never said 99% of take anywhere, you and "susi" sure like to put words in people's mouths.
....you say 50% take above by the dude "susi" wants to move in and set up shop. what a 'living wage'...not!!! after taxes, and mandatory contributions there would be sfa left to live on.
unless "sex workers", like other 'legalized' countries are experiencing, don't bother declaring income or paying taxes and making contributions. i can't see why Canadian ones would be any different, can you?
why do you think sex workers don't pay taxes....? to get a mortgage, credit card, car loan you need a declared income.....
MOST sex workers do pay taxes, or they cannot get by in modern life....
and i realize what i am saying about HOF is purely speculative and i mostly was talking to him about not spreading myths about sex workers lives via media in canada in this critical time....not about him setting up a business here.
while i understnad that its hard to imagine a $2000 an hour client in canada but i do feel like it could benefit some workers here and again, we do need more indoor ...safer jobs.
HOF as any agency does have his own clientele and they do travel the world. the reason i think he would do well here is that he has built a brand that the clients respect. i think his clients would use his service here if he were to come to canada.
its interesting to talk about the lack of clientele and the high level of competition amongst sex workers here....its true and is causing issues as far as lower prices and unsafe services being availible.....
all of these things need to be discussed and worked through by sex workers and the sex industry community as we move forward...
that said, we need a decriminalized environment to be able to work on these things......to establish what we as a community feel is acceptable in terms of fees charged by agencies, size of brothels, OHS information....
just like other jobs....we need to be able to fight for fair wages, safe working conditions and access to income (jobs)...
i mean if a new car manufacturing plant was going to open in a town where people were experienced with car manufacturing but had lost their jobs in a closure of a plant....they would be happy to have new jobs and stability for their families...
the same thing applies to sex work. so many brothels have been closed under the legal regime that was just struck down...we need jobs and places to work.....
40% to %60 is the standard take of an agency here and for that the worker has security, a work space and a person who books there calls and promotes their business....finds them clients.
that may sound high but as an independent worker i can tell you that it costs alot in advertising, rent and time to run an indy business and the same applies in an agency...
if we had decriminalization we could negotiate the percentage between workers and agencies and fight for a better cut...
but no, no....
we mus be saved through recriminalization under the nordic model, forced back into the shadow of shame where we belong. after all we are non tax paying, home wrecking, disease ridden,....
i mean really quizzical...what do you know about whether sex workers in other countries pay taxes...? nothing. i guarantee it.
is there some reason you are quoting my "susi" name like that? this is how fortunate knows me and many in the on-line communities...
are you just trying to antagonize us? insult us? i realize you struggle with being polite to us but try to understand how you come off to us...as an aggressor...someone willing to comprimise our lives for ideological reasons...some one who is rude and insulting...and dismisive....
is there some reason you are quoting my "susi" name like that? this is how fortunate knows me and many in the on-line communities...are you just trying to antagonize us? insult us? i realize you struggle with being polite to us but try to understand how you come off to us...as an aggressor...someone willing to comprimise our lives for ideological reasons...some one who is rude and insulting...and dismisive....
no, and not trying at all. i quoted your name so others would know who i was referring to based on fortunate's post.
i realize you struggle with being polite to those against decrim but try to understand how you come off to us...as an aggressor....someone willing to compromise the lives of women for monetary gain...someone who is rude and insulting...and dismissive....
there's plenty of links in this thread to reports from several countries stating tax declarations by sex workers did not go up as expected NZ was among them. maybe you should read some links other than what you yourself put up.
so snithe.....why would reporting taxes go up under decrim....? we already pay our taxes....it will remain the same....
i have never seen any reports related to paying taxes...please provide a link.
and who is "us" quizzical?
thanks for calling me greedy, its always nice to hear what you really think....what a joke....
susan, several links in this thread were about countries selling decrim of the sex industry to their citizens by way of underground money becoming declared, it's everywhere on line just do a google. i can't be bothered looking for you as i get you don't read any links except your cherry picked ones.
i was feeding your own words back to you, and now you think to play victim, good luck!!!!
i am not a victim...never have i claimed to be one...i am a survivor...and am strong.....show me your "sex workers are so greedy and don't pay taxes" link....whatever...happy ishtar....
never said 99% of take anywhere, you and "susi" sure like to put words in people's mouths.
....you say 50% take above by the dude "susi" wants to move in and set up shop. what a 'living wage'...not!!! after taxes, and mandatory contributions there would be sfa left to live on.
unless "sex workers", like other 'legalized' countries are experiencing, don't bother declaring income or paying taxes and making contributions. i can't see why Canadian ones would be any different, can you?
No, all you said was that all the sex worker was left with was enough for a big mac. I am not sure why you get uptight when someone puts a number on your assumption, it is virtually the same thing to say a 99% agency fee than it is to say 5.00 off of a $100.00 call which is what you are implying.
You just said that in your opinion none of the sex workers are getting enough off the fees to buy food, so why would you then go on to slam them for not paying taxes? According to you they don't get enough money to qualify to pay taxes lol. Not paying taxes is not the same thing as not doing taxes and/or declaring an income, btw. it would be quite difficult for any employee, which is what you were talking about, to prove that they have no income, and therefore pay no taxes.
