The point is that criminalization causes additional harms specific to sex workers. The morality and feminism that put moral principle and political ideals ahead of the human rights of actual people is what gave us the Swedish model of criminalization.
Right on!
Article in Now Magazine: What's Lena Dunham got against sex work?
Thanks. Very good video.
https://www.change.org/p/amnesty-international-secretary-general-amnesty... I signed. I can't believe I used to like Lena Dunham!
The article in the OP tackles many of the ways that sex is different from other kinds of work, which is why I selected it for discussion. There's also the matter of consent which she touches on in the section on sexual harrassment that I mentioned in the other thread. If sex requires enthusiastic consent, how can a sex worker consent enthusiastically? Is the fact that she is being paid constitute sufficient consent? Does economic coercion constitute enthusiastic consent?I can't help but see total decrim as a tacit endorsement of rape culture.
You said, "The article in the OP tackles many of the ways that sex is different from other kinds of work." Really? I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. I'm wondering if you're even referring to the correct article. The summation of the OP article was this:
Sex work is a predictably fraught policy issue, because it gets entangled in matters of morality. But this study adds to a body of research that suggests criminalizing prostitution causes higher rates of victimization and unsafe practices.
It basically was advocating decriminalization with the real life example of Rhode Island.
And regarding "consent", the only thing the OP article said on that was in its introductory paragraph:
The state's legislature amended a law in 1980, believing that the law inadvertently outlawed some forms of consensual sex between adults. That amendment created a legal loophole — one that sat unnoticed until 2003, when a District Court judge interpreted it to mean that paying for consensual sex was not a criminal offense in Rhode Island, not if it took place privately indoors. It took the state until 2009 to close the loophole.
Are you sure you're talking about the same article as the OP article?
Regardless, regarding consent, New Zealand's Prostitution Reform Act deals clearly with it:
17 Refusal to provide commercial sexual services
- Despite anything in a contract for the provision of commercial sexual services, a person may, at any time, refuse to provide, or to continue to provide, a commercial sexual service to any other person.
- The fact that a person has entered into a contract to provide commercial sexual services does not of itself constitute consent for the purposes of the criminal law if he or she does not consent, or withdraws his or her consent, to providing a commercial sexual service.
- However, nothing in this section affects a right (if any) to rescind or cancel, or to recover damages for, a contract for the provision of commercial sexual services that is not performed.
So, not only the right to refuse unsafe work, but the right to refuse any work for any basis at any time (irrespective of whether a contract has been entered into or not). Great stuff. As far as strengthening the rights of sex workers, this would be a great step forward.
You said, "The article in the OP tackles many of the ways that sex is different from other kinds of work." Really? I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. I'm wondering if you're even referring to the correct article.
It's not the OP of this discussion thread. It's the OP of a thread in the feminist safe space of the forum, where critical thinking is limited to a certain frame of thought.
You said, "The article in the OP tackles many of the ways that sex is different from other kinds of work." Really? I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. I'm wondering if you're even referring to the correct article.It's not the OP of this discussion thread. It's the OP of a thread in the feminist safe space of the forum, where critical thinking is limited to a certain frame of thought.
Really? That seems odd. The OP article about Rhode Island was the topic of this thread. Why would someone post here on the topic of another thread while ignoring the topic here?
Really? That seems odd. The OP article about Rhode Island was the topic of this thread. Why would someone post here on the topic of another thread while ignoring the topic here?
I was jumping back and forth between two threads and got mixed up; I was referring to the OP of the other thread.
It's the OP of a thread in the feminist safe space of the forum, where critical thinking is limited to a certain frame of thought.
Yes, the feminist forum. Where preventing men from talking over women hampers critical thinking and freedom of speech. Does this not imply that in the wider world, where women are talked over, that freedom of speech as we know it hinges upon the opression of women?
Just throwing that out there. Anyhow:
Article in Now Magazine: What's Lena Dunham got against sex work?
