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

With great respect there is a central question this entire discussion does not address, even if there was unanimous agreement to abolish all forms of the sex trade. Does anyone believe that it could be achieved through criminal justice system? I do not believe that any form of prohibition enforced by criminal arrests of anyone would actually work to abolish prostitution. It has not worked up to now, why is any of this any more likely to work now?

Not really. Johns are charged here under the laws as they stand and whats changed?

In Sweden, typical 'charge' is a fine, the amount I have seen reported is approx $300.

.    Sex workers in Edmonton can also be fined, for working without a city license, an extortionate amount of money.   So the city is complicit in 'coercing' sex workers to continue to work more hours, more risks, in order to pay for the  fine or maybe pay for licensing.   Typical fine is over $1000 per offense,  typical license is approx $1600 per year, each year.  Typical license for an RMT every year is approx $150.     

The Nordic model would not stop the extortion demands of the city licensing in Edmonton, since sex work itself would still be legal. They would still set up stings to fine sex workers who do not have licenses.    

That is just an example of how the police can and will continue to target sex workers.   

And Bacchus and shartel make really solid points:  many things are (or now I guess we say 'have been") criminalized, and many clients have been charged, with solicitation charges.    It has done little to stop street work from continuing, nor from clients approaching street workers anyway.   Criminalizing that aspect has only led the general public, street workers and their clients to believe that prostitution in Canada is completely illegal.  They are often unaware that it is not, and that all they are being charged with is public nuisance.    

Whatever they think, it has in no way stopped or eliminated prostitution.  The criminalization of only clients has not stopped prostitution in Sweden, or anywhere else.   It will certainly not stop it in Canada, as i point out, the majority of those who participate continue to already think it is illegal already.  And yet they carry on doing it.     If it does become illegal, or only clients are illegal, it won't make one bit of difference to how the business operates.     

What it might do, for those who do know there is a difference, is it might make sex workers who are currently working independently, consider 'hiring' security, someone who will profit off what she used to keep for herself,.  And the only thing she will be worried about is law enforcement interfering with her clients, and interfering with her business.     

To me, Meghan Murphy is one of the most dangerous writers out there.  Someone with no interest in actually talking to sex workers, but lo and behold she already knows what is good for them,,  according to her.   

Another rabble blogger with something to say.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2014/03/ah-shouldnt-canadas-new-sex-work-legislation-include-workers-#comment-1433550

According to the Department of Justice website, an in-person consultation with "a number of stakeholder representatives" was held on March 3 "to seek their views and input" on the future of sex work legislation in Canada. There is no mention of who these individuals or groups were. What is apparent is that the perspectives of several major stakeholders were completely overlooked.

Maggie's, WISH and PEERS are three of the largest sex worker support organizations in Canada, and none of them have been contacted by the government for their input. The people who staff these organizations have many years of experience providing support to those who work in the sex trade, and no doubt have a great deal of insight to offer on the problems that exist in the industry. 

Kate Gibson, the Executive Director of WISH, reports that "No one from the government has contacted WISH to receive feedback directly from sex workers. One might hope that this would happen given that they are the ones who are the authorities in their lives and who are the most qualified to respond."

Madame Sage, a representative from Maggie's in Toronto, shared a similar revelation, lamenting that "As far as I know the government has not attempted to consult with any sex workers or sex worker organizations regarding the laws." The government hasn't reached out to PEERS in Victoria either. It is unclear who they are consulting with, and why they are not reaching out to people who have some of the most relevant experience of anyone in the country.

 

I almost thought to lodge a complaint yesterday. Remember the thread topic this discussion is in, and that it is in the feminism forum, not the sex work forum.

I certainly don't want to silence fortunate, so I didn't say anything, but I was very upset to see such language used against a young feminist who has been collaborating with rabble as a blogger, simply because she has a diffrent viewpoint from fortunate's about the commercial sex industry.

