The campaign against Meghan Murphy

314 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

lagatta wrote:

Actually, I suspect transpeople are even more likely to be victims of violence, because they are "different" and macho men can't tolerate that. I have no proof, but I think the vast majority on transpeople are by male aggressors. I have a gay male friend iin my neighbourood who isn't trans, but he is what would be called "une grande folle", very flamboyant in his gayness, and he really gets shit and threats of violence from a certain type of guys.

But those flamboyant gay males are not likely to be raped by those macho men or even physically attacked unless they are in a vulnerable situation, like walking alone through a deserted park, something all women know they should avoid trans or otherwise.

Do trans men have a higher incidence of attack than women?

 

Brachina

I don't support cendorship, but I cry no tears at Murphy getting a taste of her own medicine, she's been trying to control what sex workers and they're clients do with they're bodies, now others are trying to control what she does with her mouth. How does it feel Murphy when the very people who you've declared war against fight back?

 And yes the left fighting our own is far too common, but the fault lies with people like Murphy who pick these fights because they think they have the right to control everybody else.

Brachina

Sineed wrote:

Jonah Mix isn't transphobic; he is gender-critical, a growing movement that takes aim against the straightjacket of gender roles that are so damaging to women and gender non-conforming people. Rather than embracing gender roles, gender critical people aim to destroy the concept of gender altogether so that people can find self-acceptance. I think it may be rather idealistic to imagine a world free from gender stereotypes, but I don't see anything hateful about its basic ethos.

I am getting the sense that rabble is caught in the middle of a rather significant schism in feminist thought and progressive ideologies in general.

 They're often twits who think they can control other peoples sense of identity, some people, of either sex or even intersex, identify with a specific gender, and as long they respect the rights of others to go they're own way, that's find. Enough with the thought police, its becoming pyschologically toxic.

quizzical

 over the top commentary by brachina in the sex workers rights forum about ottawa raids is deeply offensive and signifies the poor type of thinking and acting, to me, which many who are out to get  mm.

4 women were killed in the GVA this week end by men who professed to "love" them. one man killed his wife daughter and sister cause he "loved" them so much.

i don't hear the decrims carrying on about this yet they think the abolitionists should be carrying on for some reason about raids and immigrant women being deported and think it means we don't care about violence towards sex workers.

if they believe this is the case then they had better get on carryig on about all the women dying at the hands of men. 

if men can kill women who they profess to love then there ain't no barriers to killing or hurting ones they are paying to have sex with.

it is violence against which allows all of it and at the basis it is our being viewed as objects which are owned no decrim lws are going to change it. it will just make us into objects more.

 

Brachina

Sineed wrote:

Jonah Mix isn't transphobic; he is gender-critical, a growing movement that takes aim against the straightjacket of gender roles that are so damaging to women and gender non-conforming people. Rather than embracing gender roles, gender critical people aim to destroy the concept of gender altogether so that people can find self-acceptance. I think it may be rather idealistic to imagine a world free from gender stereotypes, but I don't see anything hateful about its basic ethos.

I am getting the sense that rabble is caught in the middle of a rather significant schism in feminist thought and progressive ideologies in general.

 They're often twits who think they can control other peoples sense of identity, some people, of either sex or even intersex, identify with a specific gender, and as long they respect the rights of others to go they're own way, that's find. Enough with the thought police, its becoming pyschologically toxic.

Pondering

Brachina wrote:

I don't support cendorship, but I cry no tears at Murphy getting a taste of her own medicine, she's been trying to control what sex workers and they're clients do with they're bodies, now others are trying to control what she does with her mouth. How does it feel Murphy when the very people who you've declared war against fight back?

 And yes the left fighting our own is far too common, but the fault lies with people like Murphy who pick these fights because they think they have the right to control everybody else.

That's not true. No one is interfering with the rights of anyone to have sex with each other. The commercialization of sex is what is being objected to. We don't allow paid surrogate pregnancies either.

quizzical

brachina you almost single handedly assured i won't be voting NDP this fall. nor will any one i associate with. your hate speech in the other thread and now your accusations of "psychologically toxic" in the face of your hate toxicity pushed me to believe the NDP aren't worth it if they have people like you championing them.

lagatta

I'm against several key capitalist industries, and it certainly isn't because I want to harm autoworkers, petroleum workers or weapons-factory workers. Or closer to my background, people working in advertising. I'm against them because they cause grave social and environmental harm. I want industrial conversion and retraining for green jobs on sustainable transport, energy and peaceful relations between peoples, and providing accurate, unbiased information about products, not flogging dangerous or polluting ones. I don't want them unemployed, nor do I want people in the sex trade unemployed. I'm sure most would by far prefer to be working in jobs where they are less likely to be murdered, or cast out the moment they "age out" of the trade.

I can't speak for Meghan Murphy, and I'm not her. I don't support C-36 for one thing, precisely because it still criminalizes prostitutes and does not effectively impact those who control the trade. But I don't think  the sex industry is benign.

And of course an ecosocialist society would have to make choices about socially useful production.

takeitslowly

The policing of black women's bodies and their sexuality is well documented.

How dare a trans woman of color showed  PG nudity on a woman's beauty magazine  and say she found it empowering?

 

No, it empowers no one, Meghan Murphy said, a white woman who has never been trans.