I read that article and found it to be virtually bereft of content. This one woman is happy in sex work and observes that yes; celebrities are vapid. So what? Why not address the points I have made here in this thread, like this:
A Canadian Report on Prostitution and Pornography concluded that girls and women in prostitution have a mortality rate 40 times higher than the national average. ( Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, 1985, Pornography and Prostitution in Canada 350.) In one study, 75% of women in escort prostitution had attempted suicide. Prostituted women comprised 15% of all completed suicides reported by hospitals.
The fact that some women are happy and fulfilled as sex workers does not address the brutal subjugation of the majority, nor does it prove that total decrim will make women safer.
Decrim is a popular progressive talking point. Why not question the orthodoxy and really think about what you are supporting? If your wives, mothers or daughters did sex work, would you be okay with it?
Why not address the points I have made here in this thread, like this:A Canadian Report on Prostitution and Pornography concluded that girls and women in prostitution have a mortality rate 40 times higher than the national average. ( Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, 1985, Pornography and Prostitution in Canada 350.) In one study, 75% of women in escort prostitution had attempted suicide. Prostituted women comprised 15% of all completed suicides reported by hospitals.
It's not you making the point. This is a citation reproduced on many abolitionist a web sites. But since you make it yours, I wounder if you have made some fact checking on those numbers. Did the Special Committee say exactly that? Did you find the study reporting 75% of escort women had attempted suicide? I could not. What about those amazing 15% of completed suicide reported by hospitals!!!!!!! Those are what we call "scary numbers". Most of the time they come right out of the ass of those spreading them: they are made up. For the rest, they are gross misrepresentation of the the original number.
Oh! Just to make sure I checked my previledge: I'm a white male bla bla and I feel really sorry for talking over you.
What's Lena Dunham Got Against Sex Work?
https://nowtoronto.com/news/what-s-lena-dunham-got-against-sex-work/
"As someone who gets paid to pretend to enjoy having sex on television, you can imagine how confusing Dunham's position on prostitution is to those of us who actually do sex work for a living..."
Really? That seems odd. The OP article about Rhode Island was the topic of this thread. Why would someone post here on the topic of another thread while ignoring the topic here?I was jumping back and forth between two threads and got mixed up; I was referring to the OP of the other thread.
I found the OP article of this thread is very interesting. It's a real life example (almost by accident) of how decriminalizing full service sex work statistically seemed to make it safer and empower the workers. Granted, there could always be alternate causes for the statistics it mentions. But it does make for a strong argument for decriminalization.
So, to help you not to be confused about the subject matter of this thread in the future, here is the link to the topic of this thread:
Study: Rhode Island accidentally decriminalized prostitution, and good things happened
Decrim is a popular progressive talking point. Why not question the orthodoxy and really think about what you are supporting? If your wives, mothers or daughters did sex work, would you be okay with it?
I am fine with anyone freely choosing full-service sex work as a career. I'm not fine with society endangering such workers on the basis of misplaced shame and the resultant stupid criminalization of it (including measures to make it impossible to make a living from it by criminalizing either the purchase or sale of such services).
Your disrespect towards babble policy in general and women and POC in particular has been duly noted. I'd also like to point out that your privilege is compounded by posting like a complete ass.
Oh! Just to make sure I checked my previledge: I'm a white male bla bla and I feel really sorry for talking over you.
Another righteous victory!
http://www.businessinsider.com/sex-workers-want-this-major-sex-trafficke...
Another righteous victory!
Amber Batts managed and supervised the business, trafficking to about 800 clients. She would take $100 out of $300 charged per hour, according to charges.
Babblers are defending pimps now?
Your disrespect towards babble policy in general and women and POC in particular has been duly noted. I'd also like to point out that your privilege is compounded by posting like a complete ass.Oh! Just to make sure I checked my previledge: I'm a white male bla bla and I feel really sorry for talking over you.
The citation was in response to this:
Yes, the feminist forum. Where preventing men from talking over women hampers critical thinking and freedom of speech. Does this not imply that in the wider world, where women are talked over, that freedom of speech as we know it hinges upon the opression of women?
Now, I understantand that there might be a double standard in the feminist forum, that critical thinking may be considered "talking over" who ever sets the line there. That's why I do not post there anymore.
Now, are you telling me that the double standard also applies everywhere else? That treating a member as a "complete ass" is acceptable as far as it comes from a presumed woman and is addressed to a presumed man?
