The Bond between Prostitution and Violence YXXX

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
The Bond between Prostitution and Violence YXXX

The theory that legalizing prostitution makes it safer is at the core of support for legalization and it is accepted uncritically, as though it is fact not just theory.  This is true even though all evidence leads to the opposite conclusion;  legalization leads to  a net increase in violence through industry expansion.

Is there any evidence  that decriminalization or legalization is  safer for anyone, and if so, safer for whom: prostitutes, clients, a subset of prostitutes, women in general? 

Note: YXXX explained at http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/prostitution-doublespeak-and-yxxx

 

susan davis

i am greatful that the courts cannot endulge in such speculation and that the facts will define the decision coming from the SCC. for me this argument is grasping at straws and misrepresenting the outcomes experienced in new zealand.

in vancouver the police, health authority, city council/ city staff and support services also recognize the truth about what needs to happen. i feel lucky to live in a place where moral panic does not cause actions against my community.

the montreal raids are causing widespread harm to workers there and in sioux ste. marie the same thing. this is the cost of such speculation. violence at the hands of police against women.

are abolitionists happy about the violence they are causing?

quizzical

oh my......just a lot of self serving accusations without merrit.

some really good points pondering. i've been watching NZ and the worsening conditions there for sex workers.

mark_alfred

Hmm.  I haven't read all the links nor have I really researched anything.  But, seems to me that an unregulated profession would have more health and safety pitfalls than a properly regulated profession.  So, seems to me that regulating (aka legalizing) the profession of prostitution would make it safer.  Common sense for all labour, I figure.  I'm surprised anyone would question such common sense.  Regulated work is safer than unregulated work.  Seems simple to me.

shartal@rogers.com

Unions, regulations, public Heath and sin cards. Inside with staff

susan davis

we win....perrin, raymond, farely, bennedet...the courts aren't buying this and no one else should either....

oldgoat

I always love it when a highly divisive emotional hot button issue pops up just as I start a guest moderating gig.  As ususal, I would ask that people be sensitive to the genuinly felt positions of others, listen to understand rather than attack, and all that Kumbya stuff.  In my own case, there is still a bit of a disconnect between what my head says and what my intuition says.  I have found this discussion as it has unfolded over the years to be hugely educational, and I'm grateful to have such a ringside seat from which to follow the debate.  Also, thanks to Susan Davis and others for sticking with it.  I remember how difficult it got a while back.

I have a few thoughts, but regarding the concern that this will cause an increase in human trafficking, I'd like to observe that this is already illegal, and no one is suggesting it shouldn't be.  Yet strangly, it still happens.  This happens not because of the legality of the sex trade, it happens because those being trafficked are women  whom those in power an authority don't give a shit about.  I think it is inarguable that there are economic social and health conditions which make the sex trade an option for some where they might not have otherwise considered it. Again, the propertied and powerful classes don't give a damn how these people are effected.  

That's the problem.  Fix all this, and see what's left over.  I'm guessing there will still be a legitimate market which will drive the sex trade in all it's different aspects, and those willing to meet the demand.  Also, legalising doesn't mean deregulating, quite the opposite.  Legalising and then turning your back on conditions which currently exist would make for a less safe situation, but I'm not hearing that argument.

 

 

 

mark_alfred

New Zealand's The Prostitution Reform Act is the way to go.  As senior government whip of New Zealand Labor Tim Barnett said, "It increased penalties for genuinely harmful activity and protected sex workers from criminalisation, which trapped people in sex work rather than deterring them”.  A brief description of the Act can be found here.  Among some of the laws in the Act, one is that prostitutes have the right to refuse to have sex with a client for any reason, or for no reason.  Good stuff.

Here's a thorough report of the government on the Act:  Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003.  The claim that prostitution has increased is debunked in this report.  Wikipedia has a readers digest version of the evaluation here, if interested.

The Prostitution Reform Act seems very protective of prostitutes and their safety while allowing them dignity in pursuit of their profession.  Hopefully our government will follow suit -- though given the backward Cons we have in power now, I doubt it.

Pondering

To Susan Davis

 

"Late Thursday evening officers raided two massage parlours in Montreal and one in Dorval and arrested the women who ran the operations. Li Wang, 53, Yi Zhang, 38, and Dong Bai, 39, were in court Friday and charged with keeping a common bawdy house.

...

"Police say Miclescu's gang brought Romanian women into Canada and forced them to work in erotic massage parlours, in some cases bringing entire families into the country.