 

She knows best I guess. I am really glad she spoke up on behalf of black women and the trans community. I hope she continues to speak out on behalf of trans women of color and describe our lives , our experience and our intent because thats feminism.

onlinediscountanvils

jas wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:
[url=http://www.donotlink.com/evuk]She published an openly transphobic man on her blog[/url]. [url=https://twitter.com/anne_theriault/status/592490809087393792]Got called on it[/url]. Denied it, [url=https://twitter.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/592494759777701888]calling it "lies"[/url]. Then, when presented with [url=https://twitter.com/anne_theriault/status/592491192400613377]the evidence[/url] ([url=https://twitter.com/JenderFatigue/status/592469298737782787]among many[/url]),

I followed the links you provided because I genuinely wanted to see what was so objectionable. I'm sorry, I  really do not see it. Especially in the twitter posts which you have labeled in a way that doesn't even remotely relate to their content. If you want to convince people, shouldn't you be a lot more direct in what you reference?

I don't know what you're seeing when you click on the links, but they work for me, and are labeled correctly.

voice of the damned

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

jas wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:
[url=http://www.donotlink.com/evuk]She published an openly transphobic man on her blog[/url]. [url=https://twitter.com/anne_theriault/status/592490809087393792]Got called on it[/url]. Denied it, [url=https://twitter.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/592494759777701888]calling it "lies"[/url]. Then, when presented with [url=https://twitter.com/anne_theriault/status/592491192400613377]the evidence[/url] ([url=https://twitter.com/JenderFatigue/status/592469298737782787]among many[/url]),

I followed the links you provided because I genuinely wanted to see what was so objectionable. I'm sorry, I  really do not see it. Especially in the twitter posts which you have labeled in a way that doesn't even remotely relate to their content. If you want to convince people, shouldn't you be a lot more direct in what you reference?

I don't know what you're seeing when you click on the links, but they work for me, and are labeled correctly.

When I clicked on, I got some weird sort of "redirect" site, that took me to the articles in question after a few seconds. But the articles didn't load well onto my computer(internet cafe with outdated browsers), and I THINK they might have frozen my screen for a bit. (Can't quite recall, but that sort of thing happens all the time with these jalopies).

susan davis

quizzical wrote:

 over the top commentary by brachina in the sex workers rights forum about ottawa raids is deeply offensive and signifies the poor type of thinking and acting, to me, which many who are out to get  mm.

4 women were killed in the GVA this week end by men who professed to "love" them. one man killed his wife daughter and sister cause he "loved" them so much.

i don't hear the decrims carrying on about this yet they think the abolitionists should be carrying on for some reason about raids and immigrant women being deported and think it means we don't care about violence towards sex workers.

if they believe this is the case then they had better get on carryig on about all the women dying at the hands of men. 

if men can kill women who they profess to love then there ain't no barriers to killing or hurting ones they are paying to have sex with.

it is violence against which allows all of it and at the basis it is our being viewed as objects which are owned no decrim lws are going to change it. it will just make us into objects more.

 

now sex workers are responsible for domestic violence.....unreal.....yes i think you should care about the impacts of the laws you wanted put into place....yes i think you all should comment on what happened in ottawa and what we know is going to happen....

blaming us for domestic violence does not mean you have no responsibility in the harms done to these marginalized, racialized and impoverished group of women....or do you claim to not care about them either any more....

show me where domestic violence increased under decrim....not germany or holland but in new zealand....where....where did sdomestic violence increase.....it didn't

way to go fear mongering again though and misrepresenting the fight for decriminalization....again....

quizzical

pffft.... never once did i say sex workers caused domestic violence.  why don't you quote me where i did susan? in another thread you were just carrying on about someone putting words in your mouth. plz do not put words in mine.

susan davis

isn't raising the value of one group fo women going to raise the value of all women? i just don't understand the blame game being played here....

it's one thing to say own laws which were promoted by abolitionists and recognize them as harmful....its quite another to blame sex work for all violence against women....

isn't raising the value of one group of women going to raise the value of all women...?

if abolitionists continue in the idea that consensual sex workers are reasonable casualities in their goals will it not continue to cast us as criminals...who don't care about other women as pondering said....and mean that its ok if we are hurt....will this not translate into its ok to hurt all women/...? 

this rational is just as reasonable as pondering blaming sex workers for domestic violence....

onlinediscountanvils

voice of the damned wrote:
onlinediscountanvils wrote:

jas wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:
[url=http://www.donotlink.com/evuk]She published an openly transphobic man on her blog[/url]. [url=https://twitter.com/anne_theriault/status/592490809087393792]Got called on it[/url]. Denied it, [url=https://twitter.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/592494759777701888]calling it "lies"[/url]. Then, when presented with [url=https://twitter.com/anne_theriault/status/592491192400613377]the evidence[/url] ([url=https://twitter.com/JenderFatigue/status/592469298737782787]among many[/url]),

I followed the links you provided because I genuinely wanted to see what was so objectionable. I'm sorry, I  really do not see it. Especially in the twitter posts which you have labeled in a way that doesn't even remotely relate to their content. If you want to convince people, shouldn't you be a lot more direct in what you reference?

I don't know what you're seeing when you click on the links, but they work for me, and are labeled correctly.