The post was a response:
Why not address the points I have made here in this thread, like this:A Canadian Report on Prostitution and Pornography concluded that girls and women in prostitution have a mortality rate 40 times higher than the national average. ( Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, 1985, Pornography and Prostitution in Canada 350.) In one study, 75% of women in escort prostitution had attempted suicide. Prostituted women comprised 15% of all completed suicides reported by hospitals.It's not you making the point. This is a citation reproduced on many abolitionist a web sites. But since you make it yours, I wounder if you have made some fact checking on those numbers. Did the Special Committee say exactly that? Did you find the study reporting 75% of escort women had attempted suicide? I could not. What about those amazing 15% of completed suicide reported by hospitals!!!!!!! Those are what we call "scary numbers". Most of the time they come right out of the ass of those spreading them: they are made up. For the rest, they are gross misrepresentation of the the original number.
What about getting responding to the substance, MegB? Is it ok to throw in any made up number in a conversation as far as it favors one position or the other?
I have read the article about RI. It is, IMHO, one of the most convincing scientific argument I've come across in this debate. The study is quite solid methodologically. We have a clear correlation, but no clear causation. Also, it's only one study and it would be quite difficult to replicate because we rarely find the same quality of data. It's provocative, especially in regards to rape statistics, but less in regards with std.
Babblers are defending pimps now?
Not any "pimp". Some yes. And that one seems quite ok. There's no trafficking in this case, no one forced. So yes, some babblers do agree with the Supreme court of Canada. BTW, 100$ out of 300$ seems fair to me, way below the overcosts on salaries charged by corporations to their clients, 2,65 considered normal in the field I've worked in (they'll charge 2,65$ for every dollar paid in salary). Of course, corporation have higher expenses and obligations, but the over charge here looks quite reasonable.
Dear Sineed,
please keep your abolitionist crap out out of the forum which explicitly is for discussing sex work from a sex workers rights perspective. the "feminist" forum has plenty of room for your blind ideology.
while i have tried to not post here out of respect for sex workers who called for a complete ban of rabble, it's hard for me to stand by and watch people regurgitate the same old bullshit over and over.
i am grateful that amnesty international did broad consultations, examined the FACTS and came to the inescapable conclusion that any kind of criminalization puts sex workers at risk, including criminalization of the places where we work our customers and our employers.
maybe babblers who who believe otherwise should do the same.
at the very least babblers who do not support decrim should stay out of the only safe space for sex workers on babble.
sincerely
Regarding the Rentboy raid
What’s actually happening seems to be that the trafficking narrative is exclusively reserved for cis women. Male and/or trans women sex workers do not fit the heroic-erotic mold of the exploited (cis) woman in desperate need of rescue. Male sex workers and the largely male third parties who advertise their services are instead “running a racket,” a “global criminal enterprise,” according to the press release. They are positioned as having agency in their lives and thus are not in the pitiable condition of exploited cis women.
The Rentboy.com raid pulls the loose thread on the sweater of anti-trafficking rhetoric, unraveling its pseudo-feminist spin to reveal what many of us have always known: that it’s just sexism in new clothes. For if male sex workers can be capable of displaying what the police believe to be a criminal amount of agency, there is no rational reason that female sex workers in the same conditions cannot.
http://titsandsass.com/what-the-rentboy-raid-tells-us-about-the-gendered...
Global advocates issue a call to Amnesty International in an open letter
New York, July 23, 2015 – More than 400 national and international women's rights groups, including the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW), human rights advocates, medical doctors, actors and directors, fashion designers, faith-based organizations and concerned individuals from over 30 countries signed an open letter to Amnesty International expressing their dismay at its policy proposal calling for the decriminalization of the sex industry. If passed at Amnesty's International Council Meeting in Dublin from Aug. 7–11, this policy would in effect advocate the legalization of pimping, brothel owning and sex buying — the pillars of a $99 billion global sex industry....
