Defense of the Nordic Model for dealing with Prostitution (and the right to defend it)

Timebandit wrote:

Susan, disagreeing with you does not constitute an personal attack.  The fact is, prostitution contributes to the continuation of the rape culture we  live in by commodifying the female body and enabling the male privilege of male-oriented sex on demand. 

I haven't seen any "debunking", just the claim that studies you don't like are "debunked".

To the German example:  You've stated numerous times that sex work should be treated like any other kind of work.  Taxed, regulated, etc.  That appears to be what they've done in Germany.  Can you please explain how this is any different than what you've advocated?  Or does "decriminalization" just mean "I get to do what I want to" without the regulation?  Even if you accept that sex work is a business like any other (it isn't, despite mark alfred's misguided and disingenuous little mansplain upthread), that doesn't seem to provide any kind of long term benefit to anyone.

But why does sex, for women, automatically get tagged 'rape culture'.  Which is a fairly new term anyway, but why do sex workers yet again have to suffer for the inability of the general public to understand sex and sexuality?    

re: Germany versus NZ, i don't really understand the difference, but i do know that NZ criminal laws were similar if not exactly the same as Canada's.  They overturned all the same laws and came up with detailed work regulations and conditions of working.  As NZ culture is more like Canadian culture than Germany or Sweden or any other country outside of Australia and the UK, i find it a very agreeable set up.    And it works.   It is the only country I know of where  a sex worker as an employee has won a case of sexual harassment against a brothel owner.      ($25,000, this year)   

Why don't people want that for sex workers here?  OHS regulations forbidding unsafe sex activity, licensing for larger establishments, the right to say no, the ability to seek legal or police intervention without fear of being exposed or harassed by law enforcement.  The ability to work discretely and privately from home without fear of being evicted, as they are in Sweden.  As they are in Norway?    And as they don't seem to be able to do in Germany or the Netherlands?   

Quote:

But why does sex, for women, automatically get tagged 'rape culture'.  Which is a fairly new term anyway, but why do sex workers yet again have to suffer for the inability of the general public to understand sex and sexuality?

Sex doesn't automatically equate rape culture, but the perpetuation of male entitlement to sex on demand does - and is a requisite component of the sex industry as it exists now.

I also dispute that the general public doesn't understand sex and sexuality - they just don't see it your way.  Sex is fine.  Commodified sex a la the sex industry isn't. Frankly, transactional sexuality doesn't strike me as overly female friendly. 

Quote:

I would think that is a zoning, municipal issue.  It isn't like they don't know when a massage parlour comes in for a license that is not a registered massage therapy style license what is going on there.    If people have issues with mps in school zones, that is a city council issue, and needs to be brought up, imo.    

Not that what people assume is going on is actually going on, just because it is a sex massage parlour. There aren't drug dealers lurking in the school yard, or condoms thrown in the street, and the manager isn't trying to lure the kiddies in to work for him/her.   It is ridiculous the number of assumptions people make about these places.  

Regardless, I was responding to susan's comment about the sinister legal code.  I don't think the expectation that it's fine to conduct a business related to the sex industry in close proximity to a school is very reasonable, do you?

Quote:

fyi, Himel is female.    So 'she' dismisses Farley.

Not that it's relevant.  It's still an opinion, albeit a legal one.

Quote:

  And it isn't opinion pieces, what the links are talking about is researching and studying her work, and coming up with very legit complaints.  Including from someone who was hired by her questioning her ethics, and a member of the association putting together an extremely detailed examination of her 'work'.    When NZ presented their 5 year report, they researched, presented data, and states "there was no increase in the total number of sex workers in NZ".   Farley put together her recap of that report and said "there was an increase in both underage and street workers in NZ".     As her former employee and the association member points out, she is deliberately falsifying the data and presenting that misinformation to her readers. 

No, you still have opinion and you have some allegations, but they don't appear to be utterly conclusive.  Look, if you take the example of Andrew Wakefield, the antivax doctor - there were allegations that he'd falsified his data, but before anything could be done about it, people had to provide the evidence.  In his case, it was true but it was several years before anyone had conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. 

