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

661 posts / 0 new
Last post
Bacchus

I think Tb thats my issue. On a grand scale i can see the evils but on an indi idual level i know too many that do it without the evil 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I don't even think of it as evil - would cumulative harm be a better way to put it? 

I don't think the intent is evil, on the individual level.  The question is:  Where do the rights of the individual's freedom to do what he or she will end and the larger society's begin?  There are a variety of things that people may decide they want to do that we don't allow.

quizzical

i like the "cumulative harm" phrasing. 

what's 'evil' doing being used in this context? i think  phrasing things in a religious term no one else used is just another way of trying to insinuate it's "puritan" beliefs causing the non-support of prostitution and the sex industry.

 

susan davis

sneaky? whatever....your post was not feminist at all. its an insult to the fight for our rights and safety and any "arguement" contained within is lost behind the hateful language it contains.

a pimp does not deliver the cunt.....a woman delivers the cunt....and cocksuckery reduces what we do once again to merely being a receptical for men's fluids....the post is not only hateful to sex workers but is hateful to all women.

with all due respect ...fuck your arguement...fuck your bias.....

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

... like I said earlier - with great drama.

quizzical

the extreme objectified world like we live in doesn't need more objectification or commodification. you don't throw gas onto a fire thinking it will put it out.

as i've grown up over the 80's and 90's i've watched the 'sex industry' be normalized and expanded. who has it benefitted? not women!!

violence against us is increasing not decreasing.

susan davis

i don't think i am being dramatic. we have had a series of death in vancouver in the last 2 weeks and i would hope there might be some sensitivity to that situation. not all of the deaths were in the news either.

how does degrading and belittle one group of women by using terms like "cunt delivery service" which imply we are nothing more than the cunt we deliver help to de commidify women? or adress violence against women? how does using terms like cock suckery further that goal either? pimps don't suck the cocks, sex worker do...

i find it hard to believe that in a feminist forum these terms would be tolerated. how could any "points" made by a person who harbours such obvious hatred be deemed acceptable in any discussion about this issue?

how about we call marriage, "cunt ownership ceremony"?

commidification of women is not a point we all disagree on. i believe however that it is not limited to the sex industry. in the sex industry the advertising end is where the public commodification occurs. what about other advertising? what about victoria's secret? women aren't simply commodified for men. women are also sold an image of women.

why is it that its always the sex industries fault that women are commodified? is it because we are an easy target? easier than tackling victoria's secret for example? is it because there are not many sex workers who will stand up to your arguement? so its easier to attack than a huge corporation with lawyers and millions of dollars to sway public perspections?

blaming sex workers for the ills of society is unfair. proposing that we are a reasonable casualty in the fight for women's rights and an end to equality is unfair and dangerous..

if people think its ok to call me a cunt deliverer and support this kind of thinking, maybe i am not a feminist. maybe feminism has fallen so far behind, i no longer feel i can identify with the term...

prostitution has NOT increased in new zealnd post decrim. nor has violence against women. you can say whatever you want to defend your position of attacking the sex industry no matter the cost to those within it, but it doesn't change the facts.

thank goodness the supreme court can see through the shit you guys are slinging....honestly, i am at a loss on this one.

why would any of you defend someone who calls women cunt deliverers....

susan davis

http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/commercial-property-and-regulatory/prostitution/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrc-report/documents/report.pdf

in 2003/ 2004 there were 5932 sex workers in new zealnd

in 2006/ 2007 there were 2396 sex workers....

how does that equal an increase quizzical?

 

susan davis

http://www.nzfvc.org.nz/sites/nzfvc.org.nz/files/DS2-Violence-Against-Women-2013_0.pdf

shows that violence against women statistics have remained stable since decrim esspecially when you consider the overall growth of the countires population during that time....

so exactly where have these horrible outcomes you predict happened?

 

quizzical

'kay guess its dualing links...i also read yours and u missed quoting where they admit data collection parameters and work type labels have changed so government compares in numbers pre and post can't be done with any accuracy. i think i 'll trust the Maori outreach workers words and those agencies outside more than those who want to justify legalization in NZ like the government is trying to do.

Quote:
Our quantitative empirical analysis for a crosssection of up to 150 countries shows that the scale effect dominates the substitution effect. On average, countries with legalized prostitution experience a larger degree of reported human trafficking inflows. We have corroborated this quantitative evidence with three brief case studies of Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. Consistent with the results from our quantitative analysis, the legalization of prostitution has led to substantial scale effects in these cases.

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)

http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/Report%20on%20NZ%2010-29-2008.pdf

NZ worst for domestic violence - UN report

New Zealand was ranked either at or near the bottom of the countries in the study in both areas and UN Women New Zealand national president Rae Julian called on the Government to ''actively investigate the causes of New Zealand's high level of maternal mortality and issues of partner violence against women''.  

