Why Sex Work Isn't Work

245 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

milo204 wrote:
but really the only way deal with the larger issues is ending capitalism, poverty,  dealing w addictions...if those things exist, women will always be exploited

are you really saying untill all the problems of the world are fixed women might as well keep on being exploited?

susan davis

Pondering wrote:

susan davis wrote:

you are agreeing with us pondering while pretending we never have proposed any of the things you suggest...it is in fact exactly what decrim proponents are demanding....i just don't understand...

No I'm not. I am talking about mandatory coops, zero for profit brothels.

Zero profit for the state.

Regular audits to make absolutely sure receptionists and guards aren't madams and pimps.

Enforced std testing and tracking of customers prior to contact so they can be traced if any STDs turn up.

 

sure cause this is doable....coop's they way we proposed was all about workers not bosses....

i wonder who you think would suffer under the legal regime you are proposing....you think they will test the clients...? no they will test the workers....you think these mandatory audits will impact "pimps"....? they won't...as always when you give some one this much power over another person...they will abuse it and as always the workers will pay the price....

your "model" assumes that the system at large could be trusted with this kind of power....over and over it has been proven that they can't....

the "pondering model".....

how long until an "auditor" demands service under threat of a bad report....?

i am glad you have no power and that this crazy idea will never be implemented

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

Pondering wrote:

susan davis wrote:

you are agreeing with us pondering while pretending we never have proposed any of the things you suggest...it is in fact exactly what decrim proponents are demanding....i just don't understand...

No I'm not. I am talking about mandatory coops, zero for profit brothels.

Zero profit for the state.

Regular audits to make absolutely sure receptionists and guards aren't madams and pimps.

Enforced std testing and tracking of customers prior to contact so they can be traced if any STDs turn up.

 

sure cause this is doable....coop's they way we proposed was all about workers not bosses....

i wonder who you think would suffer under the legal regime you are proposing....you think they will test the clients...? no they will test the workers....you think these mandatory audits will impact "pimps"....? they won't...as always when you give some one this much power over another person...they will abuse it and as always the workers will pay the price....

your "model" assumes that the system at large could be trusted with this kind of power....over and over it has been proven that they can't....

the "pondering model".....

how long until an "auditor" demands service under threat of a bad report....?

i am glad you have no power and that this crazy idea will never be implemented

As I said, I would NOT support this system but if protecting women was the central issue this is the type of system that would be proposed not the free-for-all you propose. The system you propose is designed for people who want it to be an industry like any other even though there is no statistical evidence anywhere that it actually makes women safer. A survey is not statistical evidence of anything other than opinions.

Under the system I propose it isn't about the bosses because there wouldn't be any. Your system is set up for bosses with a few coops thrown in for show.

It would be workers themselves who would control whatever organization was formed to do the audits and collect the funds for exit services etc..

In your system johns and bosses are in charge.

I don't know who it is that you think would decide to test workers rather than johns. If the law said johns get tested that is the way it would be.

susan davis

why you always lie about what we are proposing is unclear....is it me you hate...? i don't understand what part of our work could ever be construed as a "free for all"....

sex workers DID define the coop...and they were not "priveldged" sex workers....no john's or pimps took part....

all places where "mandatory testing" takes place it's on the workers...not the clients....so i don't know how you think it could ever be anything else....unless we start testing all men...not women of course...just men...all the time....

maube you should read the posting rules...

lying and defaming people is not allowed....

you are lying and defaming our work ad us....why i am not sure....a personal issue with me i am assuming...but never the less...

the cooperative, canada's first sex worker cooperative...was not defined by pimps and john's, it had nothing to do with profiting off workers backs or oppressing people or supporting human traffickers or any other crap you have slung at our work....

maybe....just maybe....if you actually took the time to read the fucking report on our work...you would see what you prosed was exactly whgat workers defined for themselves....instead of hiding your head in a dark place and playing holier than thou all the time...

at least get it right before you slam work people have done for decades on this issue in an effort to make yourself seem some how enlightened for this fantastic "new" "cutting edge" idea that you...the amazing pondering...came up with...all on your own...without any consultation what so ever...

read the work we did or shut it

Pondering

Your silly attacks are juvenile.