When I clicked on, I got some weird sort of "redirect" site, that took me to the articles in question after a few seconds. But the articles didn't load well onto my computer(internet cafe with outdated browsers), and I THINK they might have frozen my screen for a bit. (Can't quite recall, but that sort of thing happens all the time with these jalopies).

Yeah, the first one is a donotlink link, but the others are just to twitter. I don't know. Maybe they show up differently if one doesn't have a twitter account?

Anyway, people waiting for a 'smoking gun' probably won't find one in any of those links, which was part of my point. Mix misgenders trans folk, makes transphobic comments, 'favourites' extremely transphobic comments. But Murphy doesn't seem to have a problem with any of this, even when it's pointed out to her. She just denies until she can no longer can, after which she just avoids.

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

quizzical wrote:

 over the top commentary by brachina in the sex workers rights forum about ottawa raids is deeply offensive and signifies the poor type of thinking and acting, to me, which many who are out to get  mm.

4 women were killed in the GVA this week end by men who professed to "love" them. one man killed his wife daughter and sister cause he "loved" them so much.

i don't hear the decrims carrying on about this yet they think the abolitionists should be carrying on for some reason about raids and immigrant women being deported and think it means we don't care about violence towards sex workers.

if they believe this is the case then they had better get on carryig on about all the women dying at the hands of men. 

if men can kill women who they profess to love then there ain't no barriers to killing or hurting ones they are paying to have sex with.

it is violence against which allows all of it and at the basis it is our being viewed as objects which are owned no decrim lws are going to change it. it will just make us into objects more.

 

now sex workers are responsible for domestic violence.....unreal.....yes i think you should care about the impacts of the laws you wanted put into place....yes i think you all should comment on what happened in ottawa and what we know is going to happen....

blaming us for domestic violence does not mean you have no responsibility in the harms done to these marginalized, racialized and impoverished group of women....or do you claim to not care about them either any more....

show me where domestic violence increased under decrim....not germany or holland but in new zealand....where....where did sdomestic violence increase.....it didn't

way to go fear mongering again though and misrepresenting the fight for decriminalization....again....

What the hell are you talking about? She didn't say anything like that.

 

susan davis

so what was the point then of mentioning all the women who died as a result of domestic violence this weekend and saying decrim proponents don't care then.....? if you are not blaming us then what was the point....? what has it got to do with any of this....? unless its sex workers fault ....?

susan davis

what about ottawa...what about the harms being caused by your precious law against purchasing....? no comment? just pile onto sue and focus on some side snipet so we can ignore what's happening...? 

i am not the one drawing the connection between deaths on the weekend and sex workers....

lagatta

Nobody is blaming sex workers. Rather, blaming patriarchy and patriarchal capitalism, which causes all manner of violence against women. I know that you don't think the sex industry is a form of violence; we can only disagree about that.

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

so what was the point then of mentioning all the women who died as a result of domestic violence this weekend and saying decrim proponents don't care then.....? if you are not blaming us then what was the point....? what has it got to do with any of this....? unless its sex workers fault ....?

The point she is making is that sex workers are not fighting against male violence in general. They are blaming abolitionists for male violence.

From the thread in the sex workers forum comes this gem:

 Notice how abolishionist have nothing to say? They have nothing to say, they don't care about these women, sex workers are just pawn, to be used and tossed away when they're no longer of political use.

These women's situation is due to being migrant workers who are in Canada illegally. All migrant workers who are in the country illegally are subject to the same outcome. There was a raid taped by a horrible TV show in which migrant workers were picked up for deportation. They were not sex workers. They worked in some factory. Some had Canadian families. Domestic workers are another vulnerable group even those who are in the country legally.

As we can see from the examples in Europe legitimizing prostitution as an industry encourages illegal migration which places women in a precarious situation.

jas

onlinediscountanvils wrote:
Yeah, the first one is a donotlink link, but the others are just to twitter. I don't know. Maybe they show up differently if one doesn't have a twitter account?

Anyway, people waiting for a 'smoking gun' probably won't find one in any of those links, which was part of my point. Mix misgenders trans folk, makes transphobic comments, 'favourites' extremely transphobic comments. But Murphy doesn't seem to have a problem with any of this, even when it's pointed out to her. She just denies until she can no longer can, after which she just avoids.

No, the links were loading fine for me. I just failed to see what the damning evidence was. Then I noticed that the clearly hostile tweet (neither by Murphy nor by Jonah Mix) had nevertheless been favorited by Jonah Mix. So, fair enough. Are there transphobic elements in Murphy's camp? Yes, it appears there are. Does this invalidate her as a feminist? No, I don't think it does, as stakeholders in this issue have already acknowledged a sharp division of opinion.

However, point raised about the hostility towards trans people.

susan davis

no we are not fighting male violence in general....we are too busy trying to fight for our rights, trying to deal with abolitionist legal frameworks and of course police violence as a result of bad laws....

its typical for abolitionists to say the rights of non sex working women superceed the rights of sex working women....

i also think its not accurate to say we are not fighting it.....many sex workers fight for many different causes...the environment, women's equality and of course many more....

where does it show that legalizing sex work in eurpoe is causing migration....? keep in mind we don't want legalizing...as i have said about a thousand times here.....but still...i have not seen anywhere it states that its proven that legalizing sex work has caused migration to increase in europe....

i have seen where war and starvation are responsible....but nowhere is sex work legalization been proven to cause migration....

or are sex workers to blame for the conflict in syria as well....good lord....

why is it bad that we are fighting for our rights specifically....? why should we not? 

or should we throw down our fight and fight for all other women but ourselves....maybe when we have stabiized the safety of non sex working women then we will have some time to worry about sex workers safety and freedom....?

