Why Sex Work Isn't Work

245 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

hmmmm....and anti-feminist is good with you? i'm not a feminist but i sure do know being anti-feminist is being anti-woman.

lagatta

I am a feminist - I'd find it very strange if modern progressives were anything but - I'm not a "radical feminist", though both a radical and a feminist, as I don't agree with them about gender.

quizzical

ya, i learned what constitutes a "radical feminist" and a feminist here. for years, well my whole life, i thought mom was the former turns out she's just a feminist who's radical too.

don't think i could ever call myself a "feminist" now, 'cause i'm just not at one with  some of the stances feminists hold. or ones i know

6079_Smith_W

Actually "radical feminism" isn't all that radical at all.

To my mind it is quite a sensible way of looking at things in terms of patriarchal power systems. The thesis of this thread is just one example.

takeitslowly

I am definitely not the kind of feminist who will say sex work isnt work, or to force sex workers to quit their jobs.

lagatta

Well, over there they are using "feminist" as an insult.

 

susan davis

that's not true lagatta, i explained i was using it specifically in relation to this forum.i am unclear how villifying me or my perspective on this site and forum is in any way related to the topic of this thread?

thank you for your personal attack....again.

quizzical

"in relation to this forum" doesn't pass the sniff test imv.

 

lagatta

Susan, I didn't vilify you, and my comment on "feminist" as an insult didn't refer to you, but to a male poster just above my comment. And since I wasn't referring to you, obviously it wasn't a personal attack against you.

Here is the comment.

August 29, 2015 - 5:04pm #75

"feminist"...

I'll have nothing to say about your topic or about sex work in your space, but using "feminist" as a "bad word" is contrary to the ethos of rabble.

And of course, I WASN'T saying anything about sex work; that is your forum. But it does not give anyone, including said male poster, the right to use any forum to attack the guiding principles of rabble and babble.

And going on to extol rightwing (American Enterprise Institute) "feminist" Christina Hoff Sommers as more leftwing (!) than the feminists on rabble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers ...Yecch... As for Karen Straughan, she is a female supporter of Men's Rights Activists (who are VERY scary dudes).

These two pieces of shit are "well to the left" of those of us who've been activists for years, and in many cases decades, from a socialist (or anarchist), ecologist, anti-capitalist and feminist perspective? What we'd know call ecosocialist, or eco-anarchist...

What a crock. MRA are our mortal enemies.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Brachina wrote:

 A voice for men aren't antiwomen, they have many female contributors, they're mostly antifeminist, but they're are exceptions, they've actually published some feminists as well. Some articles are shit and I strongly disagree, others are really good, such as the ones on the way countries like Iran and India are protrayed in the MSM, a MSM protrayal that is outright racist, often sexist, and misleading.

 

Um, yes, they are, in fact, antiwomen.  How do I know?  They say so, directly.  They talk about violence against women in an approving way and about enforcing gender norms, often violently. I think we should take them at their words.

I should also note that anti-feminist women are not a new thing, and being female does not, by definition, make one pro-woman.  The fact that some women are okay with the restrictions and violence women have traditionally faced doesn't cancel out the wrongheadedness of their views. 

lagatta

Yes, and conversely many men have been sincere and dedicated supporters of women's rights.

quizzical

huh timebandit, and brachina agrees with them! i never searched them as i thought it's be a waste of time if they're admittedly anti-feminist so thanks for the info.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

There have been privileged women supporting the status quo since the early days of women's suffrage. The women who throw their lot in with AVFM aren't much different.

It's not hard to understand, though. Women are taught to act against our self interest from infancy. You absorb all the messages about masculinity and feminity and identity - we all get that social conditioning. I guess some are more flexible in their beliefs and thinking than others, or more inclined to challenge those "truths", others have fewer compelling reasons to try.

lagatta

Here is a new book by feminists here, "Les Antiféminismes", about anti-feminist discourse, which takes a variety of forms from "humour" to militant attacks on feminists and women's rights.

http://www.pressegauche.org/spip.php?article23131

http://www.editions-rm.ca/livre.php?id=1733

And another recent one about the "masculiniste" (so-called "men's rights") movement in Québec:

http://iris.banq.qc.ca/alswww2.dll/APS_ZONES?fn=ViewNotice&q=0004931928 This is an update of a book that originally appeared in 2008.

Pondering

Revisiting this article:

http://dgrnewsservice.org/2015/08/19/jonah-mix-on-prostitution-the-left-...