"I hope and believe that Amnesty will understand the parallels with other forms of economically compelled body invasion — for instance, the sale of organs,” added Gloria Steinem.” The millions who are prostituted experience trauma and shortened lives. Legalization keeps pimps, brothel keepers, and sex-slavers in freedom and riches. Criminalization puts the prostituted in prison. What works is the ‘third way,’ the Nordic model, which offers services and alternatives to prostituted people, and fines buyers and educates them to the realities of the global sex trade.”
http://www.catwinternational.org/Home/Article/617-global-advocates-issue...
The fact of the matter is, total decrim has not been proven to make women safer.
More from the above link:
Extensive evidence shows the catastrophic effects of legalizing or decriminalizing pimping and brothels, demonstrated in Germany and the Netherlands, for example. With impunity for the commercial sexual exploitation of marginalized populations comes an increase in sex trafficking to satisfy the demand for prostitution. Studies and survivors’ testimonies demonstrate that the sex industry is predicated on dehumanization, degradation and gender violence that can cause life-long physical and psychological harm.
“A vote calling for legalizing pimping would in effect support gender apartheid, in which some women in society can demand protection from rape, discrimination and sexual harassment, while others, the most vulnerable among us, are instead set aside for consumption by men and for the profit of their pimps,” said Taina Bien-Aimé, CATW’s executive director. “This is far from what Eleanor Roosevelt envisioned for the world when she penned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
No part of babble should be defending the right of men to buy sex.
at the very least babblers who do not support decrim should stay out of the only safe space for sex workers on babble.
People shouting past one another isn't all that productive, but echo chambers are even less so, with the added disadvantage that they are dead boring.
Some of us like to hear what people have to say.
You don't like having to go back to square one? Sorry, but public forums inevitably wind up going back to square one.
Sineed, how does any of that frame it as a "right"?
And the fact is people are speaking here in support of that, and in defense of some in the sex trade.
I think anyone should be able to buy sex as long as the service provider consent to it, just as anyone should be able to offer sex as a service as long as they consent to it.
My body, my choice , not yours, or society.
... said Taina Bien-Aimé, CATW’s executive director. “This is far from what Eleanor Roosevelt envisioned for the world when she penned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”[/quote]
This is quite typical of biaised feminist rewritten history. Eleanor Roosevelt was certainly a great figure, but she did not pen the UDHR nor was it her initiative. She presided one committee, with representives of six countries, who wrote it.
Also, AI stated very clearly they do not defend any right of men to buy sex, that such right do not exist. However lound may you cry that this is the aim of AI, it will not make it a truth.
"feminist"...
I'll have nothing to say about your topic or about sex work in your space, but using "feminist" as a "bad word" is contrary to the ethos of rabble.
Gustave, I'm not moderating until monday, but Lagatta raises a valid point. Please be more mindful.
Thank you. You are welcome to remove my post if you want.
Then mine would make no sense lagatta, and besides, the point you raise should stand.
"feminist"...
I'll have nothing to say about your topic or about sex work in your space, but using "feminist" as a "bad word" is contrary to the ethos of rabble.
i am not using feminist as a bad word nor was i saying anything about feminism...i used quotations for emphasis that the feminist forum is not really an open feminist space. i am also a feminist but almost never feel safe or welcome in that supposedly feminist space.
thank you for your comment
at the very least babblers who do not support decrim should stay out of the only safe space for sex workers on babble.
People shouting past one another isn't all that productive, but echo chambers are even less so, with the added disadvantage that they are dead boring.
Some of us like to hear what people have to say.
You don't like having to go back to square one? Sorry, but public forums inevitably wind up going back to square one.
this space is clearly defined as a space for sex workers and their allies to discuss sex work from a rights perspective...
i don't think describing my post as yelling is fair. i am simply stating that there is plenty of room for discussions of criminalization outside of this space which was created for sex workers.
its one thing to "hear what people have to say" as long as its within the rights based perspective. posts about abolition and which contain mis information and debunked reseacrh quotes have no place in this forum.
allowing mis information to stand gives it validity.
there is nothing valid about melissa farely's research nor is there anything eithical or based in reality about information posted by the notorious abolitionist group CATW.
imagine an arguement against same sex marriage taking place in the LGTB forum.....would that be ok?