 

Pondering

susan davis wrote:
i also think its not accurate to say we are not fighting it.....many sex workers fight for many different causes...the environment, women's equality and of course many more....

So do many abolitionists fight for many causes, including migrant workers.

susan davis wrote:
where does it show that legalizing sex work in eurpoe is causing migration....? keep in mind we don't want legalizing...as i have said about a thousand times here.....but still...i have not seen anywhere it states that its proven that legalizing sex work has caused migration to increase in europe....

It has been shown that anywhere from 75 to 90% of sex workers in European countries that have some form of legitimization of prostitution are migrant workers and that the work is a magnet, a motivation for selecting one country over another.

I am not going hunting for proof so contradict me if you want. I will leave it to readers to determine what they think is most likely to be true given that sex workers do not dispute those figures.

susan davis wrote:
why is it bad that we are fighting for our rights specifically....? why should we not?

It's not bad. It is also not bad for abolitionists and former sex workers to speak against prostitution.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Brachina wrote:

I don't support cendorship, but I cry no tears at Murphy getting a taste of her own medicine, she's been trying to control what sex workers and they're clients do with they're bodies, now others are trying to control what she does with her mouth. How does it feel Murphy when the very people who you've declared war against fight back?

 And yes the left fighting our own is far too common, but the fault lies with people like Murphy who pick these fights because they think they have the right to control everybody else.

That's not true. No one is interfering with the rights of anyone to have sex with each other. The commercialization of sex is what is being objected to. We don't allow paid surrogate pregnancies either.

 

Do you think the commercialization of sex is wrong?

 

I have a hard time telling the difference between a sex working charging for sex and an adult film maker charging for sex,

Truth be told I don't see much of a difference between a sex worker, adult film "star", sci-fi book author or a psychologist.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Then you've got some serious perceptual difficulties around the last two professions.

Paladin1

They get paid to provide a service or product.

susan davis

we do dispute those figures...where do they come from....der spiegle...? where does it show what you are saying is true....?

once again broad assumptions/ assertions being made about our community with no bqackup at all....as if citizen sex workers of countries where sex work takes place in a legalized environment are the minority so don't matter? and migrant workers are working illegally so don't matter?

whose opinion is it then that does matter....? oh yes...yours

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

They get paid to provide a service or product.

Facile. 

ETA:  This is the feminist forum.  Your definition ignores a slew of cultural issues that are entwined with feminism on both sides of the sex work coin.  The least you could do is acknowledge that this is not a simple, abstract, clear cut issue.

Add to that  - Sci fi as a genre has been typically dominated by male writers.  Female writers of sci fi have had to fight for acknowledgement and have dealt with a great deal of harrassment and crap from the boys.  Are you SURE that's a good comparison to trot out? 

Paladin1

Timebandit wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

They get paid to provide a service or product.

Facile. 

ETA:  This is the feminist forum.  Your definition ignores a slew of cultural issues that are entwined with feminism on both sides of the sex work coin.  The least you could do is acknowledge that this is not a simple, abstract, clear cut issue.

Not so much a definition as an opinion but for sure it totally ignores cultural issues on both sides of the coin. I don't know any better. I pointed out I have difficulty seeing the issue, to me a woman should be allowed to do what she wants with her body.

Quote:

Add to that  - Sci fi as a genre has been typically dominated by male writers.  Female writers of sci fi have had to fight for acknowledgement and have dealt with a great deal of harrassment and crap from the boys.  Are you SURE that's a good comparison to trot out? 

I'd say yes. I don't think Sci-fi is anymore a boys club (specifically) than the hundreds(thousnads) of other silly and archaic boys clubs out there. I have no doubt authors like Sarah Cawkwell put up with a ton of harassment and crap.  I used authors as an example because they sell their intellectual property. I said sci-fi because that's all I read so it was automatic. Replace author with physical trainer.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I think you need to get out of the basement a little bit.

First off, nobody is dictating what anybody does with their body.  It's the commercialization that is the issue, not the sex.  This has been stated repeatedly in all of the proliferating threads on this subject.

Secondly, it's nice that you think Sci Fi isn't a boys club, but you are unfortunately wrong about that. 

Quote:

This isn’t a new debate. Last year the editor of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA) newsletter resigned over widespread allegations of sexism. From numerous harassment incidents at sci-fi cons, to a systemic lack of diversity, to major uphill battles for women and writers of color for representation in all areas of the sci-fi publishing industry, tensions between the “old guard” of white male sci-fi publishing and the new diverse community who wants more progressive media are rapidly coming to a boil.