Some Leftists may think that regulation will bring prostitution out of the shadows, but Chelsea disagrees. “The laws can’t reach us here,” she said. “If we had the Nordic Model, I’d call the cops on all of them the second I get my money, before they get to rape me. If I called cops under [decriminalization] they would say, Did you accept the money? If say yes, they say, boom, consensual.” Amnesty International apparently didn’t listen to this “sex worker” when they decided to put a legal stamp of approval on her rape.

And what about the millions of women, around the globe and here in the United States, who can’t speak loud enough to even have their words dismissed in the first place? There aren’t many talk shows and newspapers interested in giving space to the traumatized indigenous women being bought and sold by South Dakota oil field workers. The immigrant women I have met who sell sex in double-wide trailers outside Seattle dairy farms are unlikely to be tweeting about “whorephobia.” Yet these women are the ones who are most likely to bear the brunt of men’s violence under the guise of “sex work.”

In practice, “listening to sex workers” most often means uncritically accepting the public statements of a small minority of women in prostitution, most of whom are likely to be white, middle-class, young, and able-bodied. This is an egregious failure of the most basic radical politics. Leftists — the ones who should be most aware of the ways our white supremacist, misogynistic, pro-capitalist media system excludes the weak and marginalized — have settled for a bankrupt method of inquiry that self-selects for privileged voices.

More importantly, even if we could somehow poll every single woman in prostitution for their thoughts on the law, a larger problem remains: There isn’t a single tyrannical system on Earth that would be abolished today through its victim’s popular vote.

Any Leftist in America should know this. After all, capitalism itself is widely supported by those who bear the brunt of its abuse — not because they are stupid, ill-informed, or evil, but because capitalism excels at artificially removing alternatives that might allow life outside of it. We understand this. Our politics are robust enough to explain why oppressed people often work to sustain the system that exploits them. So why do we retreat into rudderless libertarianism when the topic switches from wage labor in general to one specific — and specifically abusive — form?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
“If we had the Nordic Model, I’d call the cops on all of them the second I get my money, before they get to rape me.

1. offer sex for money

2. take the money

3. say you were about to be raped

Quote:
If I called cops under [decriminalization] they would say, Did you accept the money? If say yes, they say, boom, consensual.”

If it's not consensual and you want no part of it, why accept the money?

mark_alfred

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If I called cops under [decriminalization] they would say, Did you accept the money? If say yes, they say, boom, consensual.”

If it's not consensual and you want no part of it, why accept the money?

Regardless of whether a worker accepts the money or not, if they don't consent (IE, if they change their mind at the last minute) to the job at hand, then the customer can sue for breach of contract.  The customer cannot commit rape.  This would be true in a decriminalization scenario (New Zealand, for instance, specifically addresses this in its Prostitution Reform Act legislation).  It's the same for marriage.  Some wrongly say, if you're married you have consented to sex.  This false argument leads to the incorrect conclusion that rape is an impossibility under the terms of marriage.  Wrong.  Consent must always be renewed and maintained, regardless of whether a contract (for marriage, sex work, or whatever) is entered into.  A partner in a sexless marriage can file for divorce, but cannot rape.  A client in a sexless encounter with a sex worker whom the client paid for sex can sue for breach of contract, but cannot rape.

6079_Smith_W

^  ^ ^

Yup, and the false assumption that because sex workers have sex for money it is not such a big deal when they are raped, and somehow less (or not at all) a crime.

Funny, because making that assumption about the theft of goods from stores would be absurd, though the logic would be exactly the same.

Again, not to say that sex isn't something special and intimate for most people ( and all people in the context of a personal relationship) but this comes back to our fucked up attitudes about sex, and that those who do sex work are somehow to be looked down upon because we assume they have crossed a moral line.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Regardless of whether a worker accepts the money or not, if they don't consent (IE, if they change their mind at the last minute) to the job at hand, then the customer can sue for breach of contract.  The customer cannot commit rape.

I totally get that, and all the rest too. I would never suggest that once you accept the money, you're somehow committed.

But would you agree that if a sex worker does change their mind that it would be not unreasonable to return the money?  And that if a sex worker knows that they don't intend to go through with whatever they're being paid for, perhaps not accepting the money in the first place might make some sense?

Re-read what "Chelsea" said. 

Quote:
“If we had the Nordic Model, I’d call the cops on all of them the second I get my money, before they get to rape me.

Kind of sounds like she's saying "If we had the Nordic model I could accept money for sex I have no intention of providing, call the police to arrest the man, and keep the free money".  Or what's your read of it?

mark_alfred

Re:  post 119

Regarding "if a sex worker does change their mind that it would be not unreasonable to return the money?", absolutely, it would not be unreasonable (unless there were odd circumstances, but in general, yes, it would not be unreasonable).  I feel the same about any service provider.  For example, if a lawyer receives a retainer, and later states that they are unable to take the case on, then certainly they should refund the money.

