Prostitution - Framing the Debate for Decriminalization Part III

rework: (I am all for serious, respectful debate. If I'm rehashing what has already been said, or getting off topic, just say so)

No no, your input is precious; you are the first to seriously present prostitution as "wealth redistribution", and we certainly can use a different perspective. Come to think of it (pun not intended), just think of the billions being handed out to (mostly female) welfare recipients with practically no sexual counterpart for the rich!

Snert: Somehow we remain committed to addressing batterers as the problem, not marriage and not all men.

As we remain committed to addressing johns, pimps and procurers as the problem, not women, not sex and certainly not all men. (I knew we could end this thread on a happy note of agreement...)

Snert wrote:

OK, here's what's left of the abolitionist argument at this point:

"Blah blah greater good harm harm PROSTITUTED blah blah Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden greater good mucous membranes".

I generally don't moderate here, and have for the most part chosen not to take a public stance on these threads.  However, snert you can't post stuff like this in the feminism forum.  In fact there seem to be a lot of guys here who are pretty sure they have the answers.

Okay, Infosaturated and Remind feel free to make words mean whatever you like. My words stand on their own but if you want to continue to tilt at your own interpretation of them, don't let me get in your way.

Snert wrote:

No difference between, say, a violent man buying sex and a non-violent man buying sex. We can apparently differentiate between a normal husband and a batterer, but you cannot seem to differentiate between an abusive john and a man who has sex, hands over the money and leaves.

Of course there's a difference. That doesn't mean the non-violent man is doing no harm.

In terms of framing the debate, men's rights are not part of the framework.

This is getting long.  I suppose there'll be a part IIII

Some one let me know when the debate gets framed.

I had closed this but I'm reopening to respond to some feedback on Martins post which I had missed.

Jesus Martin, what are you thinking!  You have at once managed to be totally offensive to everyone on the other side of the debate from yourself, as well as to demean the memory of those who went through those nightmarish times in the US, and who struggle with the aftershocks today.

FURTHER, images like that are triggers for anyone from any of hundreds of the worlds more conflicted spots who are dealing with PTSD.

How 'bout next time just sticking with more pedestrian debating tactics.

remind wrote:

Made all the more amazing, as it is the feminist forum, where i should feel safe to say, that I feel some men are trying to steal my personal agency by their insisting that this is a women's personal agency issue.

 

It isn't. Full stop.

 

but it is the new and improved rabble, where men can tell feminists that anti-pimp, and anti-exploitation laws, impinge on our rights to self determine.

 

How freaking trivializing and patriarchial can we get here?

 

I do not have to accept, nor does any woman, a man telling us he knows what is right for my personal agency....just as stargazer does not

 

no difference, just opposite sides of the coin, eh!

Oh please, remind martin s DOING THE SAME THING!!!!! Stop withg the martin and I are victims here stuff.

If I were a white woman anti-racist would I be allowed to tell POC how they should control their bodies. Not a freaking chance and I would NEVER presume to speak for people of which I cannot. But somehow, for you it is peachy keen for martin to come in the feminist forum and dish out his "feminist" creds, over and above almost all women on here. And you cheer him on!!

Caissa - fully agree 100 percent with you. You were attacked and yes, ever since the new rules we have a few people merrily skipping away breaking them oh so slyly and some most definitely not slyly. 

martin dufresne wrote:

Finally, I think we should have a calm and respectful discussion on Babble banter about the use of the word "appropriation" because I have noticed that it gets used as a debating tactic and rather loosely IMO.

There is a lengthy and honourable tradition to analogizing the struggle against lynching (abolitionism it was called - and a fight waged by White women foremost) and the struggle against a prostitution system that is just as murderous and racist.

I do not wish to be particularly calm nor respectful to white folk who love to pull out their teary eyed hand wringing over the poor poor historical people of colour who have suffered so whenever they wish to illustrate their emotionally affective image of the moment. It is a disrespectful and intellectually dishonest ploy.  "Appropriation" is the least hostile description I could consider.

Moreover, I would appreciate if you would not conflate the abolitionist movement with the anti-lynching movement, which was largely led by people of colour, women in particular -  I would hate to see Mary Ann Shadd's voice become totally eclipsed to those of white women, who had historically benefited by the subjugation of people of colour.