Initiatives needed to be implemented to address the issues highlighted by the report, she said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5332717/NZ-worst-for-domestic-violence-UN-report

susan davis

and why waste time fighting prostitution when the problem is so obviously larger than that alone?

susan davis

yes....and.....

high rates of violence against women are caused by sex work? not colonialization? the point is the numbers did not chnge due to decrim....

i have read the limitations of the study...so? all research has those kinds of limitations. i didn't "miss" it. i provided a link to it.

decrim may not address the violence faced by ALL women in new zealand but at least it will mean women are not deemed criminals for the work they choose...

where is this link you claim exists between decrim and increased violence against women?

quizzical

susan davis wrote:
high rates of violence against women are caused by sex work? not colonialization? the point is the numbers did not chnge due to decrim....

i don't believe you've read anything i provided. and you never address anything  about proof given that trafficking increases when prostitution is decrim. or legalized. there's a link above i gave  about the scientific study done on this.

the privileged who choose to purchase sex are an aspect of colonialization. i think you know this but don't care.

and according to outreach workers and pretty much everyone else the numbers have increased post decrim. your own links state they figured it would prior to decrim but they did it anyway. decrim is just another aspect of NZ's violence against women seeings as how they're #1 in the world.

Quote:
i have read the limitations of the study...so? all research has those kinds of limitations. i didn't "miss" it. i provided a link to it.

ya read the limitations (limitations being there can't be a compare done at all) did ya?! yet you provided them as the foundation of your premise. and no all research doesn't have those kind of 'limitations'.

Quote:
decrim may not address the violence faced by ALL women in new zealand but at least it will mean women are not deemed criminals for the work they choose...

if ya would've read some links provided to you or even do an internet search outside the parameters you've your heart set on you'd find the majority of women really aren't "choosing" prostitution.

Quote:
where is this link you claim exists between decrim and increased violence against women?

i never made that claim i made the claim violence against women is increasing all over the world even here in lovely old canada.

 

shartal@rogers.com

IMHO much of this and related discussions ignore a single central observation that for over 2000 years many societites have tried to eliminate, ban, etc prostitution. It has not been sucessful.  I do not believe that it is possible to successfully eliminate the sex trade. If we  accept that  the sex trade will continue to exist, notwithstanding any criticism or legislation, then the question becomes  as a society how do we regulate the conditions of the sex trade so that the participants are safe.

 This is a different question than can the society regulate violence against anyone. The right to be safe is fundamental to freedom. One of the roles of every state needs to be to guarantee public safety. One of the legitimate role of  all police forces are to protect people from violence. Violence against anyone, including violence against women, is an issue of both education , criminal enforcement and sports for those who have experienced or are experiencing violence.

 

quizzical

susan davis wrote:
and why waste time fighting prostitution when the problem is so obviously larger than that alone?

oh my...yes why waste time the problem is too big. quite the attempt at propaganda.....

i'll make an analogy; 'cause i'd waste time trying to stop someone from throwing gas on a fire even though the fire is already lit. t

btw there's no supporting evidence you've shown or i've found from any country showing women's or prostitutes lives get better after either decrim or legalization. quite the opposite.

quizzical

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
IMHO much of this and related discussions ignore a single central observation

it's ignored because it's not a valid or true observation.

Quote:
 for over 2000 years many societites have tried to eliminate, ban, etc prostitution.

yes its true women have been forced into prositution for a very long time due to male control over society and women being chattal and all until less than 100 years ago.

Quote:
It has not been sucessful.  I do not believe that it is possible to successfully eliminate the sex trade. If we  accept that  the sex trade will continue to exist, notwithstanding any criticism or legislation, then the question becomes  as a society how do we regulate the conditions of the sex trade so that the participants are safe.

we've been trying eliminate slavery for a very long time. shall we stop because we've not been successful? or shall we regulate slavery so the slaves will be treated better?

Quote:
This is a different question than can the society regulate violence against anyone. The right to be safe is fundamental to freedom.

really? then everyone should have a basic living income 

Quote:
 One of the roles of every state needs to be to guarantee public safety. One of the legitimate role of  all police forces are to protect people from violence. Violence against anyone, including violence against women, is an issue of both education , criminal enforcement and sports for those who have experienced or are experiencing violence.

...only if your a rich white man or corporation

shartal@rogers.com

Slavery by definition involves one person owning another, must be coercive to be enforceable. and because it must be enforced through coercion is the antithesis of freedom.

I accept that any person has the right to chose to be a sex worker. I have the right to argue with them but he or she makes the decision. A society has the right to regulate the conditions of work; for example limiting the conditions under which this work can be udertaken; for example working inside with specific space and temperature requirements, requiring public health, taxes, legal hours of work, minimum wage, vacation etc.