Regarding Chelsea, I suspect Chelsea's musings on either decriminalization or on the Nordic model are not reflective of reality in either setting.  While there's a small thread of logic to her feeling that the Nordic model could allow her to legally commit the fraud she describes, I doubt that would actually be the case.

6079_Smith_W

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But would you agree that if a sex worker does change their mind that it would be not unreasonable to return the money?

Is the assumption that we are talking about terms and conditions (like washing, safer sex, and agreed acts), or carte blanche?

I think you are placing the onus on the wrong side.

I don't think most sex workers make a contract to sell themselves as slaves for  five minutes, or however long it takes the john to get off, or consider himself satisfied.

(and that satisfaction might include assault, rape, or murder)

So no, I don't think we are talking about sex workers changing their minds, but rather johns violating terms.

Depending on the circumstances, it is not necessarily on the seller to make a refund, especially if the purchaser is not acting in good faith. I am not in the sex trade, but I have dealt with those kinds of jerks.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
So no, I don't think we are talking about sex workers changing their minds, but rather johns violating terms.

Certainly in the case of "Chelsea" we're not talking about a sex worker changing their mind.

Quote:
Depending on the circumstances, it is not necessarily on the seller to make a refund, especially if the purchaser is not acting in good faith.

OK, except I'd suggest that in the example of "Chelsea", it's "Chelsea" who's not acting in good faith.

6079_Smith_W

Seems pretty clear to me Chelsea is begging the question. I don't think a real person would get too far too many times pulling that stunt. Generally speaking, I doubt that is the normal circumstance when someone decides the deal is off.

And whether that is someone throwing up in your theatre, or chasing you with a knife, I don't think the money is really the first consideration.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Generally speaking, I doubt that is the normal circumstance when someone decides the deal is off.

You seem to be primarily considering those times when a deal is agreed upon, and then a sex worker decides the deal is off.

"Chelsea" seems to figure that if only NZ would go with the Nordic model, she could decide the deal is off before the deal is even agreed upon.  Isn't she basically saying that the Nordic model would allow her to "call the cops on all of them the second I get my money"?  She doesn't sound like she agreed and had a change of mind.

Quote:
And whether that is someone throwing up in your theatre, or chasing you with a knife, I don't think the money is really the first consideration.

You'll need to help me with this.  I'm not being difficult when I say I don't know what you mean here.  :0

6079_Smith_W

Drunk goes into a theatre. Throws up all over the seats. Is the owner really obliged to refund the ticket price when they throw him out?

Sex worker gets attacked by a client. Is she really obliged to throw his money back at him as he is chasing her?

Clearer?

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:

Sex worker gets attacked by a client. Is she really obliged to throw his money back at him as he is chasing her?

Clearer?

I didn't really need any clarification on that.

But let's do this one:

Sex worker agrees to have sex for money.  Sex worker has already decided well in advance that with the new "Nordic Model" laws, she can just take the money and phone the police to have the man arrested.  That's what I'm referring to, right there in this thread in post #115.  Was there mention of an attack that I missed?

6079_Smith_W

As I just said Magoo, I think that is more an example of begging the question than an actual real-world encounter. Hence my answer.

 

 

Pondering

Some Leftists may think that regulation will bring prostitution out of the shadows, but Chelsea disagrees. “The laws can’t reach us here,” she said. “If we had the Nordic Model, I’d call the cops on all of them the second I get my money, before they get to rape me. If I called cops under [decriminalization] they would say, Did you accept the money? If say yes, they say, boom, consensual.” Amnesty International apparently didn’t listen to this “sex worker” when they decided to put a legal stamp of approval on her rape.

What Chelsea is saying is that she experiences prostitution as rape regardless of money changing hands to gain her compliance. Prostitution is not just like any other job in which workers are exploited.

Under a system of legitimized prostitution even if she changed her mind it would be his word against hers, guess who would be believed. Legitimizing prostitution does not make her safer.  Under the Nordic model the prostitute doesn't have to prove anything because the john is breaking the law by being a john. If he tries anything, like taking his money back or going for seconds she can go to police.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What Chelsea is saying is that she experiences prostitution as rape regardless of money changing hands to gain her compliance.

Maybe this isn't the career for her.

Lots of people -- the vast majority, even those in poverty -- don't choose to work at a brothel.  Most couldn't even if they wanted to.

Quote:
Under the Nordic model the prostitute doesn't have to prove anything because the john is breaking the law by being a john.