There being no one in particular to attack in the Feminist forum, where typically discussion gets shut down with pedantry, apparently it's necessary to come here to go on the attack, make a few complaints, get a mod to side with them, and get to feel that they've scored one over on y'all and derail discussion to boot. That's what victory looks like for some people. If the same standards were applied here as with the Feminist Forum, smith, lagatta, and sineed would be told not to post in the sex worker forum anymore. Different standards obviously apply. This is not a safe space for sex workers and their concerns, nor has it ever been. This is a place where it is permitted to continually snipe at people. Is anyone else disgusted that this is allowed to continue? Under the circumstances its a wonder Susan and others bother with this place anymore.
@Slumberjack: well said.
Some of us like to hear what people have to say. You don't like having to go back to square one? Sorry, but public forums inevitably wind up going back to square one.
Or is it that people's ideas shouldn't be challenged?
Sorry, but this dismissive shit would never get a pass in the feminist forum.
I don't speak any differently there.
There being no one in particular to attack in the Feminist forum, where typically discussion gets shut down with pedantry, apparently it's necessary to come here to go on the attack, make a few complaints, get a mod to side with them, and get to feel that they've scored one over on y'all and derail discussion to boot. That's what victory looks like for some people. If the same standards were applied here as with the Feminist Forum, smith, lagatta, and sineed would be told not to post in the sex worker forum anymore. Different standards obviously apply. This is not a safe space for sex workers and their concerns, nor has it ever been. This is a place where it is permitted to continually snipe at people. Is anyone else disgusted that this is allowed to continue? Under the circumstances its a wonder Susan and others bother with this place anymore.
I agree, support a safe place for sex workers and their concerns, and find this whole place becoming increasingly reactionary and regressive towards progressive thought or discussion.
@ Susan
Hold on a sec. I am not an abolitionist, and people there know I am not. I am taking part in the conversation, and while I agree with some of the reasoning behind abolitionist arguments I also challenge some of the applications I think won't work. And I have also made points in favour of harm reduction.
No one has asked me to leave.
For that matter I have questioned some of the absolutist thinking over here which I think is nonsense, and no one has told me my ideas aren't welcome. Good.
I think some of this is more about tone and personal feeling than any ideas, and if there is no discussion or listening between these different perspectives then it is just shouting past one another.
And SJ. You think I favour abolition? Where do you get that from? Or is it that people's ideas shouldn't be challenged?
It takes a sort of twisted, myopic application of old fashioned liberal thought, if we can charitably call it that, to conclude that decriminalization merely amounts to providing misogyny with 'entitlements,' and that therefore the precarious status quo concerning sex work must remain as it is...because let there be no doubt that the retention of criminalization of any sort where it concerns sex work and their customers only makes way for more of the same as its always been, hidden away, secret, prone to abuse and to worse fate.
Essentially, doesn't such a stance put the existing sex work management structure (pimps), and anti-decriminalization feminists in league with one another? It seems like an odd pairing if you ask me, for different reasons obviously, but the alignment produces similar, unnecessarily dangerous results. It’s like one position compliments the other in a two pronged assault against the notion of decriminalization that can provide for enhanced agency and options for sex workers.
With harm reduction strategies that emanate from sex worker communities and advocates not being acknowledged or given the time of day, it is almost as if the levels of violence are simply being chalked up as part and parcel of engaging in that type of industry in the first place, or in other words, their own fault, because it seems as if no other consideration is given to the problem beyond the fact that men are generally the ones initiating the violence, for which there is no solution except for policing, which, over the centuries has done nothing to abolish the practice, nor has it ever contributed anything toward systemic improvements in sex worker safety. It's like violence against sex workers is being used to prove the point of the anti-decriminalization stance about how terrible sex work is, without ever offering anything constructive. It's like, men are bad, sex workers beware, and we can't ever do anything about it until we achieve some utopian society where no one has to do that kind of thing anymore to survive.
And of course, the logic doesn't flatline any less when it's said that men want decriminalization because it gives them what they want, as if universally for men, support for decriminalization is the result of wanting to feather our own nests in that regard. There's no other consideration if we're chasing that line of thought to its dead end conclusion.
I'm a guy, Gustave.