The New Zealand model allows for private for profit brothels. They pay taxes to the state. Decriminalization means it is a business like any other maybe with some light industry specific regulations similar to that which could be applied to a massage parlour. That is the model you have been promoting for years.

Within such a system you like the idea of starting a coop or coops.

What I am talking about is all worker owned coops. No private businesses whatsoever. No taxes to the state. Any "taxes" collected would be by a different agency and be used solely for the benefit of exit services and supports. Street prostitution would remain illegal. Only Canadian citizens would be permitted to participate.

That is nothing like what you are proposing.

milo204

@quizzical "are you really saying untill all the problems of the world are fixed women might as well keep on being exploited?" ...No,

 i'm just debating whether it's safer or less safe (for the women) when it's a criminal offence rather than legal/decriminalized. 

so like in the first part of that post, being able to have a bank account, get an apt or a loan, have some health and saftey protections, be eligable for workers comp, EI, CPP, not be scared to go to police, have recourse if someone doesn't pay them or gets violent etc all seem like steps the society could take to make selling sex less harmful than it is right now.  And of course the rules and things could change over time, be subject to public influence etc..

i feel like the people who say we should leave the system as it is are really the ones saying "women might as well keep on being exploited"

lagatta

Fewer and fewer people working in any area are eligiible for UI etc (I refuse to call it by the newspeak EI). A hell of a lot of us are freelancers now, like it or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEuMPAP3sdU

Christmas is coming
It's been a long year
I'm still in the same place
We're still over here
Go down to the market
Get lost in the crowd
Go home to my records
I play them too loud
Christmas is coming
It's been a long year
I wish you were here...
Been down to the ui
And nothing but queues
Been down on my welfare
With holes in my shoes
The kitchen's still leaking
With floods on the floor
The landlord will fix it
He only wants more
Chrismas is coming it's been a long year
I wish you were here, I wish you were here
Christmas is coming
It's been a long year
I wish you were here, I wish you were here
Been down to the ui
And nothing but queues
Been down outa welfare
With holes in my shoes
But I'm not complaining
I'm happy, you see?
And I'm still here waiting
So come and see me
Christmas is coming
It's been a long year
I wish you were here, I wish you were here,
I wish you were here, I wish you were, I wish you were, I wish you were
Here...
I wish you were here, I wish you were, I wish you were, I wish you were
Here...

 

Pondering

milo204 wrote:

 i'm just debating whether it's safer or less safe (for the women) when it's a criminal offence rather than legal/decriminalized.

 

On that we are at a stalemate.

milo204 wrote:
being able to have a bank account, get an apt or a loan, 

They can do that as they are not breaking the law. It's true they are lacking a work reference but that is by choice. There are legal occupations.

They can go to police and they don't even have to prove any crime beyond having been paid for sex.

milo204 wrote:
  i feel like the people who say we should leave the system as it is are really the ones saying "women might as well keep on being exploited

That's because you are blocking your ears and singing "la la la" rather than listening to the reasons they give you.

milo204

i think if you read my posts, i'm not "lalalaing" any more than anyone else, i'm presenting some arguments you disagree with is all. 

--so if they're not breaking any laws than it is already decriminalized...did i miss this? you can go to the bank and ask for a loan and say you sell sex and actually get one?? can someone else verify this?

obviously if you work in a "legal" form of the sex trade, like porn ok, you get paid, declare income etc....i think we all agree we're talking about the parts of the trade that are illegal. 

Pondering

milo204 wrote:

i think if you read my posts, i'm not "lalalaing" any more than anyone else, i'm presenting some arguments you disagree with is all. 

--so if they're not breaking any laws than it is already decriminalized...did i miss this? you can go to the bank and ask for a loan and say you sell sex and actually get one?? can someone else verify this?

obviously if you work in a "legal" form of the sex trade, like porn ok, you get paid, declare income etc....i think we all agree we're talking about the parts of the trade that are illegal. 

Under C 36 selling is not illegal, buying is. Getting a loan is also dependent on having collateral or employment. It's very difficult for the self-employed to get a loan but they do still have to declare their income.

Concerning safety you are just recycling circular arguments. Supporters argue for the New Zealand model and claim empirical evidence that is survey based therefore anecdotal and opponents cite the same "evidence" for their arguments as well as pointing to European models that have in our view failed and that others defend. The circle has come to an end.