Free munnee!

ed'd to add:  I don't think that Chelsea is making a particularly compelling argument in favour of the Nordic Model.  "Save me from my own choices, but let me keep the munnee!"

Pondering

Pondering wrote:
What Chelsea is saying is that she experiences prostitution as rape regardless of money changing hands to gain her compliance.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Maybe this isn't the career for her.

Lots of people -- the vast majority, even those in poverty -- don't choose to work at a brothel.  Most couldn't even if they wanted to.

And most don't sell their kidney's either, so what? Rape wouldn't exist as a crime if it were no different than shaking hands or washing dishes. Money can be coercive. It's why we have minimum wage laws. People with more money can use that money to coerce compliance to unfair conditions in order to acquire that money.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Free munnee!

ed'd to add:  I don't think that Chelsea is making a particularly compelling argument in favour of the Nordic Model.  "Save me from my own choices, but let me keep the munnee!"

Chelsea is a woman who accepted money in exchange for allowing herself to be raped over and over again because she was that desperate. Her comment was an expression of bitterness not a plan.

This thread is about why sex "work" isn't work like any other yet you are posting from the perspective that sex is no different than any other job.

If that were true, rape would be no different than theft or simple assault. It is different because sex is not just like washing dishes for a living.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And most don't sell their kidney's either, so what?

So I question anyone who says that the ONLY way they could survive in the world was to sell a kidney that they didn't want to.

Lots of people -- and by that I mean the VAST MAJORITY of people -- also don't sell a kidney to pay the rent.

Quote:
People with more money can use that money to coerce compliance to unfair conditions in order to acquire that money.

Do you mean "entice"?

I would agree that money often entices people, but that's not the same as coercion.  MMA fighter Ronda Rousey was recently "enticed" with lots of munnee to do a porn shoot.  Is that the same as coercion?  Think she'll say "yes" because she has to?

Quote:
Chelsea is a woman who accepted money in exchange for allowing herself to be raped over and over again because she was that desperate.

You know her?

Is it possible that maybe the money was just more than she could earn working a job like other people?  I'm sorry, but from whatever I've read, I'm not convinced that Chelsea had no other options, though I'll concede that the other options might not have been as lucrative, nor as easy -- notwithstanding the part where she considered it equal to being raped.

But I'm just curious here -- is it your belief that there's just NOTHING Chelsea could do to earn a living -- like others seem to do -- other than sex work?

 

quizzical

oh so you're saying you think prostitution is EASY? waposya

and you have no understanding on how hard it is for FN's to get employment.

how about you walk now before you embarrass yourelf anymore than you have already.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
So I question anyone who says that the ONLY way they could survive in the world was to sell a kidney that they didn't want to.

Lots of people -- and by that I mean the VAST MAJORITY of people -- also don't sell a kidney to pay the rent. 

It isn't the only way to survive. That is what supporters of legitimization claim. If it genuinely were the only way to survive in Canada I wouldn't be an abolitionist because I don't want women and their families to die.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Do you mean "entice"? 

No, I mean coerce, as in:

IRBs can disallow high incentives they deem coercive. A vignette study on MTurk concerning participation in medical trials shows that a substantial minority of subjects concurs. They think high incentives cause more regret, and that more people would be better off without the opportunity to participate. We model observers as judging the ethicality of incentives by partially using their own utility. The model predicts that payments are repugnant only to the extent that they affect the participation decision, and more so for larger transactions. Incentivizing poorer participants is more repugnant, and in-kind incentives are less repugnant than monetary incentives.

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.p20151034

Pondering wrote:
Chelsea is a woman who accepted money in exchange for allowing herself to be raped over and over again because she was that desperate. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:
You know her? 

No, but I agree with her description of what it feels like. There are countless survivors who describe having to disassociate from their bodies and feeling repulsed if they are turned on, as though their body is betraying them.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Is it possible that maybe the money was just more than she could earn working a job like other people?

Duh, of course, hence the coercive power of money.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
   I'm sorry, but from whatever I've read, I'm not convinced that Chelsea had no other options, though I'll concede that the other options might not have been as lucrative, nor as easy -- notwithstanding the part where she considered it equal to being raped. 

Again, she does have other options, just not as lucrative. As to notwithstanding the part where she considered it equal to being raped., that is the key point, the reason that prostitution should not be legitimized and established as a growing industry is because so many women are traumatized by it.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
But I'm just curious here -- is it your belief that there's just NOTHING Chelsea could do to earn a living -- like others seem to do -- other than sex work?