The new thread offers a glimpse into how systemic the divide really is. Fodera is the associate director of contracts for Macmillan, one of the industry's largest publishers. He calls Kowal, who is a Hugo-award-winning author, "an unperson... no one you should have heard of." Then he goes on to compare her to an aggressive dog:

“Oh, I know she has no power over me.  Still, I get agitated when I think about her.  There was a lot of good I could have done for SFWA, and she was a primary factor in my not being able to do it... In a way, it's like my reaction to dogs... My brain kept saying 'it's a service dog; they're well-trained; he won't hurt you,' but my body wanted nothing more than to dump my bowels and flee...”

http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/sfwa-sexism-sci-fi-nebulas-mary-kowal/

Selling intellectual property is pretty far removed from commercializing sexual services, in any case.  If that's a difficult concept for you, perhaps you should go do some reading before coming into the feminist forum to let us know how it's not an issue because you don't see it.

Paladin1

Timebandit wrote:

I think you need to get out of the basement a little bit.

For sure, which brings me to this interesting site.

Quote:

First off, nobody is dictating what anybody does with their body.  It's the commercialization that is the issue, not the sex.  This has been stated repeatedly in all of the proliferating threads on this subject.

I understand that. Whether someone is making money from singing, dancing, intellectual property whatever it's their business IMO. I may be wrong but just taking a guess the big deal with it being commercialized is that the government hasn't found a way to make money from it yet. Or found an effective way of getting a lot of money from it.

Genuine question, can you explain the difference between what a sex worker does and what a porn star does? Why is the latter so accepted? I don't remember the context exactly but a friend that works with a cell company says mobile porn sites are the biggest money makers.

Quote:

Secondly, it's nice that you think Sci Fi isn't a boys club, but you are unfortunately wrong about that.

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I meant that I am sure SciFi is a huge boys club, on the same page as a thousand other boys clubs out there.

Quote:

Selling intellectual property is pretty far removed from commercializing sexual services, in any case.  If that's a difficult concept for you, perhaps you should go do some reading before coming into the feminist forum to let us know how it's not an issue because you don't see it.

Come on now, I never told anyone 'how it is' nor have I suggest it's not an issue for everyone because I don't see it.  I thought I've been pretty upfront with being an outsider looking in and not understanding this stuff as well as most, or all, of you.

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

we do dispute those figures...where do they come from....der spiegle...? where does it show what you are saying is true....?

once again broad assumptions/ assertions being made about our community with no bqackup at all....as if citizen sex workers of countries where sex work takes place in a legalized environment are the minority so don't matter? and migrant workers are working illegally so don't matter?

whose opinion is it then that does matter....? oh yes...yours

http://www.safeiq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ugly-mugs-september-201...

It was announced on the UglyMugs.ie website and various social media websites that a survey was being conducted of escorts in Ireland. However the web address of the survey was not published publicly, to prevent non-escorts completing the survey. Escorts were invited to contact UglyMugs.ie for further information. Invitations to take the survey were also sent by email and SMS to escorts that had joined UglyMugs.ie. On three occasions over three weeks all escorts advertising on the escort directory website Escort Ireland.com were sent an invitation to take the survey.

On page 2 in key findings:

Key Findings

The leading countries of birth of participants were Romania (25.7%), United Kingdom (15.6%), Ireland (12.6%), Brazil (12%) and Hungary (7.2%).

One link to one study isn't proof of anything but it is common knowlege that prostitution attracts migrants so again, I will leave it to readers to decide.

The opinions of all Canadians matters and we don't have to accept an industry that is inherently dangerous and damaging towards women. It is not necessary for every worker in an industry to be harmed by it before a country has a right to reject that industry. That an industry harms some workers is enough to reject it. Some jobs in which people risk their lives are accepted because theoretically they are saving the lives of others or are in some way indispensable.

Canada has no moral obligation to provide brothels for migrant workers to work at. That doesn't mean I don't care about migrant workers. It means I care about what kind of country Canada is and how women are valued within it.

Brachina

 For the record I support the right to be a payed pregnacy surrogate as well as sex worker. A persons body is they're own choice (I say person instead of women in the case of preg surrogate because who knows what the future of biotech has in store for us). I also support the right of people to sell they're own blood if they so chose, heck right about now any of these three sources of income are starting to look really good to me in my current circumstances.

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Brachina wrote:

I don't support cendorship, but I cry no tears at Murphy getting a taste of her own medicine, she's been trying to control what sex workers and they're clients do with they're bodies, now others are trying to control what she does with her mouth. How does it feel Murphy when the very people who you've declared war against fight back?

 And yes the left fighting our own is far too common, but the fault lies with people like Murphy who pick these fights because they think they have the right to control everybody else.

That's not true. No one is interfering with the rights of anyone to have sex with each other. The commercialization of sex is what is being objected to. We don't allow paid surrogate pregnancies either.

Do you think the commercialization of sex is wrong?

I have a hard time telling the difference between a sex working charging for sex and an adult film maker charging for sex,

Truth be told I don't see much of a difference between a sex worker, adult film "star", sci-fi book author or a psychologist.

If you are selling something and someone takes it without paying, it is theft. If you have sex with a woman without her consent it is rape. Men rape women without leaving any physical marks as proof yet rape is a more serious crime than leaving bruises on women from a different sort of assault. I'd rather have a broken leg than be raped. Why is that?

There is no proof that love or hate exist, we just know that they do because we experience the emotions. Humor exists throughout all cultures.