Read more: http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/police-arrest-3-accused-madams-with-links-to-human-trafficking-1.1566448#ixzz2nxsdWe6F"

 

That they were forced has yet to be proven in court so they might be economic migrants which still means they are in Canada illegally and were smuggled here therefore should be deported and wait in line like other immigrants. (unless they were trafficked or are refugees)

 

I have read no reports of the police being violent with the women during the recent arrests. 

 

Susan, If you are going accuse abolitionists, of which I am one, of causing violence against prostitutes then I am going to accuse you of the same because by promoting prostitution you are condemning streetwalkers to death by serial killer. Let's just not go there. There is no reason to get personal.

 

I hope we can agree that 100% of feminists want to reduce violence against women. 

 

You believe that fully legalizing prostitution and allowing it to be run like any other industry would lead to greater safety for sex workers.  Abolitionists believe that it does not lead to greater safety and it expands the industry endangering even more women.

 

Neither of those positions is ideological. Both share the goal of ultimately reducing violence against women.

  

I expect to be challenged but it is impossible to debate migrant labor, the SCC ruling, Vancouver, the arrests in Montreal and morality in a single thread.

 

I'd appreciate it if we could stay on the topic of the strength of the link (or lack thereof) between prostitution and violence. 

 

There are many examples of violence against prostitutes that could not be prevented by loosening laws against johns, pimps and brothels. I intend to find some and present them.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Hmm.  I haven't read all the links nor have I really researched anything. 

 

Seriously, you admit that you haven't got a clue, that you haven't even researched the topic, but you feel qualified to mansplain that all we have to do is apply your simple common sense solution, legalize and regulate, and all will be well.  Gee whiz why didn't we feminists think of that!  Duh.  Now that you've solved that problem the debate is over. No need for pesky research or finding out what you are talking about. You’re the MANZ. What a relief that we don't have to worry our pretty heads about complicated stuff like empirical evidence or progressive analysis when we have you to solve our problems!

 

If you can't tell, I was being sarcastic.  I'm surprised to have to deal with such obvious male chauvinism in a feminist forum.   Are you the same guy that called a feminist a puritan in the thread on the Nordic Model? 

 

I am shocked that such ignorant condescending male behavior is tolerated in the feminist forum from a nine year veteran poster.  It's not like you're some young newbie that can't be expected to know that they are being offensive.

 

edited to fix quote format

Pondering

With all due respect Oldgoat, I ask that you step in to protect this thread from disruptive posting.

 

Susan Davis has been here for 4 years and Mark Alfred has been here 9 years.  They are not naïve new posters.  SD has an entire forum to promote the sex industry and has done so for a long time. I am not okay with being accused of causing violence towards women. As to MA, why should the feminist forum tolerate blatant mansplaining?  He bragged about being able to provide the solution without even doing any research because the answer is so simple he’s surprised that women don’t understand and nobody objected. I have never been in a feminist forum that would tolerate this. I don’t understand why no one has objected.

 

Susan Davis and Mark Alfred are using the same behavior that contributed to derailing the thread on the Nordic Model which is the alternative many major feminist organizations support.

 

It's not just these two either so I hope you will issue a general warning about respect for feminists in the feminist forum.  I get that I’m not a moderator and I have no right to decide who can post but I do think it’s valid for me to request that MA be banned from posting in the feminist forum.

 

Discussing the inextricable link between violence and prostitution could not be a more valid feminist discussion. Sex industry promoters claim that violence decreases when prostitution is legitimized. I have yet to see any evidence of that anywhere in the world.

 

I have seen a great deal of evidence that legitimizing prostitution leads to more violence against women.

 

If that evidence cannot be presented and treated with respect in a “feminist forum” then this isn’t a feminist forum and it should quit masquerading as such. Maybe it could be called “women’s issues”.

 

I always love it when a highly divisive emotional hot button issue pops up just as I start a guest moderating gig.

 

oldgoat wrote:

I always love it when a highly divisive emotional hot button issue pops up just as I start a guest moderating gig. 

 

P.S. Feminists are happy to amuse guests. J

 

P.P.S. MA’s latest contribution is a simplistic reference to reports all feminists are familiar with. He cites no actual data, referencing only conclusions.  I don’t think his pearls of wisdom offset his obviously misogynistic attitude towards feminists.  He has the nerve to declare in his first sentence “this is the way to go” then proceeds to cheerlead for his preferred outcome, legal access to prostitutes. He has nothing of value to contribute to this forum.

