Feminist viewpoints on prostitution and sex work

excuse me? being listed and included doesn't prove anything? all we have to do is pay in....just like any one else...what more do you need......we have an industry code and are accepted by WCB if we hoose to pay in...we spoke to them during the development of trade secrets-occupational health and safety development and they assured us we are workers and we qualify.

and actually,it was women's rights activists who have for the most part destabilized our safety...or do you deny the syphillus awareness and movements against "vice" were not lead by many women.....?remember the hilter and sex worker and the emporer of japan poster? or the she looks clean but ...?poster.....or the women who lead the fight for the legal frame work we live with now? or the women who decided that the DTES hotel owners were exploiting us by allowing us to rent rooms by the hour....?

you really like to go in circles...you ask for proof i provide proof, my proof is meaningless...my voice is not as importnt as a trafficking survivor.....?

the difference between my work and the work of a paid assassin is that my work IS recognized as work in many countries in the world. are you not trying to decrim sex workers in the swedish model? are you not then by default making us as workers legitimate? that is what is propsed right....? decriming workers only under the swedish model.....? it still makes us workers and acknowledges us as such.....?

the human rights charter does defend our position because of sex work being recognized as work in so many places, whether they have decrim or not- as paid assassin is not......

i am a human, i qualify for rights, i am a feminist.

http://www.worksafebc.com/publications/newsletters/assets/pdf_bod/20031021_01.pdf

 we are listed  in this document as EA 761021 Massage Parlour,Steam Bath,Escort Srv 2003 base rate-0.84 2004 base rate-0.89percent change 6.0% agencies/firms taking part 22

Actually, no, "women's libbers" fought for the right to have careers at all.  It wasn't entirely about looking with scorn on housewives.  More along the lines of being frustrated with women who chose to live in precarious positions where men held all the power.

Hm.  Maybe that's an unintentional parallel after all...

I'm going to change this thread title to what the thread is actually about - Feminist viewpoints on prostitution/sex work.

remind wrote:

susan davis wrote:

http://www.worksafebc.com/publications/newsletters/assets/pdf_bod/20031021_01.pdf

 we are listed  in this document as EA 761021 Massage Parlour,Steam Bath,Escort Srv 2003 base rate-0.84 2004 base rate-0.89percent change 6.0% agencies/firms taking part 22

 

... prostitution is not  listed, massage parlour, steam bath and escort services are.....if you were listed and rthus coverable there would be no need for this court challenge...it would all be legal and covered under those 3 job industry labels.

Escorts  legally cannot sell coitus,  and if something happened to them while conducting in such, as an STI, they would not be covered, nor would a massage parlour worker, or a steam bath worker,

those workers, as you well know, are legally not allowed to sell coitus or genital contact of any type. And if they were proven to be doing so and thus got injured on the job, WCB certainly would use that as an excuse to disallow any claim by them.

 

your rewrite of history, in respect to the early women's rights movements, is pretty.....

 

You have taken a few grains of truth and twisted it to suit your purpose, it appears.

 

cute.....? i don't think its too damn cute.....twisted....?pot/kettle

and yes they are allowed to sell their vaginas/coitis or whatever your terminology is today.....

the only way to legally ply your trade as a prostitute in canada is as an escort, exclusively going on"out calls" to peoples hotels and homes.

just because you want to twist and maniplate the facts doesn't mean we are not included.we are included and that is a fact. play osterich all you want. the fact remains we qualify.just becuase it doesn't say "selling coitis" or "vagina sales person" does not mean we do not qualify.

although i am sure you would only conceed if it said "engaging in the digusting work of selling vaginas and coitis" and spelled it out in those direct words.

escorting is the only legal way to be a vagina sales person/coitis sales person in canada.we qualify for WCB.

excuse me i have to go and sell some coitis now, i will be back with my vagina in a bit.

The forum that my name was brought up in was closed, so I'd like to make something clear here.