C 36 is now law. It was not mentioned in the ministerial mandate letter. There is no legal challenge to it at the moment.

This is not the place where you will convince women that we should stop being abolitionists.

Your inferences that abolitionists are just making a random moral judgement rather than being focused on the safety of women is offensive.

milo204

ok so it is decriminalized then, but you've said you don't support decrim or legalization as you are an abolitionist.  I would just argue that women being able to declare their income, and be able to receive loans etc is all dependent on that

they would not be able to declare an income or get an apt or loan if it was re criminalized and that can't help but drive people further underground and making them even more dependant on the pimps and abusers.

let me also just confirm that i'm not assuming you're making random moral judgements, apologies if you got that impression. i can see you're referencing reports and have done your reasearch but i also trust what susan has to say and susan brings up a lot of very relevant points and is clearly speaking from a level of expereience i (and maybe you too) don't have so i'm also taking that into account

lagatta

While I disagree with most of what Pondering says politically, if she (like susan) is to be believed, she certainly isn't lacking in experience.

I couldn't possibly get a loan, and I've never worked in sex work, and at my age the very idea would be rather grotesque.

Pondering

My experiences and Susan's experiences are very unalike leading her to have a much more positive view of the potentialities. In both cases our experiences create biases. We have also both done quite a bit of research, read many reports, many articles, and it is that knowledge which I think should have greater bearing. Lagatta and some others have been to Europe and seen what it is like with their own eyes. I value their knowledge as much as I do my own.

Milo, your premise is that the lives of women would be improved if they had the protections afforded to  workers in legal industries. My premise is that while some might most would not. These are not new arguments. Nothing I say will convince you that it is better for women if buying remains illegal so I am not even going to try. It's a pointless debate. C 36 is now law. I will fight to keep it that way.

I suspect the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women will put a halt to any notion of legitimizing prostitution in Canada.

Gustave

milo204 wrote:
you can go to the bank and ask for a loan and say you sell sex and actually get one??

As far as your income does not come from an illicit activity or job. the bank will not block you. The bank is evaluating a risk, that is the probability you'll still be able to pay x yyears from now. Sex work does not provide much garanty of stability. That's what they are interested in. One other thing, many sex worker have a criminal record for all sorts of work related activities. Bank don't like that. Happily thing are inproving however. And C-36 helped for that.

If it's only the name of the prefession that is refused, you would settle for a substitute like personal health provider or some shit like that.

milo204

pondering, i can see where you're coming from and you're right you and susan are much more qualified and informed than me so it's probably best if i let susan take up those points instead...

 

perhap susan could you elaborate a bit more on your position?

 

Pondering

To what end? We have argued this in countless threads. Susan has fully explained her position on this topic in the Sex Workers Forum. I've explained my position in multiple threads. We aren't going to agree.

milo204

Well, i'm just curious as to your saying that decrim/legalization means the illegal trade then expands alongside it,  how the negatives increase when decrim comes in, just because most articles i've read tend to strongly disagree with that. 

 

could you recommend some articles or anything i could read about that?

 

Pondering

Nope, don't feel like getting back on that hamster wheel. If you are interested there is plenty of information available through google.

How about you present some empirical evidence of a reduction in violence against women through legalization and point out where women have been able to get morgages based on work in prostitution.

The only change I want to C 36 is to ensure that the women involved are not charged under any circumstances regardless of where they are attempting to sell.

You are the one suggesting it be decriminalized or legalized so the onus is on you to prove your case not on me to defend the status quo.

Currently, it's a closed case. No one is contesting the law.

milo204

sorry,  I'm just asking if you could recommend an article or two to try and see things from your point of view specifically.

anyways, here's some of the articles/sites i've read that inform my views

http://www.gshi.cfenet.ubc.ca/

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/canadas-newly-passed-anti-prostitution-bi...

http://www.pivotlegal.org/sex_workers_speak_out_against_new_prostitution...

there seems to be a sizeable opposition from sex workers still to the current laws, and many of the complaints that are in the articles seem to be quite reasonable and sensible.

Pondering

Been there done that it didn't convince me. You've been a member since 2010 so you were here for all the prostitution debates during the time the law was overthrown and during the introduction of the new law.