 

I sense that there are other feminist who would like to discuss negative aspects of prostitution with me.  We can’t do that if every thread devolves into a general debate on every aspect of prostitution and feminism 101.

 

edited to fix formatting

Pondering

Oldgoat, I am not being paranoid. This was my first thread:

 

http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/defense-nordic-model-dealing-prostituti...

Five pages of responses seem to have been deleted but I have a copy of them as I respond offline.

I'm feeling very defensive because I feel like I am being baited. It happened in a political thread too. A troll kept putting words in my mouth forcing me to spend all my time saying "I didn't say that" and battering me with questions that he then refused to answer. Am I going to get bullied out of the feminist forum too?

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

New Zealand is often held up as a successful example of decriminalization but as I noticed in the thread on the Nordic model they have failed to reduce violence and prostitution has increased.

"http://www.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/whosWho/profiles/neumayer/pdf/Article-for-World-Development-_prostitution_-anonymous-REVISED.pdf

1.Violence in prostitution continued after prostitution was decriminalized in New Zealand, according to the New Zealand Law Review Committee.

“The majority of sex workers felt that the law could do little about violence that occurred.” (page 14) 35% reported in 2007 that they had been coerced to prostitute with a given john in the past 12 months. (page 46)

A majority of respondents felt that decriminalization made no difference with respect to the violence of johns in prostitution – they felt that it was inevitably a part of the sex industry. (page 57)

The Report notes that “few” sex workers, regardless of whether they were prostituting indoors or outdoors, reported any of the incidents of violence or crimes against them to the police. (page 122)

Many owners of brothels have the same exploitive contract arrangements that existed before prostitution was decriminalized. Often no written contracts or their questionable quality. (page 157)

I went to the link you provided and found a 16 page pdf (the report page numbered from 67 to 82) entitled "Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?"  Note 24 states that It doesn't deal with New Zealand due to them using data from 1998 and 1995 and the timing of New Zealand's decriminalization of prostitution (that being 2003).   Do you have the correct link with the quotes above?

Pondering

MA, I am not engaging in discussion with you because you have already trolled me. I have made no claims of increased trafficking in this thread. The topic is the link between violence and prostitution. You are obviously not a feminist so I don't know what you are doing here.

http://rabble.ca/about/babblepolicy

babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought.

Given that you have failed to learn the most basic feminist principles in your 9 years here I think you will need at least another couple of years to brush up. I don't think you should be permitted to post in the feminist forum at all. If you can't be banned from the feminist forum I will ask Oldgoat that you be banned from threads I start.

Oldgoat, I have no objection to male participation, I believe that men can be full-fledged feminists. Mark Alfred isn't one of them. He isn't here to learn either. He is here to push his own agenda.

MegB

Pondering wrote:

Oldgoat, I am not being paranoid. This was my first thread:

 

http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/defense-nordic-model-dealing-prostituti...

Five pages of responses seem to have been deleted but I have a copy of them as I respond offline.

I'm feeling very defensive because I feel like I am being baited. It happened in a political thread too. A troll kept putting words in my mouth forcing me to spend all my time saying "I didn't say that" and battering me with questions that he then refused to answer. Am I going to get bullied out of the feminist forum too?

Pondering, what you're experiencing is part of the culture of babble. It is regretful, but it is currently entrenched and isn't necessarily personal. Some folks around here have difficulty disagreeing respectfully.

Be that as it may, when anyone here takes a position on a controversial issue, there will be flak. Please continue to post your substantiated viewpoint, as it contributes to the diversity of the discussion.

BTW, the sex workers' forum is not intended as a place to promote sex work, but is a safe place for sex workers to post about their views and experiences. Regardless of how you feel about it, that is what it is. With regard to the feminist forum, commentary that is not feminist-friendly (and that encompasses a broad spectrum of opinion, since feminism is not a monolithic doctrine) is censured. Thus far, I have not seen anything in this thread that is contrary to the FF mandate, nor have I seen anything like an ad hominem attack. Until there is, you post at your own risk.

Sineed

Ideologically, I lean more towards the abolitionists because of my years spent working with people with addictions, dealing with people who sell their bodies out of desperation. Right now I'm thinking of a former patient, a crack addict, who had men ejaculate on her face so many times we had to keep treating her for gonorrhea in her eyes. And I don't see how legalization would help people like this.