And I don't want to argue about it, because I know the far ends of these positions are pretty hard to reconcile. And yes, I do see decriminalization as the best option.
But ignoring that the other side has a point is absolutist, IMO. That is to say, people here can argue that sex work is a job like most others except that it is riskier and illegal, and that might be true for some. And that people should have a right to do what they want with their bodies, and I agree with that.
But limiting the argument to that completely ignores the reality that for many people it is demeaning, unhealthy, often deadly, and something they are often driven to by addiction and other problems. And much of that cycle is driven by men controlling and brutalizing women. Personally I don't see it as a healthy line of work for most people, and I say that having known and knowing people who do sex work, and seeing the stark contrast in how the two cities in our province deal with legality:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/2-cities-2-very-different-app...
I just see both sides here either ignoring or trying to tear down the arguments on the other side. And it makes no sense to me because although obviously we don't agree on the solution, there are still truths on both sides that we would all be better off if we acknowledged.
Good article I saw on facebook today, with some very good points, and well-worth reading. Even so, the focus is less on the issue than on the abolitionist position. It is a drag that this issue, like a lot of others, is stuck at this level:
https://genderate.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/youre-not-representative/
Thanks for the the answer, SW. I, but it's just me, agree with much of what you say except for one 4 letter word: most.People working in the women violence centers see women for whom this job is often unhealthy and dangerous, both because of their personal circumstances and the dangerous setting for which the law was and is still partly responsable. They tend to think they represent what all sex workers are living. They also tend to think that prosttution is either the cause of their problems or an aggravating factor (not always the case). But they just don't know because they never come in contact with sex workers who do not need their help. Sex workers like Susan and researchers also talk to those other sex workers. That's the difference. How many on each side? We don't know because 1 there is no objective way to draw a demarcation line and 2 there is no way to draw a representative sample. So the term "most" should be limited by the abolitionnists to the people to whom they provide services. We have to be carefull about our knowledge by experience. Science is there precisely because we know our experience is not always valid or representive and that our interpretations are sometimes wrong. I agree some sex workers activists sometimes draw a contrasting picture. When they do so, however, they usually talk about themselves: for me, it's a job like any other, I'm confortable with it, I need no help thank you. They rarely say they are representative of all sex workers. They may however truthfully say they are representative of the sex workers they know.
There is an assymetry in this debate. It's not an extreme against the other, it's an extreme (sex work is an evil by definition) against the people personnally involved saying it's a very diverse world. I undestand you willingness to adopt a neutral stance, but I think you should recognize this assymetry.Your rarely hear extreme position by Stella, Maggy or Pace.
I understand that you oppose "abolitionnism" as a public policy and I laud your pragmatism. It proves, if needed, that opposing views on the nature of an activity,yours and mine for exemple, may sometimes come to agreement on policies. It happens when we are concerned less about winning a moral debate and more about the consequences of the legal decisions we make.
Eddit: damn! did not notice your last post before writing this one. you have foreseen my response!
Slumberjack, while I totally agree with your post #81, and find it amazing that a mod would jump in, here, to distribute a warning in response to a a complain about an unapproved use of the word feminist, I have to admit SmithW did not try to shut up people and have stated many times she (or he) is not an "abolitionnist", for whatever that word means.
Since it seems possible to have a discussion about sex work here without a flurry of appeals to shup up participants, apart from the last intervention by a mod, I'd be curious to ear from SmithW what is meant by "the absolutist thinking" over here. Could you please develop? Because, after all, having your ideas discussed, and not shut down, is the way to progress. (Unless Susan finds it out of the purpose of this forum).
Wasn't anticipating your response; I just posted it because I thought it was in most ways a good article. But again, I don't see much point in the argument (from both sides) about how wrong the other is. It does nothing to bring us closer to a solution.
And yes, I think there is quite a bit we agree on.
I wouldn't call it "evil by definition" because that implies superstition, and this isn't about superstition, but rather the reality of a great power imbalance between men and women in our society, and between those with power and privilege and those without. I know you are refering to the hard line interpretation of it; I do agree it is a bit more nuanced, and that there are a lot of very specific exceptions. but that power imbalance is a dominant force in our culture.