For me, it's moot.  Fundamentally, sex work is part of an anti-woman culture by its very nature, whether its largely trafficked women or not, whether its undeage women or not, whether its licensed or not. 

Quote:

  This is what women who wanted to vote used to say.  This is what women who wanted to be the ones to make the final choice in abortions used to say.  This is what women who wanted to be doctors, or lawyers or electricans used to say.  This is what gay men and women who wanted to get married used to say.    This is what people who weren't MF married couples who wanted to adopt children used to say.

Sorry, what were they saying?  There seems to be a non sequitur here.

These are human rights issues.  What you're talking about is not being unable to change your gender or orientation, but a job - one that is being vociferously defended as a choice.  Apples and oranges.

Quote:

  But to tell me, as a sex worker who knows that I can go days seeing over a dozen clients and not once have actual sex with them that this is promoting men's sense of entitlement to sex?  That's ludicrous, and a false statement about what happens here that people who think they know everything know nothing about what we do.

Wow, that bump on my head from the hard landing off the turnip truck sure does smart.

So let me understand your argument:  "I don't always have sex with my clients, so I'm not really selling sex, therefore it's okay for me to sell sex."

?!

By definition, as a sex worker, you are providing sex as a service.  Whether or not the customer follows through every time is irrelevant.  Or maybe you're using the Clinton definition.  It still doesn't change the fundamental objection I have to the entire enterprise.

Maybe the world won't end if you achieve your ends, but I remain convinced that it will be a less safe world for me to send my darling daughters out into.  As it stands, it's a dangerous enough place out there, and this just seems to double down on the worst elements of it for women - our sex is a commodity.  You can't ask me not to object to that. 

Susan, I didn't say back-tracking, I said you move the goalposts.  And anyone who takes the time to read your posts will have observed a fair amount of goalpost shifting (and cherry picking, for that matter - denial doesn't make it not so).

Now, if you could respond to the substance of what I said (ie:  Germany seems to have embraced the elements you've advocated for in previous posts, so why would we not look at Germany to prognosticate what would happen if that were agreed to those elements?) that would be great.  However, what defense you've given (ie: That's not decriminalization, that's legalization) sounds much like decriminalization doesn't regulate - which is *not* treating the sex industry like other industries.

So pick one:  You either want to be treated like everybody else or you don't.

i also think its funny to hear you say ""it seems like you are saying"....since you have known my position for so long but now act as if its changed or its the first time you are hearing it....lol

new zealand is not unregulated.....did you even read my post? i think its pretty clear....

hair splitting which costs people their lives...if its not a subject you care to understand or read up on, then why bother to enage me about it? 

i listed all the reasons the german approach is bad, i also described how it is very simlar to what the SCC just struck down i listed how we would like to see prostitution regulated...but you chose to either not read or simply ignore what i wrote....

we don't want legalization, it is what we had before and it sucked, many people died...

we want decriminalization and protection under the criminal code from human trafficking, rape, murder...as other canadians enjoy....

we want protection of labor law and agree that businesses should be licensed and regulated at the municipal or provincial level...

like they have in new zealand....

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/1798188_794455...

fantastic example of where our focus as women is supposed to be according to this male dominated society

quizzical wrote:

was helping my daughter today with a canadians socials project and we came across this:

 

"The world has never been partial to the thinking woman---the wise ones have always foreseen danger. Long years ago when women asked for an education, the world cried out that it would never do. If a woman learned to read it would distract them from the real  business of life which was to make home happy for some good man. If women learned to read there seemed to be a possibility the some day some good man might come home and find his wife reading, and the dinner not ready---and nothing could be imagined more horrible thann that!!!That seems to be the haunting fear of mankind---that the advancement of women will sometime, someway, someplace interfere with some man's comfort." Nellie McClung

commodifying women's vagina's is a huge step backwards as it signifys women still aren't supposed to interfere with a man's "comfort". 'cause in today's world  we all know a man's comfort is sex where ever and whenever he wants.

See I read that completely differently.   I read that men in general don't want women to decide for themselves what to do with their bodies.  I see women who want to stop other women from providing sex work as complicit with these men who want to control women's bodies.   I see that women who provide sex work have enough control and enough money to be able to say no to any man they don't want, and furthermore, to never have to be dependent on one man to pay her way through life.