This is a circle you go around, on the one hand declaring them all victims of extortion, and the other of being tax evaders, which are usually the privilege of the elite? I cannot follow illogical conclusions.
Hof, in the example, in Nevada, takes 50% of what I already posted is an hourly rate of 2000.00 or maybe 500.00 for 15 minutes.
If someone gets 50% of $2,000 or even of $250, i have a hard time believing they are not making enough of a 'living' wage. Considering the 50% deducted covers their accomodation and food while staying at the brothel. Medical services as well, and if you don't know, private medical insurance in the US is astronomical.
In those 'cherry picked' links provided by the pro choice faction, did you bother to read any of the information that debunks the ones that you find by googling? If you rely on misinformation, of couse people are going to challenge you. If you provided stats canada or CRA results, maybe they would lol.
You see the reports that indicate sex workers are slow to report taxes as sex workers, but ignore that the reason given for this is that there is a high level of stigma in identifying as such, or in some countries, it may end up leading to them being arrested, or their clients, or their landlords. So how do you expect a sex worker, so marginalized and isolated from others, to stand up and be counted this way? In Canada, many do not report as escorts, but use other categories instead. Some sex workers avoid it out of fear, of judgment and exposure.
'susi' focuses on decrim and regulations because those are the things that actually help workers. If Canada had decided to outlaw all unionization, would people now be better off or worse off, given that they would still be working, and choosing what they work at? Why anyone wants to deny an entire group of workers the ability to resolve their working conditions themselves is beyond me, in this day and age and knowing what we know now.
To those who want to deny these workers this kind of freedom, how do you sleep at night knowing that you have the right to due process due to the unions or worker's rights folks, but there is this one group you deliberately and maliciously decided to deny those same rights and freedoms. Fortunately the SCC did NOT agree with that kind of that blatant discrimination. One can only imagine why or how some people consider that sex workers are less important than other citizens, and should not be allowed access to those same rights. And they want the police to enforce this on these women and men, they don't even have the courage to do it themselves.
Go out now, call some up, email, text them, they all have ads and tell them directly: "you don't matter to me, I don't care what you want for yourself, I know better than you do what your experiences are, what your history is and most importantly what you need to get by day to day. And further to that if you even think about objecting, I plan to ensure that the government enacts a law that essentially strips you of your ability to pay your rent, pay your bills, or even feed your child, in order to force you into these fancy govt funded programs that i have decided you need to 'save' you."
Go ahead, do that, and then report back to everyone about how that went over lol..
quizz, you need a sense of humour and a thick skin. I think you would last about 5 minutes as a sex worker, the first phone call would throw you off, mostly because the guy would not sound like a super villain from a cartoon show.
However, it is a deep sign of male, macho entitlement. I'm sure some women use gigolos, but I don't have a single female friend who would see that as a viable solution to the "best before" date tacked onto women.
The whole setup is the most naked proof of patriarchal oppresison.
Wow! Lagatta. What a statement! I think you just expressed the true deep feeling of many in regards with prostitution: you see it as competing force to seduction and love relationships, particularly those of aging women. The General Social Survey (USA) estimates that around 1% of men visite prostitutes in a year. I think you have some room to breath.
Wow! Lagatta. What a statement! I think you just expressed the true deep feeling of many in regards with prostitution: you see it as competing force to seduction and love relationships, particularly those of aging women. The General Social Survey (USA) estimates that around 1% of men visite prostitutes in a year. I think you have some room to breath.
what a fucking condescending bull shit comment. if i needed any proof of wanting to continue patriarchial oppression surrounding this i just got it from you.
Yes, you wilfully misread my post. I wasn't referring to women in the sex trade as "scabs"; I was talking about a trade fuelled by patriarchy, and very rarely used by women.
Somebody a while back (think it was on this thread) referred to sexual repression as a reason for the trade - of course that is the case. In many places women can't even nurse their babies in public, which makes seeing titties a rare and profitable commodity (yes, I know that isn't prostitution; the sex trade is a far broader category).
In Rome of the Cinquecento, just before the sack of the city, the Eternal City had the greatest number of printing presses (a brand-new technology back then) and the greatest number of prostitutes, serving theoretically celibate men...
I was talking about a trade fuelled by patriarchy, and very rarely used by women.
I am sorry to have misread that:
I'm sure some women use gigolos, but I don't have a single female friend who would see that as a viable solution to the "best before" date tacked onto women.
It was indeed an obvious critic of patriarchy.
BTW, may I suggest you to read the quoted sentence again: your friends do not think seeing gigolos is a viable solution to the best before tag put on women? Really?
No, and neither do I.
why would we?
from this thread http://rabble.ca/babble/sex-worker-rights/nordic-model-claimed-successes-and-documented-effects which i hadn't even seen.
http://www.plri.org/sites/plri.org/files/Impact%20of%20Swedish%20law_0.pdfUnintentional 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 "
then elle fury responds with the actual facts about susan's touted study! wtg elle!!!!