I'm an ecosocialist, there are lots of sectors of the economy we view as harmful, which does not mean that we are unconcerned with the people working in polluting or military industries, or unconnected with them. In Europe, some of the most virulent criticism of the car industry, for example, comes from within, from lifelong auto workers and trade unionists.

I do know sex workers; of course fortunate would say that the Aboriginal survival sex workers I know from giving workshops at the Native Friendship Centre aren't typical. I also know Stella members, but I'm not convinced that the sex industry is a positive thing for society and in particular for the acceptance of the commodification of women and girls that it promotes.

Like many, I don't see any easy solution. But I found fortunate's words on Meghan Murphy and her right to have her say unacceptable in a feminist forum.

quizzical wrote:

... A recent article about Melissa Gira Grant’s new book, Playing the Whore: The Work of Sex Work, demands, in its headline, that we put “our feelings aside” and look at prostitution as “a labour issue” — a strange demand to make of human beings when thinking about other human beings…"...

Strange, why (ignoring the references to feelings)? Prostitution is work. Looking at it any other way is strange to me.

rational thinking, if someone is doing it, illuminates the reality the cover of the book has everything to do with both the author and the content of the book.

i think people who are in favour of industrializing vaginas need to spend some time in AB, the province with the highest abuse rates against women, and see how many sexually exploited women there are servicing the  oil patch workers. a typical comment by the men, on any given night, is; "i'm going to go punish a crack ho so i can go to sleep and work tomorrow". this sexist, abusive and exploitive mindset, which they take home with them, is not going to change by legalizing further exploitation and dehumanizing of women.

fortunate wrote:

... I fail to make the connection between the fact that there are sex workers and all women and children (no men!) are in constant danger of being exposed to it and so therefore are going to want to become sex workers... Is sex work such an attractive and alluring thing to the general public that they think it is that easy to attract newcomers on a daily basis?

Tis all part of social conservative mythology. The So-Cons believe society as we know it is held together by thin blue stitching known collectively as laws. These stitches are buttressed by organizations such as the police, the courts, and the church (only certain approved varieties). Were the stitches to break our society would quickly devolve into anarchy and eventually we would all go to hell in our personal hand baskets. The practicle application of this myth; if prostitution is decriminalized our daughters will flock to the sex trade and have lots and lots of sex for little money. These daughters will lose interest in making babies or in tending the hearth—much to the detriment of hard working men. The daughters will become addicted to the worst drugs prohibition-inspired chemists can create and die well before their time, or before they are assigned beds in seniors' homes. A bleak scenario, no?

Look at what happened after same sex marriage was legalized in Canada. Following the passing of the new law (replacing blue stitching with red stitching) there was a huge increase in the number of folk who wished to marry their brothers or sisters, or their pets, or their first cars, or whatever... weren't there? No! Well perhaps the institute of marriage didn't turn into a sideshow because it was still governed by some form of law. If it were decriminalized... well only the Goddess knows what would have happened and she never told me, she's all about the Mysteries.

quizzical wrote:

rational thinking, if someone is doing it, illuminates the reality the cover of the book has everything to do with both the author and the content of the book.

 

i think people who are in favour of industrializing vaginas need to spend some time in AB, the province with the highest abuse rates against women, and see how many sexually exploited women there are servicing the  oil patch workers. a typical comment by the men, on any given night, is; "i'm going to go punish a crack ho so i can go to sleep and work tomorrow". this sexist, abusive and exploitive mindset, which they take home with them, is not going to change by legalizing further exploitation and dehumanizing of women.

 

q, that just tells me that you know nothing about the world of publishing, and who is in control of the book once it is sold.   The reality is, that the publishing world pimps out the creative energy of the writers and exploits them for profit.  and to do so, they want to have covers that are both catchy and controversial.    If you look at 90% of all sex work related articles in 90% of all online or hard copy versions of newspapers and magazine, the picture used will be of a scantily clad high heeled street worker leaning into a car, or up against a wall waiting for a car to show up.    The fact that the article had nothing to do with street work, or that the majority of sex workers don't work the street is irrelevant to 'selling the story'.   