The sex workers you speak of are free to continue protesting the law. They can challenge it in court if they so choose. I am content to leave things as is and confident that if any adjustments are made it still will not lead to legal brothels in Canada any time soon and the law will withstand charter challenges.

I am confident that no Canadian Prime Minister is going to want to be known for the open proliferation of brothels and prostitution anywhere in Canada. Trudeau definitely won't. Maybe time will prove me wrong but I don't think so. The reality of prostitution is ugly for most women. In places where it is tolerated that becomes more and more self-evident every year that passes by. No number of links is going to change that.

milo204

ok

susan davis

milo204 wrote:

pondering, i can see where you're coming from and you're right you and susan are much more qualified and informed than me so it's probably best if i let susan take up those points instead...

 

perhap susan could you elaborate a bit more on your position?

 

 

please read the thousands of posts i have written in the sex worker rights forum...start with the end...all the reports are there....

and once again...this is directed at pondering and quizzical....

we do not want what they have in germany and holland...that's legalization and we had that before...it sucked ....many people died...we want decriminalization....which bill c-36 does not do inspite of assertions here....workers are still very criminalized in canada....and in my view, the inquiry will show that decrim is the only solution....the facts will speak for themsleves....

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

please read the thousands of posts i have written in the sex worker rights forum...start with the end...all the reports are there....

and once again...this is directed at pondering and quizzical....

we do not want what they have in germany and holland...that's legalization and we had that before...it sucked ....many people died...we want decriminalization....which bill c-36 does not do inspite of assertions here....workers are still very criminalized in canada....and in my view, the inquiry will show that decrim is the only solution....the facts will speak for themsleves....

I would like the location specific measures to be repealed so on that small note we agree and we agree the facts will speak for themselves as part of the inquiry. Lastly we agree their is no point in rehashing the same circular arguments we have already had.

susan davis

i only argue so people understand you are mis representing our position...i won't let mis information stand unanswered

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

i only argue so people understand you are mis representing our position...i won't let mis information stand unanswered

Bullshit. I never misrepresented your position or anyone else's.

The system I said I never hear promoted by you or anyone else who promotes decriminalization is a system in which ALL brothels are worker owned and the state collects zero taxes.

milo204

http://rabble.ca/news/2014/03/to-help-or-to-hinder-sex-work-legislation-...

 

interesting article from rabble about safety and sex workers views on decrim

milo204
Pondering

Milo, we don't need any help finding old links. They are all already in the sex worker forum.

We are having a discussion about why sex work is not work.

You think you are so informed that you know something we don't, lets see how much you know. Why should we offer exit services for women who want to leave prostitution? 

 

 

 

milo204

pondering, i'm not going to derail the discussion by getting into some kind of personal argument/pop quiz with you.

we have different views on what makes the women safer and who knows?  maybe someday i'll stumble accross those studies you mentioned and it'll inform my views, but hey, at least we're thinking about it. 

Pondering

I didn't refer to any studies and I don't need any proof any more than I need proof that people don't like being assaulted or need food and water to stay alive. The onus of proof lies with the person who wants to change the law.

The reason exit services exist is because many women are so damaged by prostitution that they need help getting away from it, sometimes multiple times.

Massage therapists, nurses, personal care workers, none get any exit services, not even strippers. If they want to change occupations they just go ahead and do it. 

This thread is about why sex work isn't work. That's why it's called "Why sex work isn't work" not "which system are women safest under". 

But you claim you want to understand, so here are some links for you to study, for your information not to debate:

http://www.equalitynow.org/sites/default/files/Does_Legalizing_Prostitut...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bethany-st-james/life-after-prostitution_b...

http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/Stories/2012/Nov13/Interview3Prostit...

http://theprostitutionexperience.com/?p=193

http://ruthjacobs.co.uk/2013/01/12/in-the-booth-with-ruth-dublin-call-gi...

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/07/a_long_island_ser...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/the-new-prostitutes/?_r=1

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hot_document/features/20...

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jared-brock/sex-trafficking-canada_b_438045...

http://business.time.com/2013/06/18/germany-has-become-the-cut-rate-pros...

http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=b0a4a89c-9dc5-4963-9a3a-beda5a...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/kristof-where-pimps-ped...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-d...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-d...

http://survivingprostitutionandaddiction.blogspot.ca/2012/03/ptsd-and-pr...