I'm not a prostituted woman or a formally prostituted woman. I'm also not a sex worker nor have I ever been. 

I do work closely with women who have fit into some of these categories, but I am not an experiential voice. I hope that doesn't discredit me later on. I also hope that the people who read the post where I was described as a formally prostituted woman are still reading the threads. 

Thanks. 

JMartin wrote:

The forum that my name was brought up in was closed, so I'd like to make something clear here.

I'm not a prostituted woman or a formally prostituted woman. I'm also not a sex worker nor have I ever been. 

 

I do work closely with women who have fit into some of these categories, but I am not an experiential voice. I hope that doesn't discredit me later on. I also hope that the people who read the post where I was described as a formally prostituted woman are still reading the threads. 

Thanks. 

thank you JMartin, no it will not call your credibility into question in future in my mind but as for the poster who named you as such.....well, it just goes to show once again, as we are accused of manipulating facts so it seems our accusers are behaving. as i recall it was a question sex worker numbers on either side of the debate. thankyou for clarifying.

i just want to say that this is one of our biggest barriers, our opposition perpetuating myths about lives, claiming people are experiential when trying bolster their own perspective,,,truely it seems as if no tactic is too much ...to hell with te truth!!let's all honor oursleves instead!

it is not illegal in canada!!!!FFS

prostitution is legal in canada!!!on an outcall basisi, no criminal provisions make it illegal.we do qualify, our work is not illegal.

further more your assertions of the failure of new zealands decrim model are also false.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/act+helps+health+and+safety+sex+workers+report+says

The Prostitution Law Reform Committee, chaired by former Police Assistant Commissioner Paul Fitzharris, was asked to report within five years of the decriminalisation of prostitution to assess the impact of the law change on the human rights, welfare, and occupational health and safety of sex workers, and the ban on the use of young people in prostitution.

Lianne Dalziel thanked the Committee for its work and said the report was valuable in putting balance and evidence into the debate around the decriminalisation of prostitution.

"The report indicates that the numbers have remained more or less the same since the Act came into force and that most sex workers are better off under the PRA than they were previously, which was the intention of the Act.

"There's no evidence of increased numbers of people being used in underage prostitution. In fact, the PRA has raised awareness of the problem," Lianne Dalziel said.

"The PRA has had a marked effect in safeguarding the rights of sex workers. Removing the taint of illegality has empowered sex workers by reducing the opportunity for coercion and exploitation."

The report says many of the perceptions held about the sex industry are based on stereotypes and a lack of information.

no increase in youth involvment, no increase in trafficking, no hoards of women rushing to sell vaginas and coitis.....where are all the harms cited by our opposition> please post a link to your data on spousal abuse and the harms caused by the new zealand model....?

fortunate wrote:

My personal opinion is that the feminist movement, per se, lost a lot of supporters when the loudest members sounded like remind, who appears to not only hate men, but blame them for everything that is wrong with the world and the people in it, including her own life's miseries.  

That's nice that this is your "personal opinion" but it is also an attack on one of our forum members, remind, claiming that she hates men. 

You will stay out of this thread from now on.  Don't even bother responding in this thread to my post - I don't care to hear it.  And any further contributions of yours to the feminism forum in other threads had better not include such stereotypes of feminists or attacks on our feminist participants.

Michelle, what of the constant attacks on other women here? How about the assertion from Loretta that we are not feminists? I'm not sure why remind gets to bully people constantly and fortunate has to stay out. Remind has been incredibly offensive in many posts and has attacked people. We just aren't flagging them.

I respect your decison but there has to be a balance here. I am not the only person who is noticing these contant attacks.

I think it's fair to question if the views being presented are feminist which I understand to be promoting the equality and well-being of women. I also think it's fair to question, based on someone's overall posts (not just on one subject) if they are coming here to present this from a feminist point of view. Those are not personal attacks, rather questioning what the framework is surrounding presentation of this issue.