If I thought that I would not be an abolitionist because I would rather not have women starving to death on the streets. For an unskilled 18 year old coming out of foster care there is nothing nearly as lucrative as prostitution. The first time, the second time, the third time, doesn't necessarily cause PTSD (although it can). The damage is collective.

No law will hinder high end prostitution except in an indirect manner. What the law discourages is street prostitution and brothels. It also discourages impulsive/reckless involvement by disallowing advertising.

The narrative that for most women it is an appealing alternative to a menial job is false. If that were the case many more women would be walking the streets stigma be damned. If it is a job like any other, why have exit programs? It isn't easy money, it's fast money.

lombar

Again, she does have other options, just not as lucrative

So she choses to engage in sex work to make more money than she otherwise could. How is money coercing her if she has other choices even if they are not as lucrative? She could choose to make less money, take a more conventional path. You are taking her agency away and blaming her behavior on externalities. Coercion is forcing someone to do something with threats of or use of violence. It is not choosing to engage in behaviors/work because they pay better. That is not coercion, that is incentive.

The case still has not been made for the states use of force to interfere with the consensual transactions to me at least. You are a proponent of a system that does coerce men to stop accessing sexual services. I find it hilarious that you make the assertion that this womans is coerced into sex work and still supposedly has choices. That is like saying I was coerced into being a crack dealer because I could only get a job at McDonalds.

quizzical

the only important thing i saw in the article was what i bolded.

this means there's a good possibility members of my extended family could be getting the help they need and couldn't get before.

"are from communities including Sydney. Bay St. Lawrence, Big Pond, Cheticamp and Main-a-Dieu.

The police service also worked with community partners including Mental Health and Addiction Services since beginning its investigation, and a number of the women who were involved in prostitution have since gone into treatment for opioid addiction, which McIsaac said is a major contributing factor to the increased prostitution activity."

http://www.capebretonpost.com/News/Local/2015-09-08/article-4269757/Poli...

 

 

Brachina

 If this helps any of your family get better and defeat crack addict that will be awesome, I have family who are addicted to drugs, but sadly I know of no medication that helps with crack addiction.

quizzical

main drugs of choice are huffing gas and opiates.  i prefer they do opiates.  maybe if they had a past and future they wouldn't be self-medicating.

i talk to gma about once a month. her rule. she doesn't understand fee phone plans. i will ask her then.

fortunate

Timebandit wrote:

SJ, did you actually read the article?  If sex work is just work with another part of your body, then many of the limits we place in view of occupational health and safety become moot.  So is that okay with you?  Should we waive what other workers and employers must comply with?

ETA: If we're staying out of "other people's drawers", do we also stay off other people's backs? Perhaps the construction worker should be able to waive OH&S regulations in his or her work as well, right?  None of our business...

 

 

adding to an old article/thread again sorry!

Using anything out of the USA to compare to Canada regarding sex work is already problematic.  there is no comparison, there is nothing in common.  trying to compare complete illegality of sex work means that decriminalizing any part of it is an obvious improvement.  it doesn't mean it will be better, safer or anything else, and it certainly does nothing to improve the lives of sex workers who were not working under illegality and criminalization before, as is the case of Canadian sex workers.  

the ONLY possible comparison to Canada regarding criminalization or decriminalization is and always will be New Zealand.  same set up of criminalization with legal sex work prior to reform,  except they removed the conditional criminal laws, and added OHS regulations.     

I find the article in the original post to be riddled with misleading commentary,  possibly deliberate in order to tug the heartstrings to get a moral opinion rather than a logical one.    I find that any such things to be very very anti sex worker, including the 'scare quotes' used to diminish and silence the appropriate and preferred terminology, and as such, very anti feminism to strip away the rights, choices and voices of actual sex workers.

fortunate

Brachina wrote:

 This thread should be in the sex work forum, there is a specifc forum for this sort of discussion and this isn't it.

 The only exception should be perhaps discussing bill c-36 as an election issue, because it is, and because that subforum likely gets more traffic/attention then most of the rest of the subforums combined.

 I will say that when Slumberjack is the voice of reason and sanity in a thread, that scares the hell out of me. :-) 

 I politely request the mods move the thread to either the sex worker forum or the election 2015 subforum if one wants to move it in a more election issue direction. Thank You.

