regulation knowlege. Asking for the same line needs more education.

... believe it or not Staph is not a word I write often, either as a person, or as a health care professional. When needed it is written as Staphylococcus, or other fully expressive  terms, to the public,  or in medical short hand between the community, and not as Staph at all,  but I may have done a few times in interdisciplinary discourse, I suppose over the years.

And I bet you did not even know that there was  medical short hand that  is  legal and universally recognized that goes on between health care professionals.

If I would have had the time, it would have had a link and its full spelling, plus a few other examples too. As it was, I left my self logged in here, and online  in my dashing, which I usually never do.

 

Hopefully this all has helped you get a broader view of all the dynamics in play, that would have to, and will happen should society decide it is a man's right to have an ejaculatory response,  whenever he wants.

As we are not even talking orgasisms here.

We are talking about an ejaculatory response, or an expression of power and dominance, and nothing more.

 

But should you want to know more, or need to more,  there is much, much more I can detail, I am only giving a very surface view of  the health safety aspects that will be required.

 

Society does not have a right to make a sub class of people who are without the protections that all other workers are.

They are called slaves.

Society also does not have the right to put at risk, consumers of products and services, that are of a high risk nature, and that are unregulated, no matter how loud they proclaim it is their right.

 

It would be like them demanding that  they have a right to a E coli hamburger if they want one from an society sanctioned food outlet.