That is nothing that sex can be compared to but there are common factors to how humans react to it that are as innate as love and hate and even a sense of humor. Sex is different. I can't explain it anymore than I can explain love or hate but it is something all cultures recognize. So getting back to the difference between sex and pornography...

. Audacia Ray and Michelle Tea have written about the feelings of self-betrayal, horror, and general displeasure that can accompany orgasming with a client; I’ve been right there with them. I’ve mostly gotten over revulsion towards my own body’s responses, probably because I’m better at controlling those responses now. But I still usually want to maintain a distance while I work. I want to maintain my sexual privacy which can be done even while having intercourse. I’m not there for my own sexual pleasure or fulfillment and I don’t like pretending that I am.

<http://titsandsass.com/getting-away-with-hating-it-consent-in-the-context-of-sex-work/>

and from the same source:

I’ve thought to myself before, about clients with whom the physical aspect is more challenging, “but he lets me get away with it.” The “it” here means my inability to pretend I enjoy the sex. That’s what he “lets me get away with,” by not demanding his money back, I guess, and by continuing to see me and pay me for my time.

In other words, this man allows me to not to disguise my fundamental lack of desire to have sex with him. I think this feeling of being granted some type of permission to not fake enjoyment isn’t unique to me and isn’t unique to sex workers.

Pornography is acting and the male is not paying to be serviced not that I think pornography is okay.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/therapy-matters/201205/does-porn-co...

Specifically, overstimulation brought on by viewing pornography can produce neurological changes—specifically, decreasing sensitivity to the pleasure seeking neurotransmitter dopamine—which can desensitize a person to actual sexual encounters with a partner.  These neurochemical changes not only contribute to a person becoming “addicted” to pornography but they can also make it incredibly difficult to abstain from viewing pornography entirely.

Pornography does distort our sexuality. Not to the extreme described above, but it still impacts expectations molding how women are viewed and how sex is percieved.

If sex is just another service, like washing the dishes, then why would a girlfriend or wife refuse if a man said forget the dishes I'd rather have sex or a BJ?

Many sex workers claim they don't feel that way. They are different, they just don't feel that way about sex. Rape still impacts many off them as rape not theft. 

Maybe for some sex workers that isn't their experience but society has no obligation to take on the costs of any particular industry because some people want it.

lagatta

Pondering, I do want to point out that all those countries listed except for Brazil are members of the European Union, and there is a right to labour migration within them. Bizarrely, there is no such right within NAFTA.

Pondering

lagatta wrote:

Pondering, I do want to point out that all those countries listed except for Brazil are members of the European Union, and there is a right to labour migration within them. Bizarrely, there is no such right within NAFTA.

People can migrate to Canada legally too. Canada's laws against prostitution hasn't stopped illegal migrants. If prostitution was legalized or decriminalized in Canada it would attract even more migrant labour of both varieties. We should use the word smuggled more not trafficked because using the word "trafficked" defines the problem as unwilling women being transported.

 Concerning the police sweep in Ottawa...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/sex-workers-further-victimized-by-d...

"It makes people hide further underground, makes them more vulnerable to violence and endangers their safety," according to Etienne Lam, who works for the Asian and Migrant Sex Workers Support Network.

Police said more investigations have begun after the raids, which could lead to criminal charges. The sex workers rights groups also said it could lead to more deportations.

This move comes after Bill C-36, the Protection of Community and Exploited Persons Act, was assented in November.

Sex workers rights groups were very critical of this new bill, which came about after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the country's old prostitution laws. This bill is expected to face more legal scrutiny in the years to come.

The groups said these raids show how the new laws threaten "detention and deportation."

We don't accept unlimited numbers of immigrants and refugees to Canada. There is no reason sex workers should be immune from deportation as opposed to other types of migrant labourers. If sex work were a path to citizenship it would be even more enticing. 

lagatta

Yes, but within the European Union migration is free of controls or quotas. And there is a huge differential between the standard of living in the wealthiest and poorest countries within the Union.

Pondering

 MM's entire argument boils down to that kind of imagery does not empower women and it causes many women to strive for unattainable results. Top models, arguably the most beautiful women in the world, are being surgically altered in an attempt to reach a socially constructed notion of beauty that can't be attained naturally. Then they get photoshopped because they are still not beautiful enough. That's sick and damaging to women.

Our notions of beauty and what is sexy are culturally shaped and our culture is toxic to women and girls. Sadly that is spreading as the 'beauty' industry expands its target customer base to include men who apparently are more attractive stripped of chest hair.

This is a similar take on the issue of celebrities posing nude.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11273072/Naked-celebrity-wo...

 

Stephanie Davies-Arai, of the No More Page 3 campaign, agrees.

“We don’t judge Page Three models or women who choose to display their bodies. But what we have is a culture that puts so much pressure on women to have beautiful bodies and be aware of our bodies.

“Within that culture it’s not surprising that it creates a pressure on women to compete and go along with it, because that’s what’s expected of them. Whatever positive message is in there, it’s still within a culture where women are judged by their bodies.”

Pondering

lagatta wrote:

Yes, but within the European Union migration is free of controls or quotas. And there is a huge differential between the standard of living in the wealthiest and poorest countries within the Union.