In Canada safety is an illusion but even in a truly just society any right must be enforceable or it is a fiction. Our species is capable of both great kindness and great maliciousness. Therefore I cannot imagine a society without some form of enforcement mechanism.

Thalia Thalia's picture

Susan, I don't understand why you get mad at feminist writers for educating people about pornographic terms like "cunt delivery" and never, ever have anything to say about the pornographers in the sex industry you defend who actually coined those words and use them to market sex worker products to make millions of dollars.

How many men do you suppose read Berg's article compared to the number of men who masterbated to such pornography advertised like this? (these shoved themselves into my Hotmail inbox and I saved some because people didn't believe me when I told them how bad the problem of the sex industry was even back in the late 90s):

My mom sucked my penis and i liked it
Watch Me Pickup My Friends Mom And Screw Her
Watch How I get My Friends Mom To Suck On My
ce urinating pussy pics/movies
nude pictures of my little sis jenny
young & doing it for the 1st time
this cutey spread her legs wide open for us
It Was Bloody
Crazy Girls MAKE it fit.
why get a pro, get a first timer
Hidden shower cams
Small town sluts
Tight hot teens  
Humping my leg
100%free H0rnY eboNy girLs
Tight hot teens  
Riding and blowing big Dicks for the first time
bathroom cameras
B!g T!tty BL0nde Wh0re
Completely free dirty teens s
Where the D!ck G0es
More pussy than u can shake a dick at
teenagers with little B cups
Make Her Choke On Your Huge Knob
Watch These Sloppy Teen Girls Get It All Over
Check Out These Amateur Teen Sl-uts Begging F
Check Out These Sleeping Teen Girls Being Scr
nude teen stars
Stupid Big Titty Blondes get slapped
chicks face looks like a glazed donut
Seduced....Blondes get Abused
wild lolitas
s e e these hoes take it deep
Check Out These Amateur Teen Sluts Begging F
Watch These Hidden Shower Cams Of Hot College
Drunk..College girls..get taken..Advange of.
these frea'ks >do anything
Nasty ButtSluts take it in the Ass!
Shocking hole stretching
AdV...Mature Blondes..sucking
You get to see this girl have a dickSlurpee
Bend over my pretty wife for no money Jm
Nasty..Asian Teens..bent Over
Make Her Bleed After U Smack Her Coc-kpit

This is what you defend when you defend the sex industries, which I believe is what the special Susan Davis Sex Worker forum on Babble was created for. You have that, let the rest of us have Feminism.

susan davis

so i am not a feminist? and am to be bannished....wow there's a new reaction to sex work....yawn...

i cannot be held responsible for the crassness of others. i do not speak for business owners of porn companies. my ads say nothing like that. i have always posted using resepctful language. i don't curse or refer to other women as "cunts".

 

MegB

Thalia, I'm sorry, but it isn't up to you to decide which women can post in the feminist forum, or how women frame their feminism. Regardless of which side(s) of the sex work issue anyone lands on, it is still a feminist issue.

In the same way, Susan you can't, or shouldn't mock or deny the feminism of women who disagree with your position. We need to acknowledge that feminism is not monolithic and that there are many divergent and conflicting views within the feminist movement.

And finally, the personal attacks need to stop. I don't care what the opinion is, if it's propped up by personal malice, it isn't acceptable.

waittheysaidwhat

I appreciate this thread being here. I think talking about these issues from a feminist perspective that isn't limited is important.

 

So, there are a few things I want to point out. Firstly, the idea of listening to sex workers themselves. As was pointed out by the OP, this is of course vital to the conversation. The other thing the OP so astutely pointed out is that this does not mean only listening to the *loudest*. I feel it is offensive if any individual sex worker says that all other people with opinions has not spoken to sex workers. Actually, there is plenty of research out there that has the sociological approach that begins with listening to the voices of those involved, and many of us do our research by reading these. What is found in those works can be very different from the opinions of sex workers in this forum. 

The best example of this I can give is a book called Being Heard: Voices of Young Women in Prostitution. This is an important example because youth are some of the most at risk, both for becoming involved in sex work and for facing violence and oppression. And unfortunately, multiple studies show that the entry age into prostitution in Canada is in the teens -this isn't even really debated, the only part of it that is debated is whether the average age is 15, 16, 17 or 18. That means they are children when they begin. 

That leads to the second thing I want to address - choice. I think it does more harm than good to casually slip this word in when talking about sex workers' experience, as if it represents all sex workers' experience. Not only can teens not be expected to make a "choice" about prostitution, but also there is the question of what leads to these "choices". I know that this need to question the idea of choice because of society context and oppression has been pointed out by other posters, but what I wanted to add is that there are studies being done whose goal is to have Canadian Aboriginal prostitution renamed "trafficking" because of the dire social situation faced by so many Aboriginal women who get into prostitution. The vast majority are pushed into it whether by their social/economic situation or outright by people around them. This is so far from a choice that it is convincingly argued that they are trafficked. 