Under the convoluted Canadian law, buying or selling sex is legal, but it is illegal to communicate about it beforehand, live off its avails, or run a private bawdy house.

Michelle wrote:

I'm not sure about this, but I got the impression that "divide and conquer" referred to prostitution being one of those issues that divides and polarizes feminists so that we are fighting with each other about what we disagree on.  Maybe I'm wrong, in which case, I guess I should read more carefully - I didn't read every post in the last thread.

But that's how this whole thing playing out has struck me, anyhow.  There are women here who have known each other for years on babble, and every once in a (long) while, some issue will come along, sometimes in the feminism forum, sometimes elsewhere, that will divide and polarize feminists on babble.

This appears to me to be one of those times, and one of those issues.

That was my intention, michelle. Along with questioning the framework in which the issue is being presented here and how it's being done. I believe that we all use discernment when examining any issue, whether it be through the lens of feminism or not. If we are concerned about the environment, we filter anything presented to us through that lens, same thing with those who work in the realm of social justice. This thread and topic is being discussed through the lens of feminism so it's completely legitimate to ask if the issue stands up.

The other question that I'm sure many of us ask is: in whose interests is this perspective being presented? In this case, some of us are asking if this proposed change stands up to the goal of promoting women's equality and well-being. Some of us are also asking who might have a stake, that isn't related to women's well-being, in bringing about this change. Those are fair questions when we talk about the environment, social justice and feminism, to my mind.

Remind, always crying victim but never ever taking responsibility in the many ways you harm people with your words.

BTW, since you actually are against decrim and the charter challenge, and you sided with martin on real women having standing, are you not then a part of that agenda, at least remotely?

See how easy it is to twist the motives of people and assume what isn't there? Sort of like how you are now claiming we're not feminist because our views differ from yours?

I'm sure the irony will be lost on you.

As an aside, you are aware of the different waves of feminism right? You are aware women do not speak uniformly? You are aware that we can differ without being stripped of our feminist credentials (which you can never do BTW regardless of what you write here). I am a feminist and if you ever bothered to actually read what I have posted in the decrim thread perhaps you'll have an understanding of that. Or perhaps not. I'm going with the latter just because it seems to make you happy to have strife here.

Michelle wrote:

Susan, people are allowed to disagree with you about decriminalization, and to discuss what they feel the effects of sex work on society is, including the family.  It's not defamation to discuss the issue.  No one is defaming you personally.

i understnad that but promotion of un proven non fact based opinions is harming sex workers. i deleted my othe post but i will state again. it's promotion of hatred which insights people to discrimination and violence and IMHO is at the very least defaming to sex workers over all...not to me personally but indirectly.

the poster in question has deemed it unimportant to back her biased claims yet demands i provide such links.mis information is one of the biggest threats to sex industry workers safety and stability there is.

especially a claim from "one of the UN reports i don't know i think?" stating sex workers are responsible for spousal abuse rising 47% in the netherlands as a result of legalization- called decriminalization in order to further confuse the situation and informtion being put forth.

it is the same as stating that all sex workers are survivors of child abuse...or 90%...never was a link to back that assertion provided. i would like to point out that many new reports seem to state that 10% of ALL children are the victims of childhood abuse....when you consider that with the percentage of sex workers represented by the street level industry....10%- 15%....it begins to demonstrate what we are trying to say. we are not all abused and victims of chilhood abuse any more than any other part of the population. the fact that abused children end up on the street in prostitution is a shame for us all. it is not the fault of the sex industry, it is our failure as a society to protect children and our failure as a society to continue to support abuse survivours after they have become adults....

crimalizing sex work further marginalizes these vulnerable people and in the meantime legal and legitimate sex industry businesses are close and disrupted based on some twisted interpretation of the above facts. the promotion of these mis interpretations based on data collected solely from street entrenched, drug addicted surviours of abuse engaged in prostitution and that excludes any empowered workers voices, is causing wide spread harm.