This is true but it is not that difficult to get into Canada or the recent Ottawa raid would not have included immigration officers who did find 8 women whom they are deporting.

Legal immigrants from disadvantaged countries would also be drawn to the big money they could earn with no experience. Aboriginal women are over-represented in the street trade.

Supporters of decriminalization love to point at New Zealand as an example without mentioning that New Zealand bars migrants from working in the industry but is unable or unwilling to properly enforce the law.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10890124

Prostitute denied entry to NZ angry that only sex workers are targeted, not the people who employ them.

 In the past 12 months, 25 brothels have been found by Immigration New Zealand investigators to be employing prostitutes who were here on temporary visas, such as international students, tourists or migrant workers....

People who allow a foreign national to provide commercial sexual services are considered to be "aiding and abetting a person to remain in New Zealand unlawfully or breach the conditions of their visa" and face penalties of up to seven years' imprisonment and/or fines of up to $100,000.

But the agency's acting fraud and compliance manager, Dean Blakemore, said no action had been taken against the 25 brothel owners, including the central Auckland parlour which employed the Chinese chef.

So the law is ineffective.

 

http://www.stopdemand.org/afawcs0153418/CATID=10/ID=200/SID=657494435/NZ...

...Although prostitution was decriminalised in 2003, it is illegal for those on a temporary visa, such as students and tourists, to work in the sex industry.

The collective does not record if a prostitute is working illegally, but Miss Healey said Chinese now make up nearly a third of the 1700 sex workers in Auckland - outnumbering Maori and Pacific Islanders, and behind only Pakeha.

Last year Immigration New Zealand, which only investigates when a complaint is received, found at least eight foreign sex workers working illegally.

A client, who frequents a Chinese "massage centre" in Takapuna, says the $40-per-hour charge was the draw.

"Even with everything included, it rarely goes beyond $80 with one of these Chinese girls," he said.

.....

Stop Demand makes the following comments - to raise awareness, educate and encourage readers towards critical analysis.

Candice, a petite Chinese girl, fusses over a customer...- At the heart of prostitution lies attitudes and behaviours that reinforce female subservience and male supremacy.  As activist Sandra Coney says, "We will never have gender equality as long as prostitution exists". 

Candice is one of the many illegal prostitutes who arrive in New Zealand either on a visitor or student visa to work in the sex industry. -  Contrary to predictions made by NZPC and the pro-prostitution lobby, decriminalisation has led to an increase in the numbers of overseas women being lured to NZ to engage in prostitution.  Many have entered NZ illegally and are part of a growing illegal prostitution industry.  

"We're now looking at two industries - an industry which is supported by decriminalisation, and an industry which is having to be underground again [sic]," said Catherine Healey...  - The expansion of an illegal sex industry alongside the legal one was foreshadowed, and should come as no surprise.  It follows the experience of every country that has legalised or decriminalised prostitution – eg Holland, Germany, Australia.  The admission by NZPC that it is "an industry which is having to be underground again” is evidence that decriminalisation of prostitution has created more problems than it has solved.

The collective does not record if a prostitute is working illegally.  - Why not?  Any responsible government-funded 'collective' should be ensuring its workers are operating within the law, not turning a blind eye to, and enabling, illegal behaviour. NZPC has produced a Chinese leaflet urging sex workers to "value themselves".  Isn't this an oxymoron?  How can young women value themselves in an industry that reduces their market value to their orifices?

.. about a third of the brothels and massage parlours in Auckland are run by Chinese operators. - This significant market share by an ethnic minority should raise concerns with authorities, councils and politicians.  With the Chow brothers looking to expand into Auckland, including plans for a ten-story 'mega brothel', it appears likely that the market share by Asians will steadily increase. 

"... their customers are their paymasters".  - That the sex-buying men are referred to as the women's "paymasters" aptly reflects the attitudes, and the power and gender imbalances, that lie at the heart of prostitution.

 

 

susan davis

that is not evidence...its the opinion of an abolitionist org....the things offered as "evidence" here are ludicrist....

the illegal workers who are migrating to every country are a problem for everyone and are not the result of decriminalization....

citizen sex workers are safer....the problem with migrant sex workers remains because of their non citizen status....

you yourself say its not because of sex work, yet now are using it as a way to undermine the success of decrim....well, which is it? 

is sex work responsible for migration or does migration happen for many reasons and jobs...?

susan davis
Pondering

susan davis wrote:

that is not evidence...its the opinion of an abolitionist org....the things offered as "evidence" here are ludicrist....

the illegal workers who are migrating to every country are a problem for everyone and are not the result of decriminalization....

citizen sex workers are safer....the problem with migrant sex workers remains because of their non citizen status....

you yourself say its not because of sex work, yet now are using it as a way to undermine the success of decrim....well, which is it? 

is sex work responsible for migration or does migration happen for many reasons and jobs...?

Migration happens for many reasons and for many jobs. Prostitution is a pull factor. Legitimized prostitution is a bigger pull factor that encourages smuggling of migrants that can't enter the country legally as well as independent illegal migration. I'm not going to offer absolute proof for that statement as we have been around that mulberry bush enough. I think people can look at the situation in various countries and judge for themselves if there is sufficient evidence to draw conclusions.