But is abolition pie in the sky? The world's oldest profession, and all. Just as the prohibition of booze didn't work, the prohibition of sex for money probably wouldn't work either, just as it hasn't worked. At all. And I don't see the point of prosecuting somebody like Terri Jean Bedford, and kind of enjoy the concept of men paying a woman to whip their asses.

I'm extremely torn on this issue. I'm not convinced that legalization would mitigate sexual violence against women. And prohibition doesn't work.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I agree Sineed that there's still much more work to do. None of this seems right.

MegB

I did some work with street kids years ago, and they were terribly vulnerable. Both the boys and the girls would sell themselves and pool their resources to get a room in some dive for the night. Some were heavily addicted, some not, but all dealt regularly with sexual assault and other forms of violence, sometimes from cops at 52 Division, who traded sex for not arresting girls and young women. Working in a brothel wouldn't change the underlying reasons for homeless youth dealing with sexual violence. However, for the women (and men) who work in the sex trade by choice, the ability to work indoors, hire security staff, etc., without fear of prosecution, the SCC decision is a huge victory. For others, little will change. Human trafficking will continue, addicted women will continue to support their habit with sex work. The societal issues, the gender inequity, violence against women, these things won't change either way, whether the route is abolition or legalization legislation.

Unionist

Rebecca West wrote:
Human trafficking will continue, addicted women will continue to support their habit with sex work. The societal issues, the gender inequity, violence against women, these things won't change either way, whether the route is abolition or legalization legislation.

What she said.

 

shartal@rogers.com

Does anyone have any studies from holland? I think selling sex inside with licences, inspections, taxes, health cards, security and dare I write it unions would be a whole lot safer than outside or hidden.

lagatta

It was for a long time, but now the "licensed" sex worker are greatly outnumbered by undocumented people, many, many of them trafficked by criminal gangs. These gangs also smuggle arms and hard drugs, which is one of the reasons the historic Red Light district (De Wallen) on the East Side of the city centre is being reduced in size. There are similar problems in Germany.

Pondering

 I think adults who have trouble disagreeing respectfully on a supposedly progressive message board should have a timeout to study their manners. It would make life a lot easier on moderators.

I could go into the sex workers forum and start a topic on how legalization leads to lowering prices and having to do more for less, or topics on prostitutes that are murdered under legal systems. I could then explain how the Nordic Model is better. I'm not going to do that because in my own view it would be disingenuous trolling. It would obviously upset people.

Describe The SWF however you like, it is for people, not just sex workers, who support the legitimization of the trade not abolitionists. I will respect the spirit of the forum not just the letter of the rules. I have no desire to offend or cause disruption. Maybe you wouldn't consider it trolling or baiting or whatever but I would even if indirect digs are part of the culture.

I believe that legalization will lead to the murders of more Canadian women. Sex trade promoters will have the blood of dead women, mostly aboriginal or otherwise marginalized, on their hands. Even though I believe this to be a factual statement, I won't make that accusation or defend that viewpoint because if I were Susan Davis I would feel deeply offended even though the accusation is general not personal. Neither Susan Davis, nor Abolitionists, wants more women to suffer violence.

Abolitionists are feminists. Saying that abolitionists are causing violence to women is not feminist friendly. It's as offensive as saying Sex Trade promoters cause violence to women.

But, you're the moderators, it's your call, so I concede while respectfully disagreeing. I am not going to make your life more difficult by needling people back even if the slyer methods of trolling are within the rules.

I'm assuming you have some sort of ignore feature so I will learn how to use it and put people I don't get along with on ignore. I will only engage with people I believe are treating me respectfully.

This could actually be fun. I always envied moderators their magic ban wand.  I will use the ignore feature as my own personal ban wand.  If you don't have one I will pretend but I admit that will be more difficult. Nevertheless, being an adult, I am sure I can achieve my goal of not taking the bait.

P.S. I am also staying out of the Canadian Politics forum.  Some moderator, or another poster, said that people are allowed to support the Liberals, and I didn't support them blindly, I was willing to be critical and admit that they are too far right economically.  It didn't matter. I was still just fresh fish bait.  I thought NDP supporters would be interested in hearing why someone who voted NDP in the past moved to the Liberals. I was willing to have my brain picked.  I thought that questioning a voter who moved to the Liberals from the NDP would be an interesting exercise. I was completely outnumbered; I wasn't a threat.  It's not like I would be able to convert anyone here to Liberal. Trolling made the conversation impossible so it`s a waste of time to participate. I will not be baited out of the feminist forum so easily.