 

I know that this post is not exactly addressing the main topic of the nordic model, but since this is a feminist forum, I think all of this needs to be addressed.

Thalia Thalia's picture

Rebecca, that's the sort of pandering sanctimony that keeps me from posting more here at the Susan Davis Forums.

"i do not speak for business owners of porn companies."

The point you chose to miss is that you don't speak against these misogyny-trading pornographers when they use their massive wealth, resources, and direct control over the lives of sex workers to intentionally stoke hatred for sex workers among their billions of consumers.

These powerful men directly set the conditions under which prostituted persons must operate and when a feminist points that out as a problem you go on and on and on about the wicked feminist finger doing the pointing. It's a spectacular failure of reasoning in every way.

quizzical

shartal@rogers.com wrote:
Slavery by definition involves one person owning another, must be coercive to be enforceable. and because it must be enforced through coercion is the antithesis of freedom.

i understand slavery and what its legal definition is. it's why there's no abortion laws in canada. my point is i guess many folded. slavery exists here and now today not just in the past. should we legalize slavery 'cause it exists and so the 'workers' have better slavery conditions? the answer is no of course. which brings up the reality of prostitution is seldom a real choice.

Quote:
I accept that any person has the right to chose to be a sex worker.

why do they have a right to choose? presuming there's a real choice going on when most often there isn't.

Quote:
I have the right to argue with them but he or she makes the decision.

i don't know what this means. society at large makes all sorts of decisions or laws saying what can and can't be done for the good of the many. this is no different.

Quote:
A society has the right to regulate the conditions of work; for example limiting the conditions under which this work can be udertaken; for example working inside with specific space and temperature requirements, requiring public health, taxes, legal hours of work, minimum wage, vacation etc.

if you'd been reading all the links and postings you may have noticed those things are good in theory but it's not what's happening in the countries  who've decrim'd or legalized prostitution.

Quote:
In Canada safety is an illusion but even in a truly just society any right must be enforceable or it is a fiction.

there's no "right" to be whatever. let's say i want to be a trader in eagle feathers or ivory. i don't have a right to do so even though i might want to.

Quote:
Our species is capable of both great kindness and great maliciousness. Therefore I cannot imagine a society without some form of enforcement mechanism.

again if you'd been reading and researching.......

MegB

Thalia, I'm not missing any point. I'm a moderator, and my job is to ensure that there is free and open dialogue that retains a respectful tone, even when in harsh disagreement.

This is me doing my job.

Thalia Thalia's picture

I wasn't addressing you I was addressing Susan, the prostitution industry spokeperson whose overbearing, berating posts are either 1) proof of how little you/Babble genuinely care about "respectful tone" or 2) proof of how very poorly you're doing your job.

susan davis

excuse me thalia, your personal attacks against me are uncalled for. i am passionate about defending my community. their lives and safety. in particular from mis information which leads to bad bad policies which harm us.

i am not the "spokesperson for the prostitution industry". i am a sex worker, researcher and activist.

why is it that belittling me is always the fall back position in these discussions? why do people feel its ok to silence sex workers or lable them as over bearing for example when we speak up in defense of our safety?

i do not represent business owners, porn companies , pimps, traffickers, john's or any of the other exploiters in this industry. i do not get paid one penny to do the work i do. i am part of alot of positive things happening here and have experience in creating changes necessary to adress the things we are all concerned about.

to say my work is over bearing or berating is an insult. i have spent 10 years working on all of this and will continue to challenge those who would harm us through deeper criminalization under the nordic model.

its easier to believe i am a representative of pimps and traffickers then it is to realize you maybe wrong about how best to stabilize the safety of my community. i mean really, sex workers couldn't possibly know what they need. they couldn't possibly get together and develop plans or positions that could be used to fight for their rights.

after all, what sex workers want isn't important is it? its what other women feel is important that matters, right? we should all bow down to the "good women" and accept their judgement. we should be greatful that they bother to listen to any of us at all. we should accept our victim status and allow whatever the good women want to happen to happen.

its hard to believe people can be so blind to their own biases. can you hear yourself thalia? how do you think it makes any other sex workers feel to read this kind of shit? do you think it makes them want to comment? do you think it makes them feel safe to share their perspectives and experiences? why do you think we need a spokesperson? because the majority of us are afraid of being attacked like this when we speak up.

i became the spokesperson during the trial in the case of the missing women to protect workers on street from being targeted by media. media needed to speak to an actual sex worker to complete their stories. i was nominated and was the actual sex worker made availible to media. it worked. workers on street were not taregted by the media. iwas in the news over 400 times. it was exhausting.

i continue to be the spokesperson because i am already out there.others would like to try but then see attacks like yours and others here. they don't want to be attacked and so back down....

which is what you want clearly. for sex workers to shut up and obey what the "good women" direct us to do. for sex workers to live in shame for all the "harm" we've done to "good women" and for sex workers to be greatful for "good women" showing us how bad we really are.