Canada has the right to determine how many migrants enter the country and for what purpose. They are chosen based on what they contribute to Canada. In my opinion the prostitution industry does not provide a net benefit to Canada.

Even if prostitution were legitimized in Canada it would not change the status of migrants who entered Canada illegally. They would still be deported so they would still be adverse to going to police.

I do support sanctuary cities. I don't know of any other solutions to the problem of illegal migration. The ugly truth is that Canada could easily absorb a hundred million migrants based on the size of the country and its natural resources. We have no moral right to have borders. Land ownership is not a human right.

It would destroy our way of life, our culture, so we won't do it. We will continue seeing our aid to other people as magnanimous instead of the least we owe for monopolizing this much land by force. We rationalize to protect our self-image. The truth is we won Canada through might makes right and that's how we keep it.

Migrant workers are often grateful and very happy to get to work in Canada given the conditions of their home countries and what they can provide to their families by sending their wages home. We still aren't going to drop our borders and declare that anyone who makes it to our shores can stay. We've decided that refugees are exempt from deportation but we make it extremely difficult for them to reach our shores and prove their case. Economic migrants are not refugees. All other immigrants are selected based on how they benefit Canada, not the other way around. Another criteria is family reunification which is also considered a benefit to Canada.

All migrants who are in Canada illegally are vulnerable to violence and exploitation. I don't see a reason why prostitutes should be exempt from the laws that apply to everyone else trying to immigrate to Canada. Why would we favor migrants who want to be prostitutes over refugees, or over farm workers?  They are not a reason to legitimize prostitution in Canada.

susan davis

i never said it was a reason to decriminalize prostitution....but the citizen sex workers in those countries are safer....why should citizens sex workers be thrown under the bus because decrim "might" make sex work appealing to immigrants....?

do citizen sex workers have any rights at all in your mind?

susan davis

and please stop saying prostitute....you know its offensive....say prostituted person if you must but please respect that prostitute is oppressive language that has been recognized by all sides.

Brachina

 In  the given context  like the term sex worker.

hookstrapped

takeitslowly wrote:

The policing of black women's bodies and their sexuality is well documented.

How dare a trans woman of color showed  PG nudity on a woman's beauty magazine  and say she found it empowering?

 

No, it empowers no one, Meghan Murphy said, a white woman who has never been trans.

 

She knows best I guess. I am really glad she spoke up on behalf of black women and the trans community. I hope she continues to speak out on behalf of trans women of color and describe our lives , our experience and our intent because thats feminism.

It's the same way she speaks about how sex work harms sex workers.  But knowing she's on shaky ground speaking for others with whom she lacks critical shared experience, she expands the argument to how trans women and sex workers (or thinly veiling the object of her derision, how trans women and sex workers succumb to exploitative objectification) harm women generally.  It's similar to how the Christian right objects to how gay marriage harms traditional marriage -- using stigma against and fear of the "other" combined with tautological arguments in place of evidence.  Abolitionists have quite a lot in common with the Christian right, including their shared sense of persecution when others don't quietly accept their bigotry.

hookstrapped

On Thursday I went to the performance of the play by these teenage girl children of sex workers from Mumbai, India.

http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/new-york-city-next-stop-for-play-by-...

It was extremely good.  Those abolitionists who purport to be concerned about sex workers would do well to heed the words of the last young woman interviewed in the news segment, "I'm a person who believes that sympathy means nothing. You must get respect from others."

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

i never said it was a reason to decriminalize prostitution....but the citizen sex workers in those countries are safer....why should citizens sex workers be thrown under the bus because decrim "might" make sex work appealing to immigrants....?

do citizen sex workers have any rights at all in your mind?

They have the same rights as all other women in Canada have. I don't agree that "sex workers" are safer in countries where prostitution as an industry has been "decriminalized", a word which is being used misleadingly.

susan davis wrote:

and please stop saying prostitute....you know its offensive....say prostituted person if you must but please respect that prostitute is oppressive language that has been recognized by all sides.

The New Zealand Prostitutes Collective uses the term in its name and it is the legal term used throughout the western world. "Sex worker" is too vague as "sex worker" also applies to strippers and other forms of work associated with sexuality. I'm not going to use a broad euphemism. I speak of doctors not medical workers when I am talking about doctors and I use nurses not medical worker when I am speaking of nurses etc. for each medical specialty. I don't know of any other term that effectively replaces "prostitute" without roping in a lot of other workers. 

 

Pondering

hookstrapped wrote:
  It's similar to how the Christian right objects to how gay marriage harms traditional marriage -- using stigma against and fear of the "other" combined with tautological arguments in place of evidence.  Abolitionists have quite a lot in common with the Christian right, including their shared sense of persecution when others don't quietly accept their bigotry.

Being gay is a state of being, being a "sex worker" is a choice of occupation.

You mistake being against an industry for being against the workers who are exploited by it. For example, I am against abestos mining but I am not against the miners. 

This thread is ample proof that Megan Murphy is being persecuted for her political beliefs not bigotry. The drive to stigmatize abolitionists and feminists is disturbing.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
This thread is ample proof that Megan Murphy is being persecuted for her political beliefs not bigotry.

I think it's equally true that when and where she's supported, it's also for her political beliefs, not some sort of abstract principle.

Pages