 

 

sorry for the late reply, but considering the theme, tone & point of this article & thread is very much anti sex worker and anti sex work, it in no way belongs in the sex worker's rights forums.   that is for pro sex worker & allies.   tho it might be interesting to be able to discuss this 'article', if one can call it that, since there is little or no research done, and it is kind of sketchy on it's use of real facts, research, and in some cases, common sense.

fortunate

it was emptied because these people drifted over there to attack, rather than discuss or support.  sorry but at one point, pondering, quizzical and others were told to stay out of the forum because they were not actually capable of letting sex workers talk about their own lives, experiences, needs & rights.  they'd show up with articles like this, as if it was a valid report of anything related to actual sex work lol.   no, sorry, not sorry, also blocking/banning due to Meghan Murphy's participation on rabble & her violation of rabble policy when discussing sex workers.   

it, like this thread, is an attempt to silence & discredit sex workers, so very much would never be welcome over there

Brachina wrote:

 I didn't know that.

 So let get this straight, you can't discuss/challenge elements of feminism or even schools of feminism in the feminism forum, you can't challenge sex work legalization in the sex work forum, ect...

 Look I'm extremely pro legalization, extremely so, but as frustration and infurating as the abolutionists can be, not even being able to challenge each other it in the forum for which one would think was meant for it seems baffling. How can opinions and minds be changed and evovled when such dialogs are forbidden?

 What are supposed to discuss in the Sex Worker former, technique? the effect of the economy on the industry? weather Sex Workers in Canada should unionize.

 I don't know what to say honestly, no wonder the Sex Worker forum is so empty. I saw tumble weed drifting on by in there.

 

 

 

mark_alfred wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If I called cops under [decriminalization] they would say, Did you accept the money? If say yes, they say, boom, consensual.”

If it's not consensual and you want no part of it, why accept the money?

Regardless of whether a worker accepts the money or not, if they don't consent (IE, if they change their mind at the last minute) to the job at hand, then the customer can sue for breach of contract.  The customer cannot commit rape.  This would be true in a decriminalization scenario (New Zealand, for instance, specifically addresses this in its Prostitution Reform Act legislation).  It's the same for marriage.  Some wrongly say, if you're married you have consented to sex.  This false argument leads to the incorrect conclusion that rape is an impossibility under the terms of marriage.  Wrong.  Consent must always be renewed and maintained, regardless of whether a contract (for marriage, sex work, or whatever) is entered into.  A partner in a sexless marriage can file for divorce, but cannot rape.  A client in a sexless encounter with a sex worker whom the client paid for sex can sue for breach of contract, but cannot rape.

 

i'm sorry but are you saying that a sex worker could be sued for breach of contract if they refuse a client after the appt started?  that is very wrong, that is not what the PRA is set up for at all.  In fact, the reverse is is true, it is carefully laid out that the sex worker has the right to refuse or withdraw consent at ANY TIME.      

having such a condition in place would mean a coercive power imbalance for the client over the sex worker,  who would end up proceeding out of fear of a lawsuit?  no.  

another comment i saw earlier by someone implied that under decrim there could be no sexual harassment cases.   also very much untrue,  in fact a brothel worker did win a sexual harrassment case earlier this year.   another 'this will never work' comment had to do with condom use?   OHS protocols require them, clients or sex workers can be fined if they are found to not use them or ask to not use them (this usually means for oral sex, not full sex) meaning that sex workers power again remain with them because if asked or pressure is attempted, they can refer to the law and the hefty fines that might occurr if they did provide it.    

Failure to pay, by the client, can result in a rape charge tho.  the services are consented to under certain conditions, one of which is being paid in full.  In one court case, lost by the client,  a sex worker was successful in charging the client who had presented payment in an envelope, pressured her to not check the envelope as a sign of trust, and it turned out to be filled with paper.    

the reality of decriminalization is simple:  less criminal laws give more opportunities and options for sex workers to no longer be treated like children or victims, but just like other workers or business owners.    

under criminalization, even if the USA decided to do nordic model, sex workers biggest problem will be what it is now, police.   They are far more concerned with abuse by police, coercion by police and arrest by police than any clients.   If a nordic regime was put in place, decriminalizing (what a joke that term is when it is only one sided) the sex worker, then the police would simply continue to control the sex workers by threatening their clients, or their landlords, or their kids or whatever else they currently use to get sex workers to comply with their demands.    

 

side note: chelsea is funny, pretty sure 'she' is an abolitionist group sock puppet, doesn't really exist.   if she does, she has to be the only sex worker in all of New zealand who is against their current decriminalization model.   and as you can see from her quoted remarks, it seems that scamming clients out of their money, and leaving without providing the services promised, is something that is not that easy to accomplish in New Zealand.  However it is actually something well known to happen in criminalization systems, like the US and Canada.   

again, it is always interesting to see opinions about sex workers by people who know nothing about it, but think they should dictate policy and criminal laws over the voices of those who would be left to fend for themselves working under horrific conditions.   the only reason C36 hasn't killed more sex workers is because in the majority of large Canadian cities, it is not being enforced in any way.

mark_alfred

fortunate wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If I called cops under [decriminalization] they would say, Did you accept the money? If say yes, they say, boom, consensual.”