Decisions about book covers are not made by the author.   Final editing decisions, as in how the book appears to the reader, is not made by the author.  If they are lucky, the facts and the basic storyline remain in tact.   if they are really lucky, there are very few changes.  But regardless, at no time do new authors have any input to book covers.   Zip.   

You also have very little clue about what clients of any sex workers actually say to themselves, each other or sex workers.  While a small minority of men in general are jack asses, I highly doubt that each and every single oil rig worker is a jack ass.    And let's keep in mind that the common slur for these guys is 'rig pigs', so insults can go both ways.   The most likely thing any one of these guys is going to be 'I'm going to get laid tonight" or perhaps more graphic than that, but i highly doubt they are going to high five each other by proclaiming they are going to go out to assault, hurt or punish a sex worker, whether she is a substance abuser or not.

I've met thousands of men.  i am not afraid of men.   They have nothing to fear from me either.   Most men are not violent nor are they killers nor do they hate women.  It is not fair to assume they do, nor accuse them of doing things or thinking things that would never occur to them.   The fact that i know this about men doesn't mean I am less pro woman, or less of a feminist.  To me, since i am older and remember a time when it was OK for me to choose to do an unconventional (for a woman) career, it didn't matter because it was unlikely i was going to get hired to do that job.    To me, based on my real life experiences, a feminist supports the choices another woman makes in order to further herself, her work or her life.    They don't slut shame her because they find sex work 'dirty', and they don't try to discredit her and infantalize her by saying she is incompetent and incapable of making a choice.  And they also don't pretend that the majority of sex workers, sane, sober and consensual, don't 'represent' sex work and therefore should not be permitted to have a voice in their own future.  

The reality is that even tho i am an indoor privileged feminist sex worker, I am still a better advocate for the outdoor worker than an abolitionist because I know the kinds of things she is going to have to face every day.   i have a better idea of what is really important, and what is not.   i know not to focus on the things that are not, and am better prepared to understand that when she wants to vent about a challenging day, she isn't saying she is desperate to leave the sex trade.  Just like everyone else in any other kind of a job, some days are more challenging.  For us, that may simply be the guy stinks, not that he is trying to kill us.   Most woman are still in more danger from their partners than from random strangers, sex workers are no different.    

fortunate wrote:

I've met thousands of men.  i am not afraid of men.   They have nothing to fear from me either.   Most men are not violent nor are they killers nor do they hate women.  It is not fair to assume they do, nor accuse them of doing things or thinking things that would never occur to them.....most woman are still in more danger from their partners than from random strangers, sex workers are no different.  

you and susan need to get your stories straight.

susan has been running around here for months if not years telling those against decrim we were endangering the lives of sex workers who need safe and security because violence against sex workers is why it needs to be decriminalized and brought into the open. 

have you looked at stats for violence against women lately? or stats on the rape and sexual abuse of young girls? if you did you'd understand it's getting worse not better.

they say we're in a rape culture for a reason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

susan davis wrote:

what does that mean...get our stories staight...? we are saying the same thing quizzical....

sex work is not decriminalized on canada, so whats the link to "rape culture"? 

i have always maintained that if we as a society raise the value of one group of "women" we will raise the value of ALL women...

don't you think that the abolitionist rhetoric casting sex working women as feeble minded victims with no voice or agency and who are no better at making decisions than children....could be diminishing the value of ALL women? do you not understand that this kind of belittling is part of the cause of "rape culture"?

i personally like "rig pigs"...its spring breakup and there are good clients coming into town from the patch all the time....i appreciate the money they spend and the respect with which they treat me....

i live with 2 rig pigs....and frankly am disgusted that you would cast an entire population of men as rapists...without any hestitation, you have condemned them all as violent against women....

who is the one creating rape culture...?

oh my.... so you're blaiming women myself included of creating the rape culture!!!!!!!!!!!!!

right!!!!!