Yes, there is a response to this. Susanne Dodillet and Petra Östergren also have an agenda. If you can discredit the research of abolitionists based on "bias", we can do the same with the research of pro sex industry supporters.http://projectrespect.org.au/system/files/Sweden%27s+prohibition+of+sex.pdf
"Furthermore, few persons outside of Sweden seem to know how Östergren selected her sample of 20 prostituted women interviewees to whom she refers frequently. Clues are given in her book published in Swedish in 2006. There, Östergren explicitly states she did not attempt to contact or hold interviews with "sellers of sex"who had "primarily bad experiences of prostitution (Östergren,2006,168),but,rather,intentionally sought women with "completely different experiences” since the former, she claims,were the only ones heard in Sweden”(p. 169).8 Similarly, her 2003 graduate thesis refers to interviews with fifteen female“sellers of sex”of whom "most. . . have a positiveview of what they do”(Östergren, 2003, 17).Thus, when she mentions "informal talks and correspondence with approximately 20 sex workers since 1996”(Östergren, n.d.) in her English-language piece, she apparently refers to respondents who were selected precisely because they had positive views of the institution of prostitution. When writing that“[m]ost of the sex workers I have interviewed reject the idea that there is something intrinsically wrong with their profession”(n.d.), evidently she should have informed the reader that the interviewees were selected precisely because they had this view, and that critics were excluded."
thanks for exposing the bogus study elle fury!!!!!! and this is what i got from susan's post:
There are several reported unintended, negative effects of the Sex Purchase Act....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.
i don't think this is a negative effect at all, imv it's good to see the johns stigmatized and lose their jobs!! just more proof as to where Canada needs to go it's high time men stopped believing all women are is vaginas to exploit.
and......funny how the quoted part of susan's quote indicates where the sex workers are really at by way of robbing and blackmailing their "clients".
quizzical, quoting something out of context that doesn't actually prove anything and dragging it over here is unnecessary. And a bit misleading. The original topic was based on more than Petra's interviews with sex workers in the past. Petra was one researcher in a team effort, and the article was not a part of her other work. Elle including it as 'proof' was faulty.
re: lagatta, i had a hard time understanding what you were responding to with your post. On the topic of women and gigolos, well, there is a pretty good reason for them rarely using gigolos. One is income, the lack of an income high enough to use some of it on a luxury like hiring a male sex worker is less likely for women. An added stigma of doing this, Unlike for men, this isn't considered a rite of passage or necessity of life, women are stigmatized for liking or wanting sex in the first place, they are unlikely to go looking for a paid enounter, and another key point is that women rarely need to seek the services of paid companions. There is little any woman need do, in this society at least, other than make it known she is willing and ready to have sex and a dozen or hundred guys will be on her doorstep. I met a guy who is 80 years old, he's got girlfriends lol
however, i guarantee that even those women you mention, have seen at least one male sex worker, because my guess at least one of them has, one way or another, seen a male stripper.
We are still a long way from women admitting they even like sex, let alone seek it out from a directly casual NSA approach. That is why sex workers are so stigmatized and false accusations and assumptions made about them 'on their behalf'. Women can't like or enjoy sex or if they do it can only be in a caring sharing situation, and nothing else is acceptable in any patriarchal society. It is time for an attitude shift, imo.
On page 7 of the link Susanne Dodillet and Petra Östergren state:
"The material has been supplemented with our previous research and examples from current debates in the media and the Internet as well as statements by sex workers."
The fact that Dodillet and Östergren have an agenda and have previously provided misleading research is important when considering the conference paper posted by Susan as it is authored by them.If an abolitionist had posted a paper written by Farley, I'm sure the pro prostitution lobby would not hesitate to cry "bias" and disregard anything it says even if it references research conducted by other researchers and organizations. If you bother to read it, the link I posted to the paper written by Waltman also addresses many of the other critiques of the Swedish law presented in Dodillet and Östergren's paper .
But anyway, I don't want to get into a "research" war because it is not necessary to knowing that buying sex is unethical and contrary to the goal of achieving women's equality. All one needs to do is look at the individual act itself: a man pays a woman to erase her own sexual desires in order to please him. How is that not the epitome of patriarchy? And a man not caring about the fact that a woman does not truly want to have sex with him is the epitome of rape culture and is exactly what happens in this "transaction". This fact cannot be explained away by any research.
On page 7 of the link Susanne Dodillet and Petra Östergren state:
"The material has been supplemented with our previous research and examples from current debates in the media and the Internet as well as statements by sex workers."
Supplemented, Elle. Here is page 7 for those interested:
In order to assess the validity of the claims that the Sex Purchase Act has been a success, we have mainly used material from authorities that have been responsible for reporting on prostitution and evaluating the policy. These are: the National Board of Health and Welfare, a government agency under the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, that has conducted three reports;21 the National Council for Crime Prevention, a council that functions as the government’s body of expertise within the judicial system, from which we looked at four reports;22 the National Police Board and its 11 annual reports on trafficking, one early evaluation of the ban and one local report on prostitution;23 the previously mentioned 2010 official evaluation of the Sex Purchase Act and the response from 52 referral bodies.24 These authorities have in their turn collected information from police, social workers, NGOs, academic research and some interviews with people with experience of prostitution. Some of the authorities have conducted their own surveys.
We have also consulted the findings from the official inquiry into prostitution that was published in 1995,25 the special inquiry made by the Norwegian Ministry of Justice in 2004 “Purchasing sexual services in Sweden and the Netherlands”;26 the 2008 research project “Prostitution in the Nordic Countries”, which was carried out on behalf of the Nordic Council of Ministers for Gender Equality by the Nordic Gender Institute (NIKK);27 the 2008 survey “See me” by the National Board for Youth Affairs;28 a 2010 report by the Prostitution Knowledge Center in Malmö29 and; the 2011 report by the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (RFSL).30 The material has been supplemented with our previous research and examples from current debates in the media and the Internet as well as statements by sex workers.