 

quizzical

omg. could you please cut the inaccurate if not outright untrue offensive and attacking label "good women" and all its accompanying bashing you used?!

i'm so fucking far from the "good women" attacking label you used as to be unrecognizable to anyone i know.

i can't be bothered addressing the romantic and united front your portraying prostitution and prostitutes to be. it's just as far from reality as your labelling me and other women here as believing we're morally superior to you.

 

susan davis

how else should i interpret what you and others are saying? cummulative harm for example...? isn't that saying that the safety or lives of the majority of women- non sex working- are more important than the safety and lives of sex workers? you seem to be convinced that you know what is best for us.

the arguements being made all relate to how the sex industry harms non sex working women and the solutions being proposed which are not supported by sex workers but are promoted by non sex working women. how sould we feel about being secondary in this discussion? like an after thought but not the focus of actions moving forward? 

i am sorry you can't fathom that sex workers could be a united front and that we are a community. and that you believe my representation of our position to be romanticized. how should i interpet that? it feels alot like you feel morally superior to me....

when will you please stop using debunked data from unethical researchers to support your position?

you may feel you are being reasonable and that you are not insulting me in anyway when you post like this but you would be wrong. everytime you call my position "romantic" you are dismissing most of the things i have said which are not romantic in anyway.

its hard for sex workers to come together, its hard for us to put our position forward. its hard to face the judgement and backlash we always experience when these discussions occur.

again, if its not that people feel they know better tha sex workers, then what is it? and if its not that "good women"- non sex working- have more right to define actions going forward, then what is it?

the links you provide to melissa farely's work and other stats based on unrelaible/ biased data show that you don't even care enough to ensure the research you cite qualifies as ethical in canada.

non of those researchers "evidnece" has been admitted in a number of court cases due to its obvious bias and lack of research ethics review but yet it still good enough for you? as long as it supports abolition?

this thread is about the "nordic model" supported by many of you. that approach seeks to decrim workers- for our protection- to protect sex workers. its clear to me however from posting here that the safety of sex workers is actually not the focus of that approach and that that aspect of it is actually being used to deceive the main stream into supporting it. the term decriminalization being used to confuse people and move forward the goal of abolition while the safety of sex workers is actually secondary and not even a priority of this approach.

maybe read back through your posts and then tell me if you feel you haven't belittled, dismissed and attacked our position. show me where you have resepcted any of the experiences of sex workers being shared here? sure, i am a spokesperson but i represent a significant number of workers from varying capacities, genres and venues of sex work.

some seem to feel i am not in contact with my community and that i am simply romanticizing the situation using my own personal opinions and based on a goal of lobbying for the sex industry or sex industry business owners, as if i some how am in league with the pimps...how should i interpret that? is that respectful of the work we have done bringing our community together?

if people really care about sex workers safety and quality of life, then you should read through the work we have done to lead us to this point and the solutions we are proposing.

then again, if you don't care and only care about the broader issues seeing sex workers as a reasonable casualty in the fight to end the sex industry/ commodification of women's bodies/ cummulative harms....carry on and i will continue to challenge this clearly discriminatory outlook.

but don't try to dress it up as caring about us or as being the best thing for all. we're not buying those magic beans....

Thalia Thalia's picture

susan davis wrote:
some seem to feel i am not in contact with my community and that i am simply romanticizing the situation using my own personal opinions and based on a goal of lobbying for the sex industry or sex industry business owners, as if i some how am in league with the pimps...how should i interpret that?

You should interpret that as your own spoken truth.

susan davis wrote:
in the sex industry the advertising end is where the public commodification occurs. what about other advertising? what about victoria's secret? women aren't simply commodified for men. women are also sold an image of women.

why is it that its always the sex industries fault that women are commodified? is it because we are an easy target?

People who aren't lobbyists for the sex industry don't use the pronoun "we" when defending the sex industry from accusations of misogyny.

That's why you refuse to speak about how the sex industry intentionally capitalizes on teaching men to hate females while providing men with prostituted women and children to abuse. Such talk is bad for business while calling feminists and abolitionists the 'real' haters of women is good for business.

Small town sluts
Tight hot teens 
teenagers with little B cups

Watch These Sloppy Teen Girls Get It All Over
Check Out These Amateur Teen Sl-uts Begging F
Check Out These Sleeping Teen Girls Being Scre

Watch These Hidden Shower Cams Of Hot College
Drunk..College girls..get taken..Advange of
Nasty ButtSluts take it in the Ass!