While the worldwide struggle of women against oppression, and in particular women who are marginalized, exploited and whose lives are frequently at stake must be foremost in this discussion, to mindlessly equate it to the multi-generational genocide and enslavement of millions of people of colour is an obscenity.

I would appreciate if you would not conflate the abolitionist movement with the anti-lynching movement...

Thank you for that distinction. I have much to learn.

And I appreciate the time you took to make that point despite your justified anger. I realize what a pain it must be to have to deal with half-baked arguments that can seem opportunistic but that I assure you are heartfelt. I had made the choice to use an image of a murdered woman because lynching and racism in general - is usually associated with that of an oppression leveled against men, making the lot of racialized women - as are many in prostitution -  even more invisible and difficult to address.

Infosaturated wrote:

fortunate wrote:

  To support illegalization of prostitution means supporting an increase of violence towards women, according to that recent study.

The study referenced is a farce.  Just because someone claims their study proves something doesn't make it true.

The Courts can only rule on what the actual laws state. 

As I mentioned earlier I am all for tightening up the laws concerning prostitution to make it clearer that the government did not intend to legitimize prostitution in creating the laws the way they did.

This makes it clear:

“Prostitution is not illegal in Canada. We find ourselves in an anomalous, some would say bizarre, situation where almost everything related to prostitution has been regulated by the criminal law except the transaction itself.”  Chief Justice Lamer.  Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1 (1)(c) of the Criminal Code.  1990 1 SCR 1123

If the government intended for the laws to reflect that prostitution was an acceptable job in Canada almost everything related to it wouldn't be illegal. Bringing the law in line with the intent of the government would mean changing the law to make it clear that the act of buying sex is illegal not just all the activities around it.

And what part of not illegal in Canada seems to need clarification.?   I, for one, can't exactly take legal in Canada and turn that around in any way to say that the law makers did not intend for prostitution to be legal.   What happened, after 50 or 60 years, is that some conservative wackjobs came in and asked how could they control women a little bit easier.  Especially, considering that sex work is relatively high paid work, something not that easy to come by at that time for women.

The additional laws were added on not that long ago, and simply in an attempt to NIMBY the activities surrounding street work.  The researchers you try to invalidate were making the logical conclusion that the anti solicitation laws, not street work per se, were what was contributing to the dangers street workers face.  Especially if you link that to the fact that indoor workers do not, overall, experience these dangers or pressures overall.

Besides, the conclusion you draw is flawed.  Prostitution has been clearly legal in Canada for over 100 years.   The laws were added about 20ish years ago.   The added laws certainly did nothing to legitimize prostitution, only control women doing it.  People who do sex work off street experience little or no impact from these additional laws, Revenue Canada is happy to take our money, city bylaw departments are happy to sell escort licenses, and newspapers and yellowpages are thrilled to sell advertising space.  

Just because someone claims something is untrue doesn't mean it is lol.  You will have to do a lot better to back up your claims regarding the legality of something that I have experienced, researched and examined for several years now.   IMO, the unjustifiable cannot be justified by wild accusations, unsubstantiated claims, and because I say so statements.   The reality is out there, and right here, for anyone who truly wants the information.

The primary concern of a civilized society should first and foremost to do no harm.  Abolitionists are doing a great deal of harm, simply because they do not care to ask the very people they claim to be "helping" a very simple question:  "What do you want?"

The answer:  We want to do our jobs, and we do not want neither ourselves nor our customers to be criminals for doing it.

Just like any other worker in Canada (or self employed "business owner" if you prefer, remind)

fortunate wrote:

What happened, after 50 or 60 years, is that some conservative wackjobs came in and asked how could they control women a little bit easier...The additional laws were added on not that long ago, and simply in an attempt to NIMBY the activities surrounding street work.

Either way, in my opinion the solution lies in Sweden's approach not in dismantling the laws concerning bawdy houses and procurement.

fortunate wrote:

The researchers you try to invalidate were making the logical conclusion that the anti solicitation laws, not street work per se, were what was contributing to the dangers street workers face.

The actual study did not reach that conclusion because it would be a logical fallacy to do so. "Correlation is not causation" is not something I made up.