P.P.S.  Obviously I am the one "out of step" with however this board runs.  It's hard to figure out.  Because Canadian Politics was the first place I really spend any time I thought the "one thread per topic" was a norm of some sort.  I thought it was smart to have one thread on Thomas Mulcair instead of one thread per article on Thomas Mulcair.  Now that I have spent more time examining the sex worker forum. I see that it follows a different model, many threads with few posts.  I don't think it's as interesting but I think abolitionists can still create some continuity of discussion within that framework. I have a plan for after Christmas on how we can still have themed discussions even if some posters refuse to stay on topic.

Pondering

To Sineed: There are a lot of arguments about how legalization impacts prostitutes and society.  I think they are all worthy of discussion, but the actual deciding factor must be how it impacts violence against women, not whether or not absolute prohibition can be achieved.

That is what I wanted this thread to be about, the actual impact of legitimization on violence towards women. If it reduces violence, then we must legalize, if it increases violence, then we must not legalize.  The third possibility is that it makes no difference either way. Violence isn't impacted. If violence isn't affected one way or the other then other factors come into play, like the impact on women not in the industry, the impact on smuggling migrants, the impact on price, etc.

This being a feminist board I had hoped we could have one thread solely about how legitimization actually impacts violence in real life rather than in theory, but that doesn't seem possible.  I still have some ideas about how abolitionists, or people interested in the topic, can connect but that will have to wait until after Christmas.  This is turning out to be too much of a time sink.

I am very interested in replying to some of your specific points but it will have to wait until after Christmas.

quizzical

in the now missing nordic model thread there were many posts showing statiscally how violence against ALL women has gone up in NZ and the Netherlands since they embraced the sexual commodification of women. the Netherlands has to report to the UN on how their efforts are going to stop the increased violence against women.

i'm don't remember what the violence against women stats were for germany.  i'll look though at some point over the holiday.

susan davis

the "stats"....what "stats"?.....

you don't think the scc considered all the stats? you don't think they checked every study submitted? they did....

if violence had increased or any of the other wild claims being made here were true....don't you think the court would have seen it? or is it that they are also "lobbying for the pimps"...?

how can people still cling to the false assertions around decrim even in the face of this kind of decision?

i don't understand how people can let their ego get so embroiled in discussions about this issue....after all what else could it be? it must be ego preventing some from admiting they may have been wrong....

raids against sex workers are police violence. have you ever been in a raid? i have...its humiliating and degrading and women in montreal are paying the price for decisions being made and actions being taken based on misinformation just like what is being promoted by abolitionists.

they were charged with prostitution related offenses, not trafficking. it even says there is no proof of cohersion....why do you assume that because police took action there was cohersion? police don't need an excuse to raid. they can do it when ever they want....is it because the women were migrant workers? from other countries? you assume they were trafficked...?

how anti immigrant of you...

lagatta

There have certainly been reports of an increase in violence against women in the Netherlands. And in Germany, I have women comrades who have experienced harassment and worse when brothels moved into the neighbourhood where their political group is headquartered.

I know at least one left political group in Germany which has organised a discussion circle to get men to break the habit of buying sex from women, and work on developing non-commodified relationships (of any nature, long or short term, monogamous or poly).

Please don't accuse people of being "anti-immigrant" for raising the question of human trafficking, which is a reality. Not everyone has to agree with you.

Remember that France is going the opposite route.

quizzical

in the link above it says:

Quote:
Kajsa​ Wahlberg, Swedish National Police detective-superintendent, said the law’s moral underpinning is based on promoting gender equality and ending violence against women. In that context, buying sex is seen as victimizing prostitutes.....

...the newly elected German government is looking at revising the law to make it illegal to buy sex from women who have been forced into prostitution.

Louis said that is only a “symbolic gesture” that falls far short of what is needed: an outright ban on prostitution.

Wahlberg agrees trafficking has grown in Germany over the last decade.

She believes the sheer number of countries following Sweden’s example suggest it has found the best alternative.

The list includes Finland, Norway and Iceland.

Ireland is considering new laws as well and Wahlberg says she’ll be meeting with a delegation from Australia in the new year.

Wahlberg said she has not had any inquiries from anyone in the Canadian government.

*bolding and italics mine

i think the scc this striking down is great. there can be a nordic model put in place. i've written to my mp already. maybe something good for women can come out of this harper government yet.