The purpose of the paper is to examen historical and present claims about the Sex Purpose Act. It is flawless on all methodological standards for a scientific discussion. Dodillet is a historian. She goes back and forth in the history of ideas about prostitution and she examines the claims made over time by confronting them to the available evidences. Of the 106 footnotes, 4 or 5 refer to other publications by the authors. If you take time to examen each of these footnote sources, you will see that they do not refer to their discussions with the relatively small number of sex workers they have met. They do not compute figures about them.
I see absolutely no misleading research provided by her. Waltman is a bully. His accusations are so ridiculously expressed that they should make us laugh. He' going after unpublished material, opinion letters and the sort by researchers. Unfortunately, it is because he's having a harder time attacking the research material.
The critic made about Farley's famous 9 country study is less about methodological flaws, substantial however, it is about the use made of it. Her canadian sample (N=100, half First Nations) is taken in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, "one of the most econoamically destitute regions in North America." (her words, not mine). Waltman, btw, discribes that as a sample of street prostituted women in Canda. It may be usefull when you talk about Dowtown Eastside. But it's totally useless in helping to find any trait or trend of prostitution in Canada. Abolitionnists use her PTSD results over and over again in their attempt to stigmatise sex workers. But that's the only study ever made about it in Canada. Do we really need to have a discussion on the social and sanitary demographic carateristics of DES compared to Canada?
Of course, the conclusion expands the subject. That's what conclusions are for. And it is superbly made:
Hence, as we and others have written elsewhere, we believe that it is in the ideological and cultural domains that the creation of the “unique” Sex Purchase Act and the above mention discrepancy must be found. It has to do with a desire to create and uphold a national identity of being the moral consciousness in the world; with notions or “good” and “bad” sexuality; with the whore stigma; with creating new forms of sexual deviancy; with a communitarian, rather than liberal, political culture, and perhaps above all: a stereotypical and uninformed understanding of prostitution.102
Our stance when it comes to policy regarding prostitution is that it has to be based on knowledge rather than morality or radical feminist ideology. We also believe that when policy is developed, the actors at the heart of this policy must be adequately consulted and duly respected. In our opinion, this has not been the case with regards to “the Swedish model”.
quizzical, quoting something out of context that doesn't actually prove anything and dragging it over here is unnecessary. And a bit misleading. The original topic was based on more than Petra's interviews with sex workers in the past. Petra was one researcher in a team effort, and the article was not a part of her other work. Elle including it as 'proof' was faulty.
not a thing was quoted out of context, i brought the whole thread contents over here, including the reference quote of susan's saying prostitutes are stealing from, and blackmailing, john's.
dragging it over here is necssary as the sex workers forum is to support sex workers position and i do not, so i respected the space and brought it here as i have something to say about it.
and the proof is not faulty elle clearly pointed out above the hypocrisy in stating it.
"It has to do with a desire to create and uphold a national identity of being the moral consciousness in the world; with notions or “good” and “bad” sexuality; with the whore stigma; with creating new forms of sexual deviancy; with a communitarian, rather than liberal, political culture, and perhaps above all: a stereotypical and uninformed understanding of prostitution."
This really bugs the crap out of me. This is NOT about women's sexuality. It is not about sexuality at all. It is about commercializing sex and putting women in the position of having to sexually service men they are not attracted to because they are economically disadvantaged as a group.
Of course a law is not going to eradicate thousands of years of patriarchy in only a little over a decade. No one here is claiming it's perfect, but it's a start. What needs to change the most is men thinking it is okay to have sex with someone who is not attracted to them because they have money. This attitude is at the heart of rape culture. What kind of person doesn't care that the person they are having sex with doesn't really want it? I'll tell you: one who is selfish and lacks empathy; someone who has an attitude that closely resembles the attitude of a rapist. So it is not a surprise that violence is prevalent in prostitution.
Pro prostitution lobbyists like to attack the research of abolitionists because that's all they've got. They know they do not have any moral or ethical grounds to stand on to justify the inherent harm that the practice of prostitution causes women. And the fact that SOME "sex workers" claim they like selling their bodies for the use of men's sexual gratification is entirely irrelevant. Environmentalists who oppose the oil industry do not have to get the support of all those who work in it to justify advocating for the end of society's dependency on non renewable resources. No, people accept the justification that the industry harms our shared environment. When it comes to seeing the bigger picture in this case, most on the left get it. But for some reason, when it comes to women's rights and equality, many do not.
Abolitionists shouldn't have to argue why we need to get rid of prostitution. Those who support its continuation should have to justify why an "industry" that harms so many women and children should be allowed to continue.
Thank you, Elle.
Abolitionists shouldn't have to argue why we need to get rid of prostitution.
Oh, well - that's that then. It's not a discussion board at all. Please disregard the previous 370 comments.
Pro prostitution lobbyists like to attack the research of abolitionists because that's all they've got.
Absolutely - those pesky facts are such a nuisance. Just ask Harper.