not worth speaking with you anymore, you no longer can be taken seriously, other than to say "i also live with a rig pig and spend a lot of time with them in their territory and unlike some i'm not speaking out of my ass about this"!!!!!

i wonder.....

have you ever confronted any of your "rig pig" friends when they say they are going to "punish some industrialized vagina"? have you ever said to the person who says this to you, this is wrong...why would you say this? sex workers are people? you are abusing a marginalized woman who needs support not punishment...?

what was their reaction to your statements about how people should treat street level marginalized sex workers? do you explain why what they are doing is wrong? what was their reaction when you confronted them...?

susan davis wrote:

i wonder.....

have you ever confronted any of your "rig pig" friends when they say they are going to "punish some industrialized vagina"? have you ever said to the person who says this to you, this is wrong...why would you say this? sex workers are people? you are abusing a marginalized woman who needs support not punishment...?

what was their reaction to your statements about how people should treat street level marginalized sex workers? do you explain why what they are doing is wrong? what was their reaction when you confronted them...?

oh ya i've had huge outbursts many many times, the last time was not last week end but the one before....and said almost word for word to them and my partner what you said above. in fact our relationship almost ended over it. he's a spread boss and should be shutting down sexist and promoting of violence against women crap from his men. i'd like to see a health and safety program developed combatting this for those men who are turning feral in the oil patch.

their reaction is usually one of shock followed by an apology to me. which i reject and say "it's not me who you need to apologize to its the women you hurt and exploit and your wives." and i've even said "do you kiss your children with the belittling violent mouth of yours?"

i'm angry

I was not under the impression that susi and I are either joined at the hip or thinking with one mind.   Certainly her experiences are different than mine, and we have different opinions with one goal.  That both of us, as working sex workers, should have a voice in what happens to us and for us in the future.,

There is research to indicate that the Nordic model is considered to promote violence against sex workers,    

and of course, all other women and girls are more important than adult consensual sex workers....

Article 5

1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

can you not see that placing the rights of one group as more important than the rights of another is completely counter to human rights...?

i will say agin, if we raise the value of one group of mostly wome, will we not raise the over all value of all women?

when we are discussing prostitution laws and their impact, the majority are consensual adults who are affected. so by your reasoning, we should base laws on the majority, adult consensual sex workers...who are the ones directly impacted by potential implementation of the nordic model...the subject of this thread.

in this context, abolition or the nordic model are a human rights violation in that abolitionists want society to adopt laws for the minority of sex workers who experience violence or....to base laws on the "chance" that decriminalization MIGHT harm women and girls over all...

putting the rights of sex workers as secondary to the rights of non sex working women and girls who might be affected, is blantantly ignoring the majority of people who will be affected by any potential legal reforms in favor of ideology..or the rights of the minority....non sex working women and girls who will experience the minority of the effect of recriminalization under the nordic model...make sense?

Mórríghain wrote:

susan davis wrote:

... can you not see that placing the rights of one group as more important than the rights of another is completely counter to human rights...?

i will say agin, if we raise the value of one group of mostly wome, will we not raise the over all value of all women?

In a theoretical world placing the rights of one group over those of another may be counter to a purist's definition of human rights but in our muddled muggle world the rights of one group are often placed over those of another, usually the larger group is appeased. In that light the rights of all other women and girls are indeed more important than those of consensual prostitutes and one could argue that in a democracy the majority should rule.

Trickle-down economics has not worked for most Canadians I know, why would trickle-up(?) social rights reform work when you're focused on such a small, job-specific group of people?

i don't see legalization of industrialized sex benefitting men and a minority of women as a social rights reform. but there's been no trickle up benefits to women, not in any single country not even new zealand. none show abuse against women stats as dropping. not among women at large nor prostitutes. none show the economic well being of women increasing even.

Mórríghain wrote:

Laws such as our prostitution laws are not created to protect anyone from anything. Our laws, like most laws written anywhere in the world, are designed to maintain social order.