Even notwithstanding those who are happy doing sex work or porn (and I agree that there are some who are, and I have no problem with that), or who engage in power play, it is still a double-edged sword, and there will always an aspects of it which perpetuates women as things to be used and to be raped, as well as unhealthy body image and demeaning attitudes, and damage to healthy relationships. I'd say that negative aspect is actually the dominant one in our culture.
I don't think we can just dismiss that by saying abolitionists don't understand, or they don't have all the numbers, when you look at levels of violence, abuse and misogyny in our society.
That's why I say that although I don't agree with the abolitionist solution, or some of their rhetoric, I think their analysis is something we ignore at our peril, and I think there are things that they are right about in principle.
But ignoring that the other side has a point is absolutist, IMO. That is to say, people here can argue that sex work is a job like most others except that it is riskier and illegal, and that might be true for some. And that people should have a right to do what they want with their bodies, and I agree with that. But limiting the argument to that completely ignores the reality that for many people it is demeaning, unhealthy, often deadly, and something they are often driven to by addiction and other problems.
Most reasonable people are already in agreement concerning risks, and concerning people being demeaned because of what they do for a living, addictions, coersion, violence, all of that. Reasonable people, first and foremost being those represented within the work, are trying to mitigate some of that with community driven proposals and activism, for which they are having to contend with the utter irrationality, dogma, and smack down of the prohibitionists. From what I can gather, the prohibitionists, on top of vigorously opposing what other people do with their own bodies, are of such a 'dog with a bone' mind where it concerns opposing male 'entitlement,' that they apparently accept status quo violence and unsafe working conditions for sex workers as collateral damage in what they see as 'their' struggle against men being granted access to a woman's body for a fee. That is the crux of the argument.
I just see both sides here either ignoring or trying to tear down the arguments on the other side. And it makes no sense to me because although obviously we don't agree on the solution, there are still truths on both sides that we would all be better off if we acknowledged.
Again, there is no argument with the other side in terms of all of their circular talking points regarding risks and real life tragedies, being an endless conversation without avenues for improvement of any sort, because they provide none. The problem is that 'the other side' has no other logical points that can be debated. The prospect for debate ends when they say there is no solution except to police and incarcerate this problem out of existence, or wait for their liberal democratic political miracles to float everyone's economic boat as a means of enticing people out of the sex work industry. In other words, stuff better relegated to pure fantasy as opposed to anything that might lend itself toward improving everyday life for many people. Isn't it unacceptable to just say, 'well, thats all we can do then?' The decrim side is not absolutist. It is dishonest to try and depict things that way as if there were an equivalency to the respective 'arguments,' because what that does is to turn everything into a status quo wash, which at present only favours the prohibitionists. No progress inexplicably represents a victory for them.
Do you really think we need another rehash of all the ways in which they are wrong, SJ? I just finished posting a link all about that. This entire thread has been all about that. Is there anything about that you think we haven't grasped yet, or do we need to hear it for a few pages more?
My point is that a better, perhaps less obsessive line might be to focus more on actual decriminalization than how wrong those abolitionists are, or accusing them of being misogynist.
Gustave asked what I saw as absolutist thinking in this thread; I answered.
And pointing out that both sides have some who are stuck on attacking the other is a "status quo" wash? Sorry, but the first part is true, and your conclusion makes no sense, because the law is changing, and if anything it is moving in the direction of decriminalization.
My point is that there are many problems which are being studiously ignored by some here (like the "victimization" in the title), because it challenges the all-important narrative of how wrong the abolitionists are. Sorry, but there is a good deal about which they are right, and this is not simply a question of workers controlling their means of production.
There is nothing dishonest in the least about making that point.
Do you really think we need another rehash of all the ways in which they are wrong, SJ?
It's really the construction of absolutist arguments that presents itself for deconstruction.
My point is that a better, perhaps less obsessive line might be to focus more on actual decriminalization than how wrong those abolitionists are, or accusing them of being misogynist.
My sense is that people would like to get on with their lives in the context of decriminalization. Unfortunately they're having to navigate over hurdles and barriers that are being thrown up.