Abolitionists shouldn't have to argue why we need to get rid of prostitution. Those who support its continuation should have to justify why an "industry" that harms so many women and children should be allowed to continue.
Ready to get rid of mariage on the same grounds?
Marriage isn't an industry, and if you'd like to start a thread to discuss its overall harms, feel free. It isn't relevant to this discussion, however.
zerocarbs, the pro-sex work lobby itself has habitually made assertions with weak or cherry-picked data (if any) and dismissed data that doesn't support its cause out of hand. I've seen lots of character assasination, but little in the way of clear rebuttal.
What needs to change the most is men thinking it is okay to have sex with someone who is not attracted to them because they have money. This attitude is at the heart of rape culture. What kind of person doesn't care that the person they are having sex with doesn't really want it? I'll tell you: one who is selfish and lacks empathy; someone who has an attitude that closely resembles the attitude of a rapist. So it is not a surprise that violence is prevalent in prostitution. .......And the fact that SOME "sex workers" claim they like selling their bodies for the use of men's sexual gratification is entirely irrelevant. Environmentalists who oppose the oil industry do not have to get the support of all those who work in it to justify advocating for the end of society's dependency on non renewable resources....
Abolitionists shouldn't have to argue why we need to get rid of prostitution. Those who support its continuation should have to justify why an "industry" that harms so many women and children should be allowed to continue.
good words.....
Timelimit, throughout history and still today, both have involved sex for money or other types of material advantages in addition to emotional bound. I stand by my remark.
It's an industry as far as you can define prostitution as the aggregate production or the aggregate demand of a service. However, I would dispute that it has any significant large-scale vertical or horizontal integration. I would be interested to examine any claims that sex workers organisations represent anybody else then the sex workers themselves, IMHO a good sign they want to control their own lives. There are some lobby groups run by bosses of courses, like the strip clubs' owners who succeeded in convincing the Canadian government to emit work permits to foreign strippers. But strip clubs are legitimate in Canada. I simply see no boss trying to weight in the present debate. I'd be glad to be contradicted on this.
I agree there is a lobby. But the sex workers themselves control the lobby. Depicting them as the lobby of an industry in which the sex workers are the victims would be ludicrous. From what I know, the bulk of their fight is against the abuses within the industry and by law enforcement. They don’t lobby in the name of the oppressors, they are fighting against them.
The overall harm
Harm is so closely associated to prostitution in our representations, including those involved, that it is very difficult to put ourselves in the position a cold scientific observer (building typologies, assessing the prevalence, providing models of explanation, producing useful conclusions for action). “I’ve seen too much of it, no need for more demonstration” is a natural response because emotions are part of what we are.
No one disputes that harm is a serious issue in the sex trade. And we know it is a very complex one, involving the vulnerability to sexual predators and police authority, the sanitary conditions, the limits imposed by laws, the psychological vulnerabilities of the sex workers themselves and a lot more.
Is it possible to reduce harm? No one can dispute that. Campaigns to encourage condom use everywhere in the world have had undisputable results in reducing harm. Police collaboration with sex workers in the cities where it happens do reduce harm, at least that of the police itself. The list of harm reduction measures is endless.
Of course, prohibitionists are radically opposed to harm reduction measures. The Swedish government does not permit any condom distribution to sex workers by its employees, the same for the Mouvement du Nid in France. The idea of having harm reduced is counter productive for those who want the phenomena to disappear. An other example is the campaign mounted against the growing erotic massage parlour sector in Montreal. They have targeted a sex work sector conducive to harm reduction considering their security features.
Character assassination is one thing, Timebandit. Harm reduction assassination is an other.
Timelimit, throughout history and still today, both have involved sex for money or other types of material advantages in addition to emotional bound. I stand by my remark.
your condescending patriarchal attitude, as expressed by changing timebandits name to "timelimit", when you clearly know the right name as you used it at the end of your spiel, renders your remarks and opinions mute and of no consideration.
Is it possible to reduce harm?
no. and infantalizing prostitutes to not being able to provide condoms for themselves, or don't know about the health benefits of their use, kinda flies in the face of what you in the pro lobby are trying to sell us.
Of course, prohibitionists are radically opposed to harm reduction measures.
bs, stop trying to paint us as wanting to cause harm. our harm reduction beliefs are just different from the pro lobbyists.
The Swedish government does not permit any condom distribution to sex workers by its employees,
why in hell would any government workers provide condoms to prostitutes? if they are the emancipated women you all try to portray them as they would be providing their own.
The idea of having harm reduced is counter productive for those who want the phenomena to disappear.
ya right in your own mind
Character assassination is one thing, Timebandit. Harm reduction assassination is an other.
and still more nonsense.
Reflecting on Ell fury's post with great respect I do not think the analogy to the oil sands works for several reasons. The first is that oil consumption is something everyone does. Two climate change will kill everything. The sex dared does neither of these. Moreover oil based mass consumption commonly occurs in public, ie cars, and it is easier to outlaw/regulate what goes on Iin public. The sex exchange occurs between two people who are commonly not in the public view. This leads to the question of wether state action through criminal sanction, policing arrest and incarceration can actually stop prostitution. We need to address the practical part of the question. As part of that debate we should consider the massive failure, violence and misery of prohibition of alcohol and drugs. Is prostitution really any different?
yes, it is different you are taking goods, we are talking exploitation and fostering of a rape culture
Character assassination is one thing, Timebandit. Harm reduction assassination is an other.