And that is why the many different factions of male dominated society have often tried to stop women from doing this work, and along with them the prohibitionist women who also do not like the idea that there are women out there willing to spend time with men, which leads to them not being able to control whether that man stays home or not.    

Sex workers don't need men to pay their way, that has always been the crux of the problem that men have with this business.   The majority of men do not use the services of sex workers.     The ones that don't, well they are out there trying to shut it down, because, like reading, it is dangerous to them to see women in control of their own income and destiny, plus the idea of promiscuity scares them as well.   The number one concern of many men when it comes to sex is the idea that they may fail in bed, or that they are not capable of pleasing women, and then no woman will stay with them.   The idea of any woman with a great deal of sexual experience is daunting to them, really.   

on the topic of sex work, there are some, a very very very few, men (usually younger and new to this) who think that because a woman puts up an ad and has a price it means they are entitled to see her.     And there are people like yourself, and others, who also believe that.    And both of these groups are wrong.    The men like that, who call up sex workers, get turned down and start whining about asking why not, get shot down again.   Because I can say no, i say no all the time, life is too short to deal with someone who doesn't feel like this is an honour and a gift they are being given.  I don't know many sex workers who don't do the same thing.    No one has to say yes all the time, unless they are coerced, and that is still against the law, so deal with that, and deal with them, and leave the rest of us alone.   

Laws and law enforcement and government regulations can't deal with the arrogance of youth and sense of entitlement, but I can, and so can the majority of experienced sex workers.  They are put in their place swiftly and without mercy, and the next time they pick up the phone, you bet they'll think twice about it.    

plus there are international bad date lists, their numbers go out into the big wide world of the internet.  They can't hide.

The media tells you, and them, that we are weak.  That we can't say no.  That we are vulnerable and at risk.   We are not.  It's time you started listening to sex workers, and stop pretending to care about what they want and need, and stop trying to fix them.  Because they aren't broken.    

i love how you always belittle the words of members of my community.... not that i think you will ever be respectful in one of these conversations. i gave up on that a long time ago.

you once again state an opinion, that we are the elite few escorts who do not reflect the truth as you see it about sex work. 

you have done no research, you have not engaged with indoor sex workers, you have not seen any sources which support your opinion. there is no source to support what you are saying, such information does not exist in the realm of acedemia....

so, you completely dismiss and insult a sex worker who is a long standing community member and who is very connected to her community, fortunate. she engages with hundreds of workers from across the globe and has accumulated lived experience through her own work over time....

but she is dillusional, she is laughable, she is a joke to you....

unbelievable.....

yup because the swedish law is only about purchasing...right? wrong.....

evictions, seizing of sex workers children, arrest of our families and loved ones as a way to "discourage" prostitution...nothing to fear at all....

To prevent the use of apartments and rooms for prostitution and pandering there are several provisions for criminal sanctions and confiscation. These include the Penal Code Chapter 6 § 12.2, the Land Code (1970:994) Chapter 12. § 42.1.9 and the Condominium Act (1991:614) Chapter 7. § 18.8 (2003:31). These provisions also mean that a landlord or tenant is required to terminate the tenancy if premises are used for prostitution and tenant-owners are required to move out of an apartment used for prostitution.

and of course there's this....

http://www.plri.org/sites/plri.org/files/Impact%20of%20Swedish%20law_0.pdf

Unintentional effects  

There are several reported unintended, negative effects of the Sex Purchase Act, concerning both sex workers and their clients. The effects have been reported in academic papers and research, the documents which form the basis for this report, as well as numerous articles in the media. Sex workers have also spoken on these matters in media, on internet forums, on their blogs and in their books. 92 Most tend to be critical of the ban, but here are some who say that it is positive since it “protects” the woman but criminalizes the customer, and that it might be an incentive to leave prostitution.93