i can not understnad how it is legal to be honest. it is one thing to discuss a thing, but to ignore the facts and carry on as if we are right no matter what is presented is deplorable.

i would also like to say, that if any of the actions we are propsing was shown to cause harm, i would be the first one to admit it, i would be there saying, i was wrong, this is wrong, we made a mistake. 

will the abolitionist side do the same?it's been 100 years of prohibition....will they admit they may have been wrong? or will they refuse to hear any alternative solutions based on the underlying principle that sex work, in an of itself, is violence against women. not just sex working women but all women....i guess in some ways this has already occured in that the swedish model of decriminalizing workers does finally admit they may have been wrong about labeling us the vector of disease, throwing us into assylums for being crazy and immoral,arresting us.....

or is it as it was 100 years ago in that we should believe their assertions as gospel with no need of a source for credibility and the burden of proof is left to sex workers as of course we are not credible. should we, as 100 years ago, just accept that these people know what is best for us all and be greatful for the benefit of their obvious superior knowledge?

i mean c'mon. does the high number of first nations people in prison mean that all first nations people are criminals?or the high number of african american men in US prisons mean all african american men are criminals?sure if you are only lookng at the population based on people in prison....we know this is a misrepresentation.

yet, over and over then same assertions are made as if they are true, confusing people new to the discussion. if assertions are being made i respectfully request they be backed up by a link and specific quote from the data referenced so everyone can see what research sample population (cambodia, exclusvely survival workers, all rape crisis line connections, all arrested by police) was used, whether research ethics review board scrutiny took place (to ensure a non biased approach to research as per canadian federal government policies) and whether workers interviewed were given enough information and placed in an environment safe enough to form informed consent (were they under duress?did they feel safe not answering questions? what questions were asked, were tey in jail? did the researcher even contribute anything back to the community?)....

i repsectfully once again request that such blantantly misleading statements be backed up with a link to a source.

i will also once agai ask, what are the abolitionists plans for decriminalzing workers?...any word yet....? licensing, mandatory health checks.....? government run faciltities for customers to be tested before accessing our vaginas?

p-sto wrote:

Both those advocating for decriminalisation and abolition would likely agree there is a broader social issue where it is unacceptably easy to get away abusive behaviour towards women.  Due to their political differences it seems unlikely that these parties would effectively work together to have laws better enforced and society as whole less tolerant towards abusive and violent behaviour.  However, it's possible that such cooperation does exist at times and I am simply not aware of it.

I would agree completely. A number of us have raised the issue of abusive behaviour toward women and whether or not proposed changes would be detrimental to that matter. As well, a number of us have also raised concern about the need for society to work towards improving the situation with those who are marginalized through racism, sexism, illness, and poverty (list not exhaustive). It is part of a larger picture rather than strictly limited to those who, for whatever reason, are involved in prostitution.

Polly B wrote:

Polly,

...respect you dearly, though your anecdotal story is certainly feel good  at first glance,  it has no meaning  when considering decrim of johns pimps et al.

 

Please don't talk down to me.  I hate that.  As a matter of fact, I do know where she is now.   I never said young woman by the way, I don't think she was all that young.  She is still working and as far as I know the young man in my story still talks to her.  He was as of last year, he considered her a friend and they both posted in a number of online places.  Maybe here too, who knows.

I told that story in response to a very specific question, one which asks what kind of person could not find a sexual encounter without paying for it.  I know intimately one such person, and I told his story.  His story is why I have been staying out of this thread.   The fact that someone I know - and yes he is male but I love him anyway - was helped by susans version of a sex worker makes me biased. 

 

Thats all

I actually hope you continue to post your POV.  Your bias shapes your contributions, which humanizes both sides in your story, even though you yourself have no direct experience with, as it has been so eloquently described, genital commodification contact.  To me, when susan talks about single fathers, etc, I come at it from the POV that my brother was a single custodial father with a son who had a mother who was completely disinterested in my nephew.   I have another nephew almost in the same situation, with an ex who thought it was ok to have her 11 year old son take care of the 3 younger ones.   So no one is going to tell me that single custodial fathers are not worthy, nor can they convince me that all mothers are madonnas.