Yes, and melodrama is another.
I'm all for harm reduction. I'm even more for harm elimination - and that includes the harm for all women, not just sex workers. As quizzical points out, those of us on the abolition side have trouble with the logic that enabling an idustry that, at its foundation, is based on the objectification and commodification of the female body will reduce harm in any significant way. So we have a philosophical difference.
Character assasination in inherently dishonest - or are ad hominem attacks okay in terms of this discussion? At any rate, we see a lot of tearing down of the researcher/writer, less dismantling of the substance of the argument from the pro lobby. I certainly haven't seen anything that is compelling enough to change my mind - as I frequently do when presented with a good argument on something.
And we still haven't had any argument about how the foundational issue (sex work objectifies and commodifies women which makes it inherently counter to being positive for women) that I mention above can be dealt with while still supporting continuation of the sex industry. Lots of dancing around it, lots of ad hominem attacks, not one whit of substance. Just: "No it isn't". Oh, well then. That's convincing...
shartal, I think the point is that we are talking about environment. Metaphorically, the social environment as paralleled by the actual environment.
I don't think it matters whether "oil consumption is something everybody does" - not all of it comes from the tar sands, nor does it need to. It's just one aspect of the whole enchilada. And it is poisoning that particular environment, just as institutions that perpetuate the assumptions of rape culture (I'm a guy, therefore I'm entitled to sex on demand) poison the environment for all women.
Timberbandit, I do not understand what exactly in meant exactly by objectification. Sex is an act of objectification in itself, so is work for others. I guess you refer more to the deprivation of the human attributes of the other person. I accept that it is probably the case of some clients of sex workers as much as it is the case with some legit employers with their employees. However, I think sex workers-clients relations are more complex than that. As for commodification, it is about sex, not the person: sex as a commodity. If you think prostitution is the act of buying a person, then it's obvious we disagree right from the start, on the "foundational issue" to use your words. I side with the dictionnaries. It's not a philosophical difference, it is a semantic one.
Happy to see you are all for harm reduction. Let me quote Wikipedia:
Harm reduction (or harm minimization) is a range of public health policies designed to reduce the harmful consequences associated with various, sometimes illegal, human behaviors. Harm reduction policies are used to manage behaviors such as recreational drug use and sex work (or prostitution) in numerous settings that range from services through to geographical regions. Critics of harm reduction typically believe that tolerating risky or illegal behaviour sends a message to the community that such behaviours are acceptable and that some of the actions proposed by proponents of harm reduction do not reduce harm over the long term.
The true abolitionnists like Josephine Butler side with harm reduction. Those calling themselves abolitionnists today are not abolitionnists, they are prohibitionnists, they want to outlaw prostitution, like in Sweden. Harm reduction is a no no for them, a contradiction in the path to eradicate prostitution.
You complain about the lack of substance, yet your post is all about concept definitions.
doublon, sorry
Gustave, don't complain about a post being full of definitions when your first comment in response is "I do not understand what exactly in meant exactly by objectification." It seems apparent that definitions are in order. I'll oblige, with two quotes from Wikipedia:
In social philosophy, objectification means treating a person as a thing, without regard to their dignity.According to the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, a person is objectified if they are treated:[1]
- as a tool for another's purposes (instrumentality);
- as if lacking in agency or self-determination (denial of autonomy, inertness);
- as if owned by another (ownership);
- as if interchangeable (fungibility);
- as if permissible to damage or destroy (violability);
- as if there is no need for concern for their feelings and experiences (denial of subjectivity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification
Sexual objectification of women[edit]The objectification of women involves the act of disregarding the personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities of a female; and reducing a woman's worth or role in society to that of an instrument for the sexual pleasure that she can produce in the mind of another.[1][10][dubious – discuss] Although opinions differ as to which situations are objectionable, some feminists[11] see objectification of women taking place in the sexually oriented depictions of women in advertising and media, women being portrayed as weak or submissive through pornography, images in more mainstream media such as advertising and art, stripping and prostitution, men brazenly evaluating or judging women sexually or aesthetically in public spaces and events, such as beauty contests, and the presumed need for cosmetic surgery, particularly breast enlargement and labiaplasty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification
I feel a bit like I'm teaching you feminism 101, here, Gustave, so if you have questions about objectification of women, I encourage you to do some reading on your own.
Sex is an act of objectification in itself, so is work for others. I guess you refer more to the deprivation of the human attributes of the other person. I accept that it is probably the case of some clients of sex workers as much as it is the case with some legit employers with their employees. However, I think sex workers-clients relations are more complex than that. As for commodification, it is about sex, not the person: sex as a commodity. If you think prostitution is the act of buying a person, then it's obvious we disagree right from the start, on the "foundational issue" to use your words. I side with the dictionnaries. It's not a philosophical difference, it is a semantic one.
Dude, if sex is an act of objectification for you, yer doing it wrong. And you have my deepest sympathy.
So here's how it works (oy, back to Feminism 101). Both objects and services can be commodified. You can't entirely divorce the commodification of sexual services from the physicality of the body providing the service and the inherent objectification of that physicality. In effect, the possessor of the physicality is diminished as an object rather than as a person. So while you are not technically buying that person, you are still participating in the objectification of that person. It doesn't matter if the relationship is "complex" or not (although I'm sure it varies) - as soon as it becomes a commercial transaction, commodification has occurred.