The victorian abolitionnist model on which the canadian law is modelled has a clear intention of protecting prostitutes. Brothels are made illegal to protect them, so is the criminalisation of all third party, so is ending os sanitary check-ups. I don't beleive there was any real fear for the social order, except for sollicitation in the public place.

It's not true that all sorts of behaviors are criminalized. It would be more appropriate to say behaviors are criminalized when they pose a threat to society or a vital threat to all those committing them.

In my humble opinion it remains to be seen that prostitution poses any significant threat to society, except for those who are hurt in their feelings. It also remains to be seen that prostitution is a vital threat for those participating. There are risks involved for sure, but there re risks involved everywhere: where and at what time we cross the road, our diet, our mode of life. There is no significant social and economical cost to help sex workers minimize those risks. 

Finally, if we use your majority rule perspective, a great majority od Canadians are in favor of legalizing prostitution.

i am saying that sex workers, adult consesual sex workers ....are the ones who pay the price for laws governing prostitution, not non sex working women and girls....

you said that laws were created for the majority....well adult consensual sex workers are the majority of the people affected by any potential law reform....not non sex working women and girls.....

not sure what is so hard to understand about this....

the impact of criminalization of prostitution on non sex working women and girls to my knowledge has never been studied....nor has the impact of decriminalization .....

the impact on sex workers has been studied over and over however...almost as if its commonly accepted that the people affected will be sex workers....not non sex working women and girls

basing any law reform moving forward on the possibility of some potential or previously unstudied or undocumented fantasy harms that will be caused to non sex working women and girls is in direct conflict with your statement about creating laws which work for the majority....

these fantasy harms which have never been documented or studied by your logic would fall into the category of the minority of impact from potential laws reform....

there fore, by saying that it might happen and moving forward based on that with total disregard for sex workers safety and rights with the idea of protecting another group...non sex working women and girls....is against the charter.

and we do have the right to work...at an occupation which we freely choose ...and to fair renumeration....and healthy safe work spaces...and to form unions....there are plenty of sections which apply to working.....

i would say i do have the right to be a sex worker and have the right to a health safe work place and to protection under the law as such...protection from discriminitory actions (implementation of criminalization of sex work) based on the minority groups fears about undocumented harms that MIGHT emerge as a result.

placing the rights of one group of mostly women over the rights of another group of women, aspecially in this conext (sex work) is in conflict with the sections which describe no section being used to subvert or undermine people's rights. 

susan davis wrote:

i am saying that sex workers, adult consesual sex workers ....are the ones who pay the price for laws governing prostitution, not non sex working women and girls....

you said that laws were created for the majority....well adult consensual sex workers are the majority of the people affected by any potential law reform....not non sex working women and girls.....

not sure what is so hard to understand about this....

You're still not picking up what I'm putting down. Prostitution does not take place in a vacuum. When the feds draft their response to the Supreme Court decision they will not only consider the wishes of those directly affected by their new law(s) – prostitutes – but also, and more importantly to the politicos, anyone and everyone in this country, regardless of gender, who has two things: an opinion and a vote. This is the majority group which the feds will try to appease (note I said appease, I've never said the majority rules).

Prostitututes are the folk who will be most affected by the new laws but Harper's lawmakers will give greatest consideration to the larger voting population which does not work in the sex trade. Guess why? If the feds upset a few hundred, even a few thousand, working prostitutes I doubt the politicos will lie awake at night worrying over possible blowback.

susan davis wrote:

the impact of criminalization of prostitution on non sex working women and girls to my knowledge has never been studied....nor has the impact of decriminalization .....

the impact on sex workers has been studied over and over however...almost as if its commonly accepted that the people affected will be sex workers....not non sex working women and girls

basing any law reform moving forward on the possibility of some potential or previously unstudied or undocumented fantasy harms that will be caused to non sex working women and girls is in direct conflict with your statement about creating laws which work for the majority....

these fantasy harms which have never been documented or studied by your logic would fall into the category of the minority of impact from potential laws reform....

there fore, by saying that it might happen and moving forward based on that with total disregard for sex workers safety and rights with the idea of protecting another group...non sex working women and girls....is against the charter.