If it's not consensual and you want no part of it, why accept the money?

Regardless of whether a worker accepts the money or not, if they don't consent (IE, if they change their mind at the last minute) to the job at hand, then the customer can sue for breach of contract.  The customer cannot commit rape.  This would be true in a decriminalization scenario (New Zealand, for instance, specifically addresses this in its Prostitution Reform Act legislation).  It's the same for marriage.  Some wrongly say, if you're married you have consented to sex.  This false argument leads to the incorrect conclusion that rape is an impossibility under the terms of marriage.  Wrong.  Consent must always be renewed and maintained, regardless of whether a contract (for marriage, sex work, or whatever) is entered into.  A partner in a sexless marriage can file for divorce, but cannot rape.  A client in a sexless encounter with a sex worker whom the client paid for sex can sue for breach of contract, but cannot rape.

 

i'm sorry but are you saying that a sex worker could be sued for breach of contract if they refuse a client after the appt started?  that is very wrong, that is not what the PRA is set up for at all.  In fact, the reverse is is true, it is carefully laid out that the sex worker has the right to refuse or withdraw consent at ANY TIME.     

Yes, of course.  Thanks for pointing that out.  It was a while ago that I wrote this.  I was mainly trying to negate Magoo's "Did you  accept the money? If say yes, they say, boom, consensual" argument that was put forth.  As you say, the sex worker has the right to refuse or withdraw consent at any time.

ETA:  My original post was inspired by s. 17 of the PRA, including s. 17(3) of the PRA (though I've likely misread that one subsection).  Regardless I agree you're right in saying that consent can be refused at any time, which is what's important.

Pondering

http://projects.thestar.com/human-sex-trafficking-ontario-canada/

The Star’s investigation is based on: information from criminal trafficking cases; federal government documents detailing the problem; interviews with victims, parents, social workers and police officers from four major regions across the GTA; and an in-depth interview with an accused pimp who is behind bars awaiting trial.

Detectives say the crime is growing because trafficking is so lucrative — a pimp can earn $280,000 a year from one sex-trade worker, according to the RCMP. The Internet has also changed The Game by taking these girls off the streets and hiding them behind closed doors. The girls are typically sold on the website Backpage.com which police say is notorious for running sex trafficking advertisements across North America.

Over the past month, the Star has interviewed six victims who were lured into The Game and trafficked throughout the GTA, moved every few days between four-star downtown hotels to cheap motels and strip clubs along Highway 401 and the QEW.

Their stories have similar traits — what lured the girls into The Game was the illusion of love and a secure future.

What made them stay was the fear of being beaten, burnt, “outed as whores” or left for dead, and sometimes threats to their families.

Some of these girls are runaways, abandoned by their parents, or foster kids lured straight out of group homes; others grew up in middle-income households and are recruited from high schools or house parties.

The six victims the Star interviewed said those buying sex were from all walks of life, including businessmen, doctors, lawyers, police officers, labourers, drug dealers, college students, teachers, judges, accountants and soldiers. Occasionally they were women.

Since 2013, Toronto Police have intervened in 359 trafficking incidents — arresting 114 pimps — where victims have told police stories of being deprived of food until they serviced a certain number of men or being forced to call their pimps “Daddy.’’

These are not jobs. There is no way for police to manage this "industry".  They can't check every backpage ad to see if there is a pimp behind it. For every "good" john there are hundreds who don't question if the smiling woman in front of them really wants to have sex with them or who gets the money they hand over.

quizzical

good job putting this up pondering. it was hard to watch those stories but i did most.

pieces of shit pimps and johns. 

 

Sineed

A John Called Hatrick - Case study of a man in Vancouver, British Columbia, who is acting without consequences despite being punishable under Canada’s new prostitution laws.

Quote:

Hatrick prefers to pick up women on the streets of Vancouver, New Westminster, Burnaby and Surrey but he also uses indoor prostitution and strip clubs. He likes to go to The Paramount Gentleman’s Club in New Westminster on Sunday nights for a 2 for 1 lap-dance before cruising the streets in the vehicle he calls his ‘trickmachine‘. The kit he keeps in his car includes a flashlight (johns call it a ‘snatchlight’) and he uses this to examine women’s genital areas for signs of venereal disease. Hatrick has Prostatitis (an enlarged prostate) following contraction of non-gonococcal urethritis ‘from letting the bitch put the rubber on, she had it on her fingers and transferred it to me.’