Your argument above consists of admitting you don't know what I'm talking about, mansplaining (please do tell me what sex *actually* is, my poor little female brain just can't figure that out), put some words in my mouth (I don't recall having said that I " think prostitution is the act of buying a person") then dismissing my argument as "semantics". In the Feminism Forum. Full points, bro.
Regarding employment - There are forms of employment that aren't acceptable, that can create harm for others. We are talking about an industry that diminishes women by promoting objectification and by extension, rape culture. I'm not sure how you come around to thinking that's fine. In any case, get a little common sense, already, and apply liberally. It's not the same thing because it does not create the kind of poisonous environment women navigate.
For those who think employment = prostituting themselves, all I can recommend is a reduction in melodrama.
criminalizing johns = the easist harm reduction strategy there is
Thanks for the lesson Tmberbandit. I like the professoral tone! May I suggest you pay more attention to the original message. Objectivisation is a gender theory concept, I know that very well. I don't think it is very useful because it conflates two different things: instrumentalisation and abuse. I only took the softer aspect of it, instrumentalisation, and said we all do that in one way or the other in our day to day life. Kant says we should not. I have a more empiricist, utilitarian, view. The other aspects of objectivisation as defined by gender theory are pathological, present in prostitution of course, but by no means defining aspects of prostitution. To use your own words, tthere are forms of prostitution that are not acceptable.
You can't entirely divorce the commodification of sexual services from the physicality of the body providing the service and the inherent objectification of that physicality.
I agree and I see no problem with it as far as we take the objectification in the sense of instrumentalisation. I think there is indeed an objectification of the physicality, for both men and women in the act of sex, be it casual or monogamous. It is assymetrical in prostitution. Clients objectifies the physicality of the provider and the sex workers objectify otherwise the clients. However, this has nothing to do with taking away agency, self ownership or anything linked to rape.
True you did not write prostitution is the act of buying a person. My bad. I though your use of the the word objectification was in conformity with the definition you just provided.
"no. and infantalizing prostitutes to not being able to provide condoms for themselves, or don't know about the health benefits of their use, kinda flies in the face of what you in the pro lobby are trying to sell us."
Love it. Excellent job pointing out the absurdity of the if-you-point-out- someone-is-a-victim-of-an-oppressive-system-you-are-infantalizing-them argument, quizzical!
Sexual objectification of women[edit]
The objectification of women involves the act of disregarding the personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities of a female; and reducing a woman's worth or role in society to that of an instrument for the sexual pleasure that she can produce in the mind of another.[1][10][dubious – discuss] Although opinions differ as to which situations are objectionable, some feminists[11] see objectification of women taking place in the sexually oriented depictions of women in advertising and media, women being portrayed as weak or submissive through pornography, images in more mainstream media such as advertising and art, stripping and prostitution, men brazenly evaluating or judging women sexually or aesthetically in public spaces and events, such as beauty contests, and the presumed need for cosmetic surgery, particularly breast enlargement and labiaplasty.
Thanks, Timebandit and exactly. I get that men like Gustave don't understand this concept, but what really gets me are the liberal feminists who speak out against objectification of women in the media, advertising, etc., but then turn around and support prostitution, which is the ulimtate objectification of women. It can also be argued that models who pose for pictures that objectify women in advertising "choose" their work too. But somehow liberal feminists don't focus on the choices of these women. Once again, they get that the issue is more than about individual choices; it's about how these images affect society's view of women as a whole. So why then do they not apply this same logic to prostitution?
from sex worker forum
so sick of the "for the betterment of all women" crowd....i am not your sacrificial lamb in the name of ending fucking patriarchy. find another way, comprimising my life, safety, health and happiness is not the way.
i don't care what the government does, my life will remian the same. want to put me in prison, bring it....want to starve me out by criminalizing my customers, whatever...
elle fury's great response
"so sick of the "for the betterment of all women" crowd...."
So you are sick of feminism? Because that's what feminism is about: making the world a better place for all women. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism
"comprimising my life, safety, health and happiness is not the way."
I am not comprimising your life, safe, etc.. That's a ridiculous accusation and it, once again, takes the focus off those who actually do commit violence against women: the johns. It's the misogynisitc men who feel they are entitled to sex who treat the women they buy as objects to use at their pleasure: http://the-invisible-men.tumblr.com/. Why don't you ever acknowledge and address the SOURCE of the violence?
"want to put me in prison"
For the last time, abolitionists don't want to put sex workers in jail.
"want to starve me out by criminalizing my customers"
So is this an acknowledgement that the Nordic model works? Because you are constantly citing sorces that claim the Nordic model does not reduce prostitution/reduce the demand for prostitution, but here you are saying the exact opposite!
from the sex workers forum
no comments? about the swedish governments admited failures...? surprise suprise......just because aboltionists don't want to acknowledge it, doesn't make it untrue....as it were
I'm sorry, but this comment suggested to me that she was inviting responses from abolitionists. But... whatever. I have no problems taking it over to the feminist forum.
well guess it was a baited question being viewed after the fact. bit weird if you ask me!!!!!