When it comes to clients, it seems they are less willing to assist as witnesses in cases in which profiteers who exploit the sexual labor of others are prosecuted, since they now find themselves guilty of a crime. Clients are exposed to blackmail and robbery, and the stigma associated with buying sex means people often have to leave their jobs and positions, even on a mere suspicion.94 The most common and perhaps most serious complaint regarding sex workers themselves is that they experienced an increased stigmatization after the introduction of the Sex Purchase Act. Some also state that the ban is a violation of their human rights, and many say that they don’t feel fairly or respectfully treated:

"they are not regarded as fully worthy members of society. Sex workers object to the fact that they were not consulted in the making of the law. Since sex workers feel they are not able to influence their legal or societal situation, they feel powerless. And since the ban builds on the idea that women who sell sex are victims, weak and exploited, many claim that the law propagates stereotypical notions about sex workers. The National Board of Health and Welfare report that due to the ban sex workers feel less trust in social authorities, police and the legal system, and half of the respondents in the RFSL "

Susan, I think you misunderstood my previous post. Prostitution is a business, not a calling, a lifestyle choice, therapy for amateurs, or anything else. Tis just a business. Customers are essential for a business to survive; for a sex worker to say prostitutes don't need men to pay their way (hiring them) is ludicrous unless I'm missing a philosophical angle. Now if fortunate had said women don't need men to pay their way I would've agreed.

As I understand the Nordic model it criminalizes the purchase of sexual services therefore the approach, at its heart, attacks the customers – everything else is ancillary. However if prostitutes really don't need customers – men – then the Nordic model is no big – this is sarcasm.

I get the impression that you think I support the Nordic model—I don't. I think the only logical approach to Canada's prostitution issue is to remove all the redundant prostitution-related laws from the Criminal Code... all of them, not just the three dumped by the Supreme Court. True decriminaliztion will not happen. Unfortunately most, if not all, of our laws written since the beginning of the 20th century are not based on reason or logic. Perhaps none of them ever were.

If this sub-discussion is about financial freedom that can come with women working for themselves, regardless of what that work is, then yes, I agree with you and fortunate.

I imagine there are still men (and a few women) who believe a woman's place is tending to the hearth and home; I suspect these same people have a problem with all aspects of the sex industry and would particularly like to see prostitution abolished. Barring that, they'll get behind the Nordic model believing that when the customers are driven off the biz will disappear or go deeper underground. My guess... there are many of these folk in the Conservative Party of Canada and Peter MacKay knows it—he may even be one.

Mórríghain wrote:

fortunate wrote:

... Sex workers don't need men to pay their way, that has always been the crux of the problem that men have with this business.... 

This comment may be true from a philosophical point of view (I'm no philosopher) but is not this statement akin to a shopkeeper saying she doesn't need customers in order for her business to succeed? If the above statement is indeed true no one working in the biz should suffer if/when the Nordic model is brought to Canada.

No this would be like the shop keeper saying she doesn't need a man to support her, pay for her food and housing, because she makes her own income.    A client who pays for services is not the same thing as a spouse just as customers are not the same thing as a spouse.   

I think i was being quite clear about referring to a relationship situation of one man controlling the life and circumstances of one woman (or in the case of poly marriages, more than one woman?)  In any case, where the woman is dependent on the income of the man, or she is homeless and starving, and in exchange she sacrifices her own goals and dreams because she has no other options in her life.  

Mórríghain wrote:

I think the only logical approach to Canada's prostitution issue is to remove all the redundant prostitution-related laws from the Criminal Code... all of them, not just the three dumped by the Supreme Court. True decriminaliztion will not happen. Unfortunately most, if not all, of our laws written since the beginning of the 20th century are not based on reason or logic. Perhaps none of them ever were.

I think what i have always objected to the laws overturned by the SCC is due to the fact that they are not that old.  They've only been around since the mid 80s.  But people treat them like they've always been in place, and not just that, but they have effectively been dealing with 'pimps' or whatever for a hundred years.   That isn't exactly true, in fact there  are few if any actual 'pimps' charged ever.  Is this because they are impossible to find, or because they simply do not exist in the way the general public believes they exist.    Charges have effectively been placed against the spouses of sex workers from time to time, but other than that, it takes an actual mini illegal brothel set up in a house or condo to get those charges laid against anyone, and usually but not always, it is asian migrant workers involved, who get sent home.    