Shocking hole stretching
Stupid Big Titty Blondes get slapped
chicks face looks like a glazed donut

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I find your posting of misogynist statements to be offensive and outrageous. Please find a better way to express your point that does not require misogynist tripe.

lagatta

I wouldn't do that either, but those are the exact terms that pop up when I happen upon escort ads. Should we also avoid descriptions of torture or the effects of weapons on populations because they are unpleasant?

Thalia Thalia's picture

How very interesting. I chose those pornographer's advertising quotes in particular because they are free from the usual, very creative slurs the sex industry utilizes to dehumanize women and conflate sex with cruelty. The only word on that list you couldn't say on television is "titty".

Yet even that mildest of evidence about the sex industry's structural sexism, being spoken in a sex industry thread on a feminist forum, is considered beyond the pale of discussion parameters.

When Anita Hill testified that Clarence Thomas spoke about pornography showing bestiality and rape and relayed the fact that he said, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?", the ugliness of the words stuck to the black woman testifying and not to the black man who actually spoke the offensive words, the man whose sexual harassment she was trying to prove.

 

 

susan davis

i do not represent pimps. i am a woman, an activist and a sex worker. your accusations around my intentions are ridiculous. when i say we, its clear from my posting history here that i am refering to the community of workers and allies who support self determination and decriminalization.

i have never tried to address obsenity laws or free speech. the terms you keep using are offensive. the names of the porn movies also offensive. i do not use terms like this when advertising but do know workers who do.

do sex workers deserve to be criminalized further because some men used misoginistic words? we are the ones who bear the brunt of actions based on the "men" in charge's actions. what about the effect of your beef with porn companies on those of us on the front lines? how will your ridding the sex industry of jobs help?

how does the "nordic model" adress the language used by porn companies? it doesn't. nowhere in the nordic model is porn prohibited. so why the nordic model? why not start a new thread about porn? and language used by porn companies? why blame prostitutes? we are an easy target i know....

the premise of the nordic model of criminalization has been stated to be protection of women and children exploited in the prostitution. how are your porn related posts related to the nordic model at all? it seems the support for the nordic model is actually seen as a means to an end. a way to get at other aspects of the industry....it hasn't worked in sweden, why would it work here? porn is not illegal in sweden....neither is exotic dancing....web cam....fetish work......so how are any of your statements actually related to the topic of this thread?

if all you can do is try to diminish the fight for our rights to us being in league with exploiters, then you have serious issues with understnading what a group of mostly women, those you claim to want to help, feel could best support their safety.

i am working with those affected on the front line everyday and who do not have the privledge of being able to gaze from afar in judgement. you are blaming the most marginalized women in society, those most affected by what you are opposed to.

why is it not possible to talk about these things without sex working people and our lives being comprimised or with us being some how responsible for the actions of men....?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

lagatta wrote:

I wouldn't do that either, but those are the exact terms that pop up when I happen upon escort ads. Should we also avoid descriptions of torture or the effects of weapons on populations because they are unpleasant?

We all see have seen spam like them.  What does that have to do with reposting them on babble for their shock value?  I have not said anything about the main part of this topic because I have nothing to add however I avoid creepy misogynist messaging as much as I can.  You can't just click off the nasty shit that was posted in this thread it sticks around to be read by all people who happen upon this thread. 

I do agree with Susan that the reposting of most of those misogynist messaging doesn't even have much to do with the topic under discussion. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Quote:

Yet even that mildest of evidence about the sex industry's structural sexism, being spoken in a sex industry thread on a feminist forum, is considered beyond the pale of discussion parameters.

I find it offensive language and since I didn't think it added anything to the discussion I thought it was gratuitous and primarily meant to shock.  Normally on this board if one says I don't like that fucking post other babblers will point out the lack of decorum in the gratuitous use of words like fuck. As an advocate your attitude is not helping me see the merit of what you are trying to say.

susan davis

lagatta wrote:

I wouldn't do that either, but those are the exact terms that pop up when I happen upon escort ads. Should we also avoid descriptions of torture or the effects of weapons on populations because they are unpleasant?

strange, when i google escorts i get this....

https://www.google.ca/#q=escorts+

nowhere did i see anything about underage girls being tortured or any of the terms listed as related to porn. porn is marketed differently that escorting. this is largely due to enforcement being based on overt adverts name sexual services. some ads will name sexual services but discreetly....

http://vancouver.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/

nowhere in the female escort section is there any mention of underage girls availible for abuse or any "bitches" who want to be slapped....

this areguement is conflating all sectors of the industry and has nothing to do with the nordic model which is specific to prostitution, and before you say " well if its decirminalized the ads will change!!" we don't know that, its hasn't happened like that elsewhere. its an assumption about us which is not true.

http://christchurch.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/

our ads reflect the kind of clinetel we hope to attract and so are generally respectful and do not use degrading language....unless its domination in which the man is degraded and looks for that kind of language used in reference to him...

i feel that decriminalization would allow us as an industry to call out different genres for their use of degrading language and could allow us to set some industry standards as to what is acceptable in advertising. as it stands though we are too busy trying to fight to be equal citizens to get into this aspect of our industry....

anyway, it really has no relation to the topic of this thread...