I really wish the thread title could be changed to read "Defence". Gord, I'm tired of creeping USian English...
But anyway, I don't want to get into a "research" war because it is not necessary to knowing that buying sex is unethical and contrary to the goal of achieving women's equality. All one needs to do is look at the individual act itself: a man pays a woman to erase her own sexual desires in order to please him. How is that not the epitome of patriarchy? And a man not caring about the fact that a woman does not truly want to have sex with him is the epitome of rape culture and is exactly what happens in this "transaction". This fact cannot be explained away by any research.
But how do you justify your opinion about this and accept the fact that some women want to 'sell' sex? Because we aren't always talking about what men want to do, and what they demand, and what they expect. At the other side of this consensual adult activity is the person who actually wants and consents to providing that service, at a price. Who are you to decide what she thinks, or what he thinks, or how in fact is that any of your business, ethically speaking. Reality speaking, you have ignored all the actual input freely given, that contradicts this assumption about what the men want from the women, or the men from the men, or the women from the men, for that matter. Who are you to decide that this woman doesn't want to have sex with the person who comes to pay her? That is a huge leap of assumption with no facts to back it up.
Marriage isn't an industry, and if you'd like to start a thread to discuss its overall harms, feel free. It isn't relevant to this discussion, however.
zerocarbs, the pro-sex work lobby itself has habitually made assertions with weak or cherry-picked data (if any) and dismissed data that doesn't support its cause out of hand. I've seen lots of character assasination, but little in the way of clear rebuttal.
Timebandit, ignoring the research and links etc provided, not cherry picked, but devoid of the hysterical misleading and falsified data, is not the same thing as not providing evidence. Plenty has been provided, and Gustave had even had to dissect a report that a few people who also didn't read it want to dissect and discredit. It can't be done, because they are actually using the only evidence there is out there. And the evidence does not support the claim that the Nordic model works, in the way it was set out to work, and with the results that they even now claim it has.
You can choose to ignore the evidence, but I prefer Elle's position. She knows the evidence is there, and that it is based on real reasearch and facts, she just chooses to have a different opinion anyway, based on her personal morals. There is nothing wrong with that, it would be nicer if she didn't confuse that with bogus articles such as the one Gustave dissected. Because otherwise all we are doing is refuting nonsense articles like that one, and it wastes time.
Have your opinions, no one will deny that right to hold an opinion but please don't impose it with legislation in order to force everyone else to 'believe' it as well. It is unnecessary to create new legislation that the SCC is simply going to strike down for the same reasons they struck down the last set of legislation.
But if we do get some new laws, in spite of the fact that apparently sex workers can't be charged with anything, and in spite of the fact there is lots of evidence to suggest that they are harassed in Sweden and Norway at least, what do we do with those police officers who are men? After all, as we know, men are only out for one thing, themselves, and in a position of power, they can just take what they want. Sex worker wants to work outdoors in a particular area? Well, a police officer can either make that easy or difficult, depending on what she does for him.
And that is what is really going to happen when/if clients are criminalized, is that the corrupt cops (and there is a story in the news every week about one of these guys, right? every city has at least one up on assault charges towards sex workers), is in order for her to work, clients have to be coming and going, and in order for those clients to not be arrested and charged, she has to do favours for police officer in her area. This is the reality of criminalizing, only the criminals will succeed. Everyonen knows this about every other kind of non-traditional activity. Why they cannot make the connections with sex work is beyond me.
so what if "some" women want to sell sex?!! from all appearances, it is a minority who do, and it seems to me those just wanna sell other women's vaginas and not necessarily their own.
and now the goal posts are shifted from the violent johns, susan thinks we are forcing her to have to deal with and endangering her life, to fortunate saying there isn't any, to now they need to be saved from the corrupt cops!!! funny susan maintains the cops are on your side and part of the pro lobby!!!
i go with criminalizing the johns, even though susan's artcles states they are being robbed and blackmailed by the prostitutes serving them. i could care less if they are, seems it's effective decreasing prostitution to the amounts where susan thinks she will be starved out of business.
from the other sex worker thread and i guess onlinediscountanvils didn't read the whole article....
The Guardian: [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/view-from-the-streets-new... Nordic sex laws are making prostitutes feel less safe[/url]
"Police deny that the laws have made prostitution more dangerous. “It is dangerous to be a prostitute, whether in a country that has legislation like the Sex Purchase Act or not,” said Kajsa Wahlberg, a detective superintendent at Sweden’s National Police Board and the national rapporteur on human trafficking. “The fewer women in prostitution, the less violence. I have asked this question to police, to social services for 15 years and we have not seen an increase in violence after the act was introduced,” she said.
The acts do appear to have had an effect on human trafficking, police said."
we have not seen an increase in violence after the act was introduced,said an objective observer, who has been at the forefront of the efforts to export the swedish model in europe and around the world.
are you really having the audacity to call her credentials into question? lmaoooooooooooooooooooooo
It was a clear example of policy based evidence. I prefer evidence based policy.
yeah and totally ignores all of the harms which their own reports have uncovered....its a joke.
its all detailed here in these threads. who cares about sex workers? not abolitionists...
they want to get rid of us...well that's been working so far.....why not just round us all up into camps for re education? or better yet for hard labor ...and if we refuse...death penalty...that'll get rid of the prostitute problem....