I don't believe there has ever been a bawdy house charge against a single sex worker working alone since the laws came into being.  Instead the laws are used as they were always intended to be used: against the nuisance of street work.   

The city of Vancouver also put up a bylaw not that long ago that helped reduce street beggars in certain areas.  They would give them fines of all things.  Nothing says go away better than giving someone who is begging for loonies on a street corner a $50 fine for loitering on that street corner.   

fortunate wrote:

Not that it's relevant.  It's still an opinion, albeit a legal one.

Court "opinions" tend to be valued more then ordinary citizens' opinions. They are binding. You may disagree with some, I do occasionally, based on your "opinions". In this particular case, I find Himel's appreciation of Farley's testimony quite convincing. She said Farley's role was to provide scientific evidence, not advocacy. Evidence of her being an advocate more than a scientific was given to the courts: her testimony was shown to be contrary to her own 'scientific' evidence in regards with at least 2 topics: the age of entry (she testified a lower medium age than her 'research' actually found) and the comparison of security between indoor and outdoor (she testified a comparable danger while her own research concludes indoor is more secure). That was not an "opinion", is was a blatant demonstration of her advocacy, something she was asked not to do in court.

Pondering wrote:

"White, well-educated and economically privileged" women, feminist or otherwise, have a responsibility to listen to NWAC which was established by Aboriginal women in 1974.

I feel the responsabily to listen to the NWAC, but not the responsability to come to the same conclusions. I have worked closely with Aboriginal communities of nomadic traditions in Québec for nearly 20 years. Prostitution is indeed something you rarely find in the reserves. It is something that comes maily with migrations to the cities, a phenomenon much less frequent here than in the West of Canada. Globally, I don't see it as a big issue in this province. I see no way prohibition of prostitution will help alleviate the misery that push Aboriginals out of their communities and the misery they face through their migration to the cities. 

lagatta wrote:

 Where I live, there are a lot of brothels, mostly "massage parlours" (salons de massage) set up in school zones, as it is densely populated and most are on busy streets where there are also kids going to schools.

Kids walking in front of massage parlors in Montréal have no idea what goes on inside. The immense majority of massage parlors in Montréal have no exterior signs suggesting any link to sexual services. Some idiots have decided to break the unwritten rule in the last few years with neon lights and xxx signs all over the showcases. This is a problem easily solved with sound municipal regulation. The fact is that massage parlors have caused no significant problems in this city in the the last three decades. Police spokesmen will tell you that they receive very few citizens complaints.

Timebandit wrote:

Sex doesn't automatically equate rape culture, but the perpetuation of male entitlement to sex on demand does - and is a requisite component of the sex industry as it exists now.

I just don't understand how one can equate prostitution to any men entitlement to sex. There's a massage therapist a few blocks away from my home. Does that mean I'm entitled to his services?

Timebandit wrote:

I also dispute that the general public doesn't understand sex and sexuality - they just don't see it your way.  Sex is fine.  Commodified sex a la the sex industry isn't. Frankly, transactional sexuality doesn't strike me as overly female friendly. 

So you understand sex and sexuality? Good for you. I don't. And I certainly hope I'll never understand it any day before I die.

About the "Nordic model". We can argue about the ideology driving it. Some think sex should not be a commodity. Some say sex has always been a commodity in all societies, predominatly through the institutions dictating the rules for mating.

I agree our society is different in that it has equality of rights for women and men written in its constitution. But that does not give any answer to the question whether or not sex is is a commodity.

My impression, over all, is that you can't legislate sex.

Still, I have a problem with the "Nordic model". They say they want want to protect sex workers. It's a lie. They protect sex workers if they agree to stop sex work. It's a condition. They don't protect sex workers who continue. They make their condition worst. They did not admit that in the beginning. They do today. It's the price to pay as they say. It's the basic hipocrisy of that model. Sweden rejects any idea of harm reduction.

Has anyone seen swedish statistics on the number of sex workers helped out of the trade by the public services in the last decade and a half? Any longitudinal study of them? What happenned to them? Do they stay out of the trade or do they come back? Have their economic situation improved? Don't we need those statistics? After all, I don't care if Stockholm has less street workers. I care more about what happenned to them. Some may have stopped. Fine. But have their situation improved?