MegB

Thalia wrote:

I wasn't addressing you I was addressing Susan, the prostitution industry spokeperson whose overbearing, berating posts are either 1) proof of how little you/Babble genuinely care about "respectful tone" or 2) proof of how very poorly you're doing your job.

Quote:
Rebecca, that's the sort of pandering sanctimony that keeps me from posting more here at the Susan Davis Forums.

Well, clearly you are. Telling me I'm doing a bad job is a sad commentary on a response to a request for respectful discussion.

If you choose to quote work that may be troubling to survivors of childhood sexual abuse, sexual assault and issues that might negatively affect psychiatric survivors, I would strongly suggest that you, instead of posting the material verbatim, post a link with a warning to people with certain sensitivities so that they may choose to read what they wish.

quizzical

lagatta wrote:
I wouldn't do that either, but those are the exact terms that pop up when I happen upon escort ads. Should we also avoid descriptions of torture or the effects of weapons on populations because they are unpleasant?

i guess it's individual choice of how strong you want to word your opinion 'bout something negatively affecting half the world's population. and maybe your target audience would be different from another's?

i'm sick of the whole silence about the 'sex industry' crap indoctrinating society, labelling and objectifying us. my daughter at 16 has recently experienced the effect of our objectification and i'm mad. very mad!!

susan davis

i am sorry your daughter exerienced the results of objectification but once again, how is that the fault of sex workers fighting for their equality? or how will the criminalization of those who purchase sex adress this objectification? what about all the other ways this is occuring? why turn on a group of marginalized women who are fighting for their lives?

seriously, sex workers have been the reasonable casualty in this fight against objectification for too long. why should we have to take the worst of it with no input as to the best way to adress it? why are we excluded from the converstaion? why are we blamed?

shartal@rogers.com

This "debate" reminds me of the episodic fury aroundsupport for food banks. Some on the left become enraged when other activists work with food banks. It is argued that supporting food banks allows government to lower benefits to poor people and allows corporations who donate to present themselves as magnanimous. As we are not in a prerevolutionary period protecting women who end up in the sex trade seems to me like a better idea than railing against the trade and thus allowing exploited women to be murdered in the shadows.

quizzical

really? "episodic fury"? you think labelling those of us against decrim as being basically 'hysterical' is a feminist strong point?

what a pos comment!!!!!!

susan davis

this thread is another example of assumptions with no reference material at all....

how about this;

the nordic model is a myth;

http://rabble.ca/babble/sex-worker-rights/nordic-model-prostitution-law-myth

mark_alfred

Elle Fury wrote:

I know this thread is a bit old, but I thought I'd add a little bit to the conversation re: decriminalization.

For those who claim that New Zealand is a model for decrim, you should be aware that the problems inherent in prostution have not improved there. And if you want evidence, you can go straight to the government's own report, which claims that the model is a sucess, but if you read it closely, you will see that this is not the case. 

Feminist abolitionist activist, Sam Berg, provides an excellent take down of this report here:http://genderberg.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3567

Here are some highlights:

“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) 

Street prostitution in Auckland more than doubled in just one year, 2006-7. (page 118).

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) 

Yeesh, quite the charmer that Sam Berg is.

Anyway, Berg's post above is taken from an article on an American website called "prostitution research", which is an abolition advocacy site run by Melissa Farley.  The article is entitled What really happened in New Zealand after prostitution was decriminalized in 2003?

This article cherry picks items from the Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, which is a report on New Zealand's Prostitution Reform Act.  In some instances, the article takes things out of context and at times deliberately misleads. 

For instance, it claims,

prostitution research article wrote:
35% reported in 2007 that they had been coerced to prostitute with a given john in the past 12 months. (page 46)

But, if you actually look at page 46 of the Report, you'll see that table 10 also indicates that 64.8% felt "more able to refuse to do a client since law change".  Sounds like a positive change to me.  Of course this is conveniently left out of the "prostitution research" article.  Also, the 35% figure in the Report specifically refers to "Felt they had to accept a client when they didn’t want to in last 12 months" rather than "had been coerced". 

The Report, which was written a few years after the law was enacted, "recognises that simply decriminalising an industry will not produce overnight changes in entrenched attitudes."  Naturally the article cites this as a failure of the law.  There's other things in the article too that strive to give a negative spin on the law from stuff stated in the Report, like the article's statement about contracts.  The Report states,

The Report wrote:
Prior to 2003, written employment contracts for sex workers were rare, as they could be used against both the operator and worker as evidence of prohibited activity. However, the enactment of the PRA has opened the industry up to employment practices that are commonplace in other industries, including written contracts for services and, less commonly, contracts of service.