DaveW

a European roundup:

Prostitution laws: Europeans debate whether criminalization or legalization works better

Swedish model of criminalizing prostitutes' clients may prevail over Germany's legalization

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/prostitution-laws-europeans-debate-whether-criminalization-or-legalization-works-better-1.2470190

 

 

MegB

susan davis wrote:

how anti immigrant of you...

Nothing in the post you're referring to is "anti-immigrant". Please keep this discussion respectful and avoid personal insults. There are many other ways to disagree.

Pondering

New Zealand is often held up as a successful example of decriminalization but as I noticed in the thread on the Nordic model they have failed to reduce violence and prostitution has increased.

"http://www.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/whosWho/profiles/neumayer/pdf/Article-for-World-Development-_prostitution_-anonymous-REVISED.pdf

1.Violence in prostitution continued after prostitution was decriminalized in New Zealand, according to the New Zealand Law Review Committee.

“The majority of sex workers felt that the law could do little about violence that occurred.” (page 14) 35% reported in 2007 that they had been coerced to prostitute with a given john in the past 12 months. (page 46)

A majority of respondents felt that decriminalization made no difference with respect to the violence of johns in prostitution – they felt that it was inevitably a part of the sex industry. (page 57)

The Report notes that “few” sex workers, regardless of whether they were prostituting indoors or outdoors, reported any of the incidents of violence or crimes against them to the police. (page 122)

Many owners of brothels have the same exploitive contract arrangements that existed before prostitution was decriminalized. Often no written contracts or their questionable quality. (page 157)

Pasted from <http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/defense-nordic-model-dealing-prostitution-and-right-to-defend-it-0?page=3>  "

 That doesn't sound like a success story to me and NZ is used as the poster child for decriminalization.  Street workers did not become brothel employees.

 While there are many prostitutes who support decriminalization there are also many who don't.

"Former prostitutes and their advocates are calling for clients of sex workers to be prosecuted, saying the decriminalisation of the industry has failed them.  Freedom from Sexual Exploitation director Elizabeth Subritzky told Parliament’s justice and electoral committee the only solution to the damage that prostitution caused, and the violence it created, was to prosecute buyers of sexual services through a reform of prostitution laws.

The Prostitution Reform Act decriminalised brothels, escort agencies, and soliciting when it narrowly passed into law by one vote in 2003.

The act not only encouraged more men to buy sex, but transformed prostitution into an acceptable, even attractive job for young, poor women in New Zealand, Subritzky said.

Pasted from <http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9428778/Ex-prostitutes-call-for-law-change> "

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that decriminalization leads to any significant reduction in violence against women even in the pro-prostitution's best case scenario example.

We don’t have to depend on theory to predict what happens when prostitution becomes legal.  We have examples all over the world, and even the best case scenario has not reduced violence against women.

EDITED TO ADD

Edit second  post

Past this second post, with the exception of post #26 the thread is no longer about the opening topic which I fully admit I am equally responsible for. If anyone wants to continue exploring the theme of The Bond between Prostitution and Violence here is another thread that follows the same theme. 

 

Jump to: http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/violence-and-forms-prostitution-proabviolence-0

Pondering

@ Susan, I can see that this is a very personal topic for you.  The industry has also affected my family.  I would rather not get into details because it would make people's responses to me feel much more personal and hurtful. Alternately people might "tiptoe" not to hurt my feelings.  I don't think it would contribute anything unique to the discussion and this is nowhere near a safe place for confessionals.  You have shared your personal involvement so I can see why comments feel especially personal and targeted directly at you.

When I refer to "the sex industry" it doesn't mean every single individual within it, just a significant proportion.  It's just like when we talk about the oil industry we don't mean every individual within it.  

I don’t think it’s possible for you and I to get along because we are on opposite sides, we  both take the issue personally, and are both completely convinced we are right.  Going head to head in threads will only disrupt the board and drive the moderators to drink. 

Susan, you called me anti-immigrant for saying the women in Montreal were trafficked when I never said any such thing.

Rebecca, both you and Lagatta defended me for being called anti-immigrant for saying the women were trafficked, without realizing I never said that in the first place.  Susan only said I did.

The police said they were trafficked, not me, I said they might be economic migrants, which is exactly what Susan wants them to be considered.

That is why I call putting words in someone’s mouth trolling if it happens repeatedly. Either I allow people to think I said something I didn’t say, or I deny it. In some cases, such as this one, it doesn’t matter that much. In other cases it matters a lot more because people will then think I hold views that I do not hold. Either way, the thread is disrupted.

It is springtime for abolitionists so a garden of posts and threads are about to erupt!

Topic locked