He explains: ‘The light is very important because you should check out her box for warts, sores, infections, etc.’  

He also uses the flashlight to shine on women’s vaginas while he uses them; a habit that women who have encountered him may recognize him by.

https://atrickofthetrade.wordpress.com/2015/05/09/a-john-called-hatrick-...

The piece describes the reality of sex work from the perspective of one john and the sex workers he has employed.

Trigger warning: this is a graphic read.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But we aren't talking about changing laws on sexual assault, but rather whether or not to decriminalize prostitution, and to what degree.

And there is a big difference between sexual assault and sex for work, even if we agree that the latter can be very damaging for some people in some circumstances. I understand the argument, but I don't accept the equivalency that it attempts to draw.

Quote:

If sex is just a service then it is unreasonable for rape to be considered such a serious crime.

Rape is a serious crime. That has nothing to do with whether or not sex is in some cases a service.

Yes it is and yes it does. Rape law acknowledges that sex is not just like a back rub. If you force a back rub on someone it isn't a crime. You could probably be charged with false confinement or something like that but even that would be unlikely if it lasted less than 5 minutes.

The argument in favor of prostitution rests in the philosophy that there are two kinds of women. For some women sex isn't "special" it's just something they do for a living. The lie is revealed when they are raped and experience it the same as other women, because sex isn't just like getting a back rub.

The violation of rape cannot be understood by someone who hasn't experienced it. It doesn't affect everyone the same way but it  certainly does have a serious impact on most people who experience it.

Perhaps some women do experience sex dispassionately or enjoy having sex with a variety of men daily but they are the exception to the rule. I don't think laws should be written to suit them at the expense of protecting the women who would be harmed by the institutionalization of prostitution as an industry in Canada.

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

Yes it is and yes it does.

Fortunately that is not what the law says.

Sexual assault is sexual assault, whether the victim is a partner, or someone who is in the sex trade. It is just as much a crime in all cases.

People might not take it as seriously because they judge the victim, but that is not the law. And considering that we should be challenging that sort of judgment, it is kind of odd that you are claiming that it justifies your argument. Do you think blaming the victim is a good thing? If not, then why treat it as if it has any validity?

And the operative word is assault, for those who blur the lines between it and sex in any way. Sex is an aggravating factor; it isn't an excuse for the perpetrator, and it isn't something that can be used to claim that the victim was asking for it.

And the backrub thing? Well we have already established elsewhere that someone can be assaulted with a bubble if it is unwanted. As for the difference between sex and a backrub, sure it has more significance for many people. But we are talking about what is criminal or not. Other than the aspect of consent, the difference is not relevant to sexual assault law at all.

(edit)

And I had to dig back to find the August 20 post where I said that in the first place, and I also read the discussion which followed. Is there something that didn't get hashed out the first time, that you are coming back to it now? Because beyond the fact that we simply disagree on this, we have pretty much covered all the angles a few times.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Fortunately that is not what the law says.

Sexual assault is sexual assault, whether the victim is a partner, or someone who is in the sex trade. It is just as much a crime in all cases.

Yes, that's my point, because rape is different from a back rub because sex is different than a backrub. The argument that for some women it is no different than a backrub is false.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 

And the operative word is assault, for those who blur the lines between it and sex in any way. Sex is an aggravating factor; it isn't an excuse for the perpetrator, and it isn't something that can be used to claim that the victim was asking for it.

And the backrub thing? Well we have already established elsewhere that someone can be assaulted with a bubble if it is unwanted. As for the difference between sex and a backrub, sure it has more significance for many people. But we are talking about what is criminal or not. Other than the aspect of consent, the difference is not relevant to sexual assault law at all.

You will not get charged with aggravated assault for hitting someone with a bubble. You will if the assault involves sex because sex IS different. This difference is why so many women are damaged by prostitution physcologically as well as physically. It is absolutely core to the argument against the ligitimization and institutionalization of prostitution.

If sex is pretty much the same as giving a back rub then I wouldn't object to it's commercialization. We have rape laws because sex isn't the same. That is why sex work isn't work.

6079_Smith_W

Pondering, that makes no sense.

There are laws against sexual assault, including in countries where sex work is legal. The two are not mutually exclusive in any way.

 

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering, that makes no sense.

There are laws against sexual assault, including in countries where sex work is legal. The two are not mutually exclusive in any way.

Why are there laws against sexual assault specifically? Why is it differenciated from other forms of assault? Why do we make a legal distinction between grabbing someone's arm and grabbing someone's breast?

Maysie Maysie's picture

Sex trafficking is not the same as sex work.

Pages