[..]

All of the commercial brothel operators interviewed for the CJRC Key Informants report (25 operators) considered the sex workers at their establishments to be self-employed contractors rather than ‘employees’. They typically sign a contract with the brothel operator agreeing to provide specific services.

The Report also states that some simply had verbal contracts.  The article cites this failure, ignoring that things were found to be improving.

The article cites an increase the number of prostitutes in Auckland over the 2006 to 2007 time as a failure, yet it neglects to mention the very simple explanation for this outlier:

The Report wrote:
In 2006 (and again in 2007) in Wellington and Christchurch sex workers known to be currently working, but not observed on the nights counting took place, were included in the final estimates. Some of the sex workers included were very rarely seen on the street. Wellington and Christchurch adapted the method suggested by the CSOM to include known sex workers. The same method was not employed in Auckland; therefore the 2006 figures must be treated as an under-estimation of the number of street-based workers in this region.

fortunate

Thanks to the wiser heads posting in here that do not allow false stats and so called reports to influence their opinions, mark.   Also i think in anothe forum, you posted a link to an article about how the socalled 'nordic' model is doomed, due to the new government in Sweden.    They have a mandate to remove the law, so oh well, i guess that's the end of being able to hold that one up as a great example lol. 

 

Really, all we need to do is look at countries that did a good job of decriminalizing, like NZ.,   They didn't just decrim, they introduced an entire set of workplace regulations.   It doesn't exist in a vacuum or without government intervention, like other countries that simply legalize.    

Another great example of having it all illegal is the US.  The business still exists and continues, in great numbers, except in far more dangerous conditions.     Most sex workers are equally afraid of the police and bad dates.  They have no recourse to report bad dates in the same way sex workers in legal countries have, so they just suffer in silence.    

It will happen, it is simply up to society to figure out how to not be just another problem sex workers have to get through or overcome in their pursuit of their business.    If you want sex work to be completely illegal for worker and client, you only have to peer across the border to see how well that's been working out.  It has only been illegal since 1910.  

mark_alfred

Hi fortunate.  I totally agree that NZ seems to have it right.  I went through the Prostitution Reform Act, and it's very impressive.  It's thorough, respectful, and well thought out.  The Swedish Penal Code, ch 6 s. 11, on the other hand, is neither thorough nor impressive (however, I will peruse the Swedish gov't's report on it).

I saw in another thread a link you gave to news that Holland is going to dump their "nordic model".  It's interesting how here it's the Conservatives who are seen as the most likely to criminalize prostitution and the social democratic NDP the least likely, whereas over there that's not necessarily the case.  I guess the conservatives of Europe are divided into libertarian (Conservative) and social-conservative (Christian Democrats) factions, and the left likewise is divided into various factions that make up different parties.

I'll look into how well things have worked in the States with their prostitution prohibition (or abolition, if one prefers).  I'm guessing it's not working very well.

PS,  great post.

quizzical

glad to see you'll feel comfortable with piling on into a thread and totalling ignoring the topic.

i call this bullying

mark_alfred

Sorry.  Not my intent.  The topic is rather new to me, but I'm trying to read the various articles and laws and opinion pieces and become informed.

mark_alfred

Back to the topic of defence of the Swedish model.  Here's some links on it.  First, a report written by GUNILLA EKBERG for the Swedish Ministry of Industry, Employment, and Communications, entitled The Swedish Law That Prohibits the Purchase of Sexual Services:  Best Practices for Prevention of Prostitution and Trafficking in Human Beings.  Second, here's a critique of that report, by Vincent Klausen, entitled An assessment of Gunilla Ekberg’s account of Swedish prostitution policy.  Third, here's a government report on the law (or a translated part of the original report that I found). I haven't yet had the chance to read or even flip through this stuff.

And last, here are the relevant sections of the Swedish Penal Code itself.  The prohibition on buying is at Chapter 6, s.11.  Section 12 seems somewhat similar to what the SCC just declared a breach of the Charter (though the Swedish ones are more extensive).  The effect of these latter two would be to isolate sex workers, I think.

 

susan davis

its not bullying quizzical, we are challenging your right to defend a crinal law frame work which is known to not be working. we are discussing our perspective on it. we are sharing the facts to ensure readers get the full picture.

aren't you interested in reading any of the numerous links being posted about the topic? i would hope you would take the time read about the "model" you are promoting...the potential and realized harms ...to know fully what you are standing up for....

quizzical

uh the thread title refers to the position defense of the nordic model and the right to defend it.

susan u have no probs whining if you think people aren't behaving right in the sex worker forum.

you are so bullying you and your peeps it's sickening!!!!! notice all feminists who don't agree with you have stopped posting? we'll i'm sure your happy you spout your line no probs now.....

have at it!!!! i'm done with being bullied.

Pages