If I were in your position I would not put too much emphasis on studies; rest assured the feds won't, or if they do they will cherry pick the paper.

susan davis wrote:

and we do have the right to work...at an occupation which we freely choose ...and to fair renumeration....and healthy safe work spaces...and to form unions....there are plenty of sections which apply to working.....

i would say i do have the right to be a sex worker and have the right to a health safe work place and to protection under the law as such...protection from discriminitory actions (implementation of criminalization of sex work) based on the minority groups fears about undocumented harms that MIGHT emerge as a result.

Prostitutes have the 'right' to work as prostitutes today but that right can be stripped away at the whim of the federal government and mark my words, the opposition parties will do little or nothing if the feds take this radical step. The right to work may be a worldly right among democratic nations but that right does not mean prostitutes and prostitution are exempt from criminalization.

You can say you have the right to work as a prostitute but only as long as it is not criminalized. If that happens (I doubt it will) good luck to you. Better call Saul.

quizzical wrote:

and there's research to indicate decriminalization or legalization of prostitution promotes violence against all women and girls......

Where is that research from again?

There has never been a direct proven link to legal prostitution and violence against women.   In countries with legal or decriminalized prostitution (do i really need to say this again?) the levels of violence against women are far lower than the ones in countries with criminalized prostitution.  Case in point, Sweden's rate versus New Zealands.   

lagatta wrote:

Gustave, Victorian attitudes and laws around prostitution were at most prohibitionist, NEVER abolitionist. 

As a matter of fact, prostitution was legal throughout the Victorian Era, regulated by Vagrancy Acts from 1824 and by the Contagious Decease Acts from 1864. Abolitionism, referring to the abrogation of the later, arrived in 1886. Prohibition is out of the question during the Victorian Era. Abolitionism became the policy of Canada a few years later, in the 1890 years. It’s based on three principals of law: 

1 The State has no business in the private affairs of it’s citizens. That’s the distinction with prohibitionism, typical of the authoritarian regimes that insist on driving the morality.

2 The State must not contribute to the exploitation of it’s citizens. It did with the Contagious Decease Acts: the medical check-ups, the obligation to submit to corrupted police controllers, etc. The answer to that one is simple: the State ought not to take part in the organisation of prostitution.

3 The State is welcome to legislate against servitude even though the accounts we have of prostitution during the Victorian Era do not show an overwhelming problem of such servitude. The typical response of abolitionist regimes is the prohibition of brothels and of all third parties in the transactions. To the contrary legalisation permits both.

I favor the New Zealand model. But that will not happen. I think we can settle with abolitionism, a regime sound in it’s principals. Even though the Bedford decision is a blow at the heart of the abolitionist devices, we can adapt.

On brothels: for their security, sex workers say they must be able to regroup and to host their clients. That does not mean we need to lets the money grabbers in the business. I’m totally allergic to the idea of having guys like Denis Hof in the landscape. Sex workers have nothing to gain from them. We all know what the perfect solution would be, even if it’s impossible to implement: worker’s owned only businesses.

On third parties: the courts were consistant in using a precise wording: the possibility to “hire” someone. The sex workers were fighting on that ground precisely. They were not making a call for anyone from outside to join in.

Contrary to what many believe, I think the Bedford decision should stay in the hands of the tribunals. It’s the tribunals who defined what a brothel is in the jurisprudence, the same for living of the avails. Himel gave the simple answer for the second: add 4 words to the criminal code: “in circumstances of exploitation”. As for the brothels, I see no other solution than to abrogate 210 and to let the municipalities do the regulation. Finally, ask the judges to go back to work.

The smartest moves the governments can make on prostitution are not in legislation anyway. They are in building a police mentality to deal with prostitution and in putting the funding of outreach projects in the hands of the public sanitary authorities.  

fortunate wrote:

they still go to the public who are still horrified that a brothel is going to pop up next to the 7-11 near their homes.     Ridiculous.    And misdirecting, because it doesn't permit discussion about how what is currently happening and will continue to happen doesn't affect anyone's lives on a day to day basis.