 

milo204

thanks, i'll for sure read these links.

susan davis

don't bother, the links lead to biased and unethical data as well as news paper articles.....not sex workers voices, not a reasonable foundation upon which to base your opinion of these issues....

biased information from priveledged outsiders...useless

Pondering

I think readers are intelligent enough to evaluate sources for themselves and there are plenty of "sex worker" voices included.

 

susan davis

yeah...cause the "opinionator" is a legitimate source...whatever....

milo204

well if you're going to make an outlandish claim like that, you better pull that quote and back it up, supporting legalized rape?, are you kidding me?

quizzical

ok i will go look as fair enough i should look make sure as the thread was pretty triggering to me.

quizzical

i apologize milo.

it wasn't you in the thread i noted.

it was the other person posting in this thread and monty who was responding to it. i saw the m and presumed was you..

milo204

ok quizzical apology accepted, just please next time check first before posting becuase that was extremely insulting

quizzical

yes it was and i apologize again

milo204

all good!  to be honest, with the amount of guys who show up in these forums and pretend like they're having a rational discussion, when they really just want to get into a "i know better" rant and feel like they "won" an argument...i can understand why i may not be given the benefit of the doubt..

 

lagatta

Globe and Mail investigative article on trafficked Indigenous women: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-trafficked-sexual-explo...

Pondering

lagatta wrote:

Globe and Mail investigative article on trafficked Indigenous women: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-trafficked-sexual-explo...

Before long, a madam put her to work, arranging stints in Halifax, Ottawa, Winnipeg and Toronto. By 14, she’d met a “kiddy pimp,” been recruited and was still travelling from city to city.

That's a female pimp.

Under some of the promoters of legitimized prostitution most of those girls would be considered to have chosen the life and many girls would agree until they are out of it. While they are still addicted or beaten down they would answer that they are willing and that they want it to be legal to make it a little easier. They don't realize they would not be any safer.

She was once among a group of girls (some of them intoxicated and just taken from a Thunder Bay bar) who spent several days servicing the crew aboard a freighter on Lake Superior. Not only was one man, nicknamed Captain Jack, “rough,” she says, the girls were warned that anyone who acted out would be thrown over the side.

Wow! What a coincidence to find so many men all on one freighter willing to abuse girls. That ship must be like 1 in a million. It's a wonder the pimps found it!

Sineed

Thanks, Pondering. I was going to pop by and post that, and saw that you already did.

Another good article:

Criminalise the sex buyers, not the prostitutes

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/21/sex-trade-prostitut...

Quote:
“I find it awful, this is not work, you don’t set out to be in prostitution”, says a Swedish psychologist Lisen Lindström, whom the commission met in Stockholm. She treats women in and exiting prostitution for the city’s social services. Post-traumatic stress is common. What of the women who protest they’re happy in prostitution? “So let them,” she says. “We don’t bother them. We let them be. The majority have had very bad experiences, so let the focus be on them.”

 

 

Pondering

Sineed wrote:

Another good article:

Criminalise the sex buyers, not the prostitutes

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/21/sex-trade-prostitut...

This is fantastic.

In its report, Shifting the Burden , the all-party group recommended the introduction, instead, of a sex-buyer offence, of following the Nordic model. It then asked End Demand , a campaign to end commercial sexual exploitation, to find out how this could be implemented. The resulting report, produced by a commission on the sex buyer law, is to be launched in parliament this week. This concludes – on the basis of evidence from Nottingham and Suffolk, as well as countries such as Sweden, which criminalise buyers – that a similar law is overdue here, to reduce both the human and economic cost of prostitution.

That is really encouraging to read. It is a relief that the tide is turning away from legitimization and I believe that trend will continue as young people support it less than older people. I find that very interesting as young people are generally more progressive. Promoters attempt to tie marijuana and prostitution together but it fails to persuade because it depends on right-wing libertarian thought that worships individual freedoms and market fundamentalism.

Young people today are much more supportive of collective well-being as an avenue to achieving genuine personal freedom. They are beginning to recognize that the freedom to be exploited isn't freedom at all.

Pages