My personal opinion is that the feminist movement, per se, lost a lot of supporters when the loudest members sounded like they all   not only hate men, but blame them for everything that is wrong with the world and the people in it, including her own life's miseries.  Does anyone else remember the story about someone who asked a bunch of teenage girls if they were feminists?   And they overwhelmingly said "no".  Because being a feminist meant you had to hate men (and possibly pink dresses and makeup, I don't remember lol), and they could not and would not wrap their heads around that.  They did, however answer yes to a great many questions about equality and choice, all the things that most women consider important.

And I am also old enough to remember when "women's libbers" looked with scorn upon stay at home moms, don't you?   Because they didn't go out to work, what they did at home was meaningless and could not be considered "work".    Remember how they were all wrong about that too?

susan davis wrote:

47%.....?rise in spousal abuse.....? please post a link for that assertion ....i don't believe this for a minute. just another attempt to blame violence against women on sex workers with no proof to back it up....please post this link detailing how the sex workers of the netheralands "legalization" not decriminalization by the way- has caused a rash of abuse of spouses.......

what a load.....

I would also like the proof of where New Zealand suddenly became removed from the world, because I cannot fathom how remind can say NONE like that. 

It reminds me of how that Farley farce reported that because the rates for rape was higher than average in Las Vegas that meant that the fact that prostitution was legal in Nevada was to blame for it.   Let us keep in mind that prostitution is not permitted in Las Vegas city, but actually takes place some 30 miles or so away.   The links between legalization and criminal assault are at best faulty, and at worst deliberately misleading lies.

oops, posted before reading all posts--  also went and edited out reference to specifics.

My point, which actually was supported, was that attempts to specify who qualifies, what is okay and what is not okay, when defining feminist is counterproductive and can, (as proven in the past) do more damage than good.  Allowing women and men to define themselves under their own conditions is more inclusive.

Loretta wrote:

susan davis wrote:

i understnad that but promotion of un proven non fact based opinions is harming sex workers. i deleted my othe post but i will state again. it's promotion of hatred which insights people to discrimination and violence and IMHO is at the very least defaming to sex workers over all...not to me personally but indirectly.

I don't think you understood michelle's point, susan. When people disagree with you, it doesn't mean they are promoting hatred of you or any group to which you belong. No-one is defaming "sex workers" unless you mean those who have power within that industry to the detriment of those who don't.

no i am specifically refering to misinformation with no back up or what are essentially "opinions"  being posted here as if they are facts. and by definition in the international charter of human rights (i am human) can be characterised as such. imho

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 20

1. any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law
2. Any advocacy or national, racial, cultural or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Article 26

• 1. all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, color, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

As a male I'm rather curious about the suppostion that the sex trade is fundamentally degrading to women by creating disposable women and sex on demand.

Ideally speaking a sex worker should be allowed to refuse any client she wishes and have control over the terms of sex.  In practice this fails because because the worker may face violence from the person she refuses, violence from a pimp, fear of losing a client due to not meeting their demands, emotional coercion or she may be compelled by financial requirements.  These concerns excluding pimps also exist outside the sex trade in more socially accepted relationships.  I very much doubt that men would treat their partners or women in general in this fashion do so because they have learned it from sex workers.

As opposed to claiming sex work degrades women I am more inclined to believe that there is a significant portion of society that does not respect women and this lack of respect plays out more frequently within the sex trade as it is viewed as more permissible.

For the record Susan I am in support of decriminialisation.  However, I consider the law and the police to really be the smallest part of the battle.  A respecting sex trade can't really exist in a society that does not fully respect women.  The law is very little if it is not supported fairly by society.

Good luck in your struggle.