It's certainly the case that there are bawdy houses scattered everywhere. I think the public don't care about them as far as they stay invisible and cause no problem. Some people are afraid of the visibility that may come with legalisation or decriminaliation. It's a legimate concern. Take Montréal for instance. there have been erotic massage parlors and home operated businesses scattered all over the city for years. They became a problem the day some idiots decided to put neon lights and xxx signs on their display. People started to express concern from that moment. And I would have signed neighbors petitions against them, at least on the groud of bad taste but also because I respect citizens who don't like to see it.

The distinction you made between a brothel and a bawdy house is important. At the moment, the criminal code makes no distinction between the two. Do you see any way the law could permit one without permitting the other? Because, otherwise, if there is no restriction, I hardly see on what grounds we should refuse Hof to open the business he wants and have all the legal protection any business have.  

oh like those mega corps in germany with the corporate dudes making all the money and the girls making enough to buy a big mac.........

Gustave wrote:

 

The distinction you made between a brothel and a bawdy house is important. At the moment, the criminal code makes no distinction between the two. Do you see any way the law could permit one without permitting the other? Because, otherwise, if there is no restriction, I hardly see on what grounds we should refuse Hof to open the business he wants and have all the legal protection any business have.  

 

I think the most obvious way is that cities are going to be the ones controlling the multiple person set ups, and they can put the appropriate restrictions on them, the same way they do with XXX shops, strip clubs and bars for that matter.  None of those things open up in residential zones, so no need to actually change anything that isn't already being done.  I don't know of many large cities that don't already have bodyrub licensing, so they would simply apply what restrictions they already have in place for those.   

People no matter what the business is can't just open one up, just like that.  They have to get the license.  In some cities, the number of bodyrub licenses is limited, just i assume are the number of available licenses for other adult only types of businesses.    And the other, single or two person discreet home based business bawdy house could either require license or not.  In NZ they do not, as they acknowledge the nature of the business.    

re: your next post, that i won't quote, you make some good points.  I think Hof is going to expect that Canadian or travelers to Canada are going to be OK with his 500/15 minute rates he expects from the Nevada brothels.   But those exist in a location and country with no other options.   It is very unlikely if a guy has a choice between the novelty of a Bunny Ranch North or any other massage parlour or independent, that he is going to choose someone at 2000/hour.   That price doesn't exist anywhere in any Canadian city, and as you mention rates are lower in some cities like Montreal than they are out west.     But then in Montreal area, there really aren't as many bawdy house options, as it seems more based on the traditional escort going out to see the client than other cities (hence the lower rate)

The higher end pricey escorts in Canada only get considered higher end because they tend to have a minimum duration of 2 hours or more, and a starting rate of 400-500/hr, making a visit with them up to 1000 max.     That is only beyond the high end, which sticks with the hour minimum and maybe a max of 400.  There is little chance Hof is going to be interested in rates of 300, and there is little likelihood he is going to be able to rip off 50% of that (his standard Nevada take).    

And no, quizzical, i don't know where you think you get your info from, but no employers in legalized countries or even decriminalized ones can get agency fees of 99% of the the sex worker's rates.     And no, employers are not pimps, who actually do take 100% and demand more.     Signing a contract at a German brothel, or any other brothel is not the same thing, and i wish you would stop acting like there is no difference between the working reality of an indoor worker and an outdoor one.   The two things are quite different, and unless you start having some real conversations with those indoor massage parlour or agency sex workers, then it would be best to just not make any claims like that.

Most sex workers according to susi work for someone else, whether that means an agency or a massage parlour, they simply do not want to run their own business.   I think that they should be encouraged in this, because the end of the day, they have chosen to work in a shared environment with other sex workers, who act as a support system and a safety net.    I don't see why that in any way should be discouraged, if that is what they need or want or prefer