I support decriminalization but I also respect the idea that all societies have the right to democratically decide what products are sold in the market place. The problem is that prohibition has never worked. If prohibition does not work a society must decide how to respond to the continued sale of the product/activity. Thus we agree people should not be sold and we have antislavery laws. However there is no agreement on adult sex. Thus regulation seems appropriate.

Regulation à la New Zealand is close to no regulation. Coercive pimping and minors are prohibited just lke everywhere else in the world. Otherwise, there are only 2 rules: condom use for intercourse is prescribed (something that should be included in the Canadian reform) and a special permit is necessary for brothel with more than 5 workers. That's it. Municipalities retain quite a lot of power but they can't rule out prostitution completely.

It was not expected that street prostitution would disapear, but diminish with the Prostitution Reform Act. It did not change. The only way to control street prostitution is through comprehensive approaches negociated locally between police, sex workers organisations and public health officials. Tensions will remain, whatever the regulations imposed by the federal, provincial of local governement. You got to deal with it, just like you got to deal with homelessness and all the "diviances" coomon in large cities.

will the abusers disappear because of criminalization of adult consesual activities? no. violence against swedish sex workers has gone up in some areas since implementation of the sex purchase ban....

and its not "no regulations" if you read the post there are some regulations....

by far there's more men commenting on this topic than women and now we've you too! this is the feminist forum though so some men are more respectful of the space i guess try the sex workers forum if you want other male input.

ya, i don't believe in marriage too much. but it has nothing to do with this topic. unless we're going to start advocating for money to change hands each time there's a sexual act including in marriage. i can see judges and governments asking men who are leaving their wives how often they 'got it' from them and then say once the # is known " you owe your soon to be ex-wife an extra ? in deferred wages or lack of payment for services rendered. :D

i'm a lobby of mainly FN women who believe the re-commodification of women  is a no go is there anything wrong with it?

like chattal  only now only our vaginas would be worth anything

i think the feminists around here don't like the man explaining in the feminist forum. i differ i don't like it anywhere

quizzical wrote:

Gustave wrote:

Regulation à la New Zealand is close to no regulation.......

It was not expected that street prostitution would disapear, but diminish with the Prostitution Reform Act. It did not change.

 

sounds about right. no regulations would suit the lobby from what i've read here.

and if street prostitution, which they say is the most unsafe and needs to go inside, doesn't change what's the point?

imv it hasn't changed because men want access whenever they want it with no inconvience to themselves. are the abusers going to go in doors where they could be monitored? answer NO.

The point is obvious:  street work in any country accounts for only a fraction of all sex work.    Reform in NZ, like any other country, was meant to improve working conditions for all workers.  It improve conditions for street workers as well.  it was only the assumption and presumption of the general public that the reform would eliminate street work.     It was never the actual intention of the reform to do anything more than reform the unfair working conditions sex workers who were doing something legal had to endure.   

Most agree that no sex worker sells their body parts.  afaik, that would entail the customer walking away with that body part after it being purchased.  It is a false statement of hysterical feminists to use that kind of terminology, and is much of the reason why many people are now leaning towards decriminalization of sex work.   The sky is falling rhetoric of the abolitionists, along with the debunked claims and stats, have led to statements like those to be discredited.   Not long behind is a move and a general consensus on any media produced polling that the overwhelming majority of Canadians want less legislation for sex workers, not more.  

Example A:   http://www.cbc.ca/day6/blog/2014/03/06/rethinking-prostitution-doc-and-talk/

Interesting research on the language of the abolitionists:   http://myweb.dal.ca/mgoodyea/Documents/Sex%20work%20-%20General/The%20mythology%20of%20prostitution%20-%20advocacy%20research%20and%20public%20policy%20Weitzer%202010%20Sex%20Res%20Soc%20Pol%207%2015-29.pdf

Jeffreys(1997) has written, “Antiprostitution campaigners use the term prostituted women instead of prostitutes. This is a deliberate political decision and is meant to symbolize the lack of choice women have over being used in prostitution”(p. 330). In the oppression paradigm, individual agency is deemed impossible. The logic for this argument is sometimes stated in a dubious manner: “To the extent that any woman is assumed to have freely chosen prostitution, then it follows that enjoyment of domination and rape are in her nature”(Farley and Kelly 2000, p. 54).