And pointing out that both sides have some who are stuck on attacking the other is a "status quo" wash? Sorry, but the first part is true, and your conclusion makes no sense, because the law is changing, and if anything it is moving in the direction of decriminalization.
There are no guarantees of progress. I see it as a struggle where a determined opposition sees fit to intervene against people's claim to enfranchisement and rights. I see it as rights being attacked and denied, and where the attacked are having to fend off their attackers. Defence against attack is not an attack per se in the context of communities under threat.
My point is that there are many problems which are being studiously ignored by some here
No, this is the false argument that is being dropped in the middle of better conversations. No one is ignoring the complexities and issues. They've been thoroughly acknowledged by all sides as far as I can tell. The difference is in the proposed solutions or mitigations. One side proposes a way in which some issues associated with sex work might be mitigated, while the other side proposes nothing.
Sorry, but there is a good deal about which they are right, and this is not simply a question of workers controlling their means of production.
Again, for the nth time, no one disagrees about risks and violence. In fact though, it is a question of workers and their rights, but certainly not a simple one, no matter what the other side might say to deny the status of 'worker' to sex workers. Their argument is heavily invested in denying sex workers the status of worker, because workers are entitled to rights, and the prohibitionists would prefer to continue denying rights to sex workers.
There is nothing dishonest in the least about making that point.
I disagree.
Gustave asked what I saw as absolutist thinking in this thread; I answered.
But you got it factually wrong. Not only sex workers rights activists do not ignore victimization, but victimization is the reason why they were created. And we are not talking only about victmization by LE, the law and the justice system, but all the abusers among clients and third parties. The changes in the way LE and the justice system handle sex work today, btw, is not a result of prohibitionnists pressures. It started long ago, in the late 90s as criminal statistics show. The sex workers organization had, no doubt, more influence then the ideologues. Your fundamental error is to oppose th prohibitionnists and the sex workers rights advocacy groups on the ground of their concern with victimization. Groups like PACE, Maggie and Stella provide direct assistance to more sex work victims then all the rescue industry organizations combined in Canada with budget way lower. And that is not counting the assistance provided to sex workers who don't see themselves as victims. The important narrative here is not the ignorance of victimisation. That is simply factually wrong. The narritive consists of presenting sex workers rights organization as ignoring victimisation in an attempt by prohibitionnists to position themselves as a the only ones caring, as having the high moral grounds.
Not that I insist on a rehash, but could you make a short list of most important things abolitionnists have right? That would help furthering the discussion.
I did that already.
You might not agree Gustave, but I can't say it any more plainly than I did in posts 89 and 92.
As I said, I'm not interested in going around the mulberry bush here. You asked, and I told you what I see as the blind spot in this discussion.
the law is changing, and if anything it is moving in the direction of decriminalization.
Prostitution was legal before the new law. It became illigal. Logic would be that we are moving away from decriminalization. However, I admit we will probably move towards a de facto decriminalization as criminal statistics will undoubtedly show right from the first year of application. Historically, LE swiched back and forth between criminal accusations and municipal regulation accusations. They will obviously use more of the later in the future. Clients/providers ratio in the accusations will of course switch, not because of an increase of accusations against clients, but because the drop a accusations against providers. BTW the balance of this ratio switched before the law came into effect. It passed 50% in 2012 or 2013 in Montreal f I remember well.
I'd say the Supreme Court and Appeals Court rulings in recent years are the strongest indication that we are moving toward decriminalization, even if the government of the day is trying to resist it. They can only try to get around it and get smacked down so many times.
And as I posted, the trend in our city has been toward regulation. And although the Saskatchewan government reversed a recent decision on nudity in bars, that they considered it at all is further evidence of this trend.
I did that already.You might not agree Gustave, but I can't say it any more plainly than I did in posts 89 and 92.
Ok, fine. I just woundered if there was something else.
I'll simply, and very respectfully, agree we disagree on the patriarchie interpretation of historical and present social relations. But that's not a question to be discussed here. It is unfortunately impossible to discuss it in the feminist forum. I think it would be preferable to have it in a forum where the utterance of the name Christina Hoff Summers and Karen Straughen, IMHO to the left of many feminists here, is not a crime.