Sensationalism is abundant in this body of literature. Anecdotal horror stories are a staple of these writings, and clearly are designed to arouse readers' indignation. Reports,websites, and journal articles in the prohibitionist vein feature quotes from women who have had horrible experiences,which are presented as typical.

Moreover, the authors themselves frequently write in an alarming manner. For instance, Farley (2006) has written, “When women are turned into objects that men masturbate into, profound psychological harm results for the person who is acting as receptacle” (p. 107). With this kind of language, Farleyherself appears to objectify the women.

 Another example of such sensationalism is Farley's declaration that “prostitution,pornography, and trafficking meet or exceed legal definitions of torture” (p. 114). The tone of such writings is a radical departure from that of conventional scholarly writings. Labeling prostitution as paid rape, workers as prostituted women or survivors, and customers as predators and sexo ffenders has shock value. The oppression paradigm superimposes these emotionally laden constructs on the actors in a universalistic manner.

Such categorical terminology obscures the empirically documented relationships between workers and customers, which are complex and varied. Moreover, many customers and workers themselves reject these derogatory labels. In a study of 294 street prostitutes in Miami, for instance, almost all of them “prefer the terms sex worker and working woman and refer to themselves as such” (Kurtz et al. 2004, p. 359). Others call themselves escorts or providers. In contrast to the demonization of clients prevalent in oppression literature, a unique comparative study (Monto and McRee 2005) found few differences between prostitutes' customers and a nationally representative sample of American men.

I agree with Lagatta

Apologies for those who object to using a term referring to a person using 'sensationalist' language when writing or talking about sex work and sex workers.     As someone who has been called privileged, enslaved, delusional, etc, you get the point lol.   Someone who pokes the bear in this case is likely to get bitten.   grrrls talk back.    I know, we sex workers are supposed to be feeble minded and complient, right?   

Here is something for gustave and shartel, very recent article in the Ottawa Citizen by Sandra Ka Hon Chu,  the co-director of research and advocacy at the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and  Catherine Healy, national co-ordinator of the New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Zealand+work+model/9623498/story.html

Prior to the Prostitution Reform Act, New Zealand’s prostitution laws were very similar to ours. Prostitution itself was not criminalized, but virtually all activities associated with it were, such as soliciting in public, living on the avails, operating a brothel and procuring. Adopted to safeguard sex workers’ human rights, the 2003 law changed everything.

Sex workers in New Zealand are now covered by labour laws to promote their welfare and occupational health and safety, and refusal to work as a sex worker does not affect entitlements to unemployment insurance. Proponents of public health recognize that these laws enable frank displays of safer sex information in sex-work venues. Indeed, studies show high levels of condom use and a very low rate of HIV among New Zealand’s sex workers.

In the decade since its passage, the Prostitution Reform Act has not resulted in any growth of the sex industry or increase in number of sex workers, nor has the sky fallen. The Prostitution Law Review Committee, headed by a former police commissioner and charged with reviewing the law’s operation after its enactment, also found that there has been a marked improvement in employment conditions and a decrease in violence against sex workers.

As the Committee concluded, this was possible chiefly because the 2003 law empowered sex workers by removing the illegality of their work. Sex workers and the police appreciate these laws that foster better relationships and create an environment wherein sex workers can more readily report crimes committed against them. Sex workers, including those who work on the street, in managed brothels, alone or with their peers from home, feel more able to refuse clients or a particular sexual practice, a strong indication that decriminalization of prostitution enhances their autonomy and safety.

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol gustav ya think i've never before come across passive aggressiveness? take your "hysteric"........oh right ya didn't use it lmao.....

there's no debating sex work objectifies women and where legalized and decriminalized violence against all women has increased.....except it seems NZ......if you want to believe the years old propaganda from the government....other agencies say different though and yep the links are all over this thread if people want to look.

"decreasing safety" was not the words you used.

the industrialization of us does