Sex as labour

191 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2022-10-28 04:41

Pondering

Sex as labour

Post 70: Summary of my argument that the street prostitution law which criminalizes buyers while not criminalizing sellers is appropriate.
Post 94: Kropotkin rebuttal.

Sex workers who engage in prostitution are being framed as workers who should be protected under labour law because it is work.

Manufacturing counterfeit money is work. Something being work doesn’t automatically mean it should be protected by labour laws.

I am addressing street-walking in this post not any other kind of prostitution.

My claim is that it cannot be made safe for any woman much less desperate women in need of drugs.

If people really need money they will work under the table in sub-standard conditions for less than minimum-wage. We don’t validate the exploitation because the worker is happy to do it even if that means the business is shut-down and workers are deported. We may fight to prevent deportation and to find them other jobs. We don’t fight to allow the exploitation to continue based on the needs of the workers or their willingness or even eagerness to comply with conditions. The worker will say this is my choice. I am not being harmed. You aren’t doing me any favors by taking away my income. This is how I pay my rent. Now I am at risk of deportation.

The below minimum wage worker will not thank you for your troubles especially if they are migrants and neither will women walking the streets. They are willing to be exploited and endangered because they desperately need money.

A libertarian approach says that is their right. A leftist approach fights to limit or completely negate the power of employers to abuse worker rights even if it means shutting down the company.

That some workers would choose to work below minimum wage if that is the only job available to them doesn’t make the law against it unjust or invalid. The law is written to protect the majority of workers. That means some businesses aren’t economically feasible so those jobs go away. Many jobs have been off-shored based on the ability to pay lower wages. The rights of the minority of workers who would otherwise have those jobs are being contravened. Migrants who would happily take those jobs are being denied.

The sex worker may not be harmed and may enjoy their work or at least prefer it to being a store clerk or broke. That doesn’t validate the choice. Labour laws are intended to protect workers collectively. The workers that get harmed cannot be separated from those who do not in advance of the harm occurring. Every time a woman goes somewhere private with a man she risks rape and much worse. That cannot be made safe through legalization.

The reality of street prostitution is giving blow jobs in alley-ways to a succession of men or getting into their cars to be driven to a secluded spot. Access to sanitation is baby wipes. Police can’t follow women to these locations to protect them. Sex workers themselves say there is little money in it and that it is dangerous. These are not adequate working conditions.

It is my contention that leftist men would never promote the acceptance and institutionalization of an equally dangerous job for men no matter how desperately they needed the money.

Fri, 2022-10-28 13:40

kropotkin1951

The most recent statistics from the Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada (AWCBC) tell us that in 2019, 925 workplace fatalities were recorded in Canada. 882 were male workers, and 43 were female workers.

https://www.ccohs.ca/events/mourning/

Fri, 2022-10-28 14:50

susan davis susan davis's picture

How is working on street a "business" to be shut down? the issue here is shutting down businesses which provide safer work space to sex workers forces sex workers into the on street sex industry....

Honestly, I don't don't know the last time I heard anyone say "street walker"....is this your interpretation of "leftist" dialogue? to use antiquated language which contributes to stigma and violence?

For clarity... this is not "before the harm occurs".... this is after... during ... the harm is occurring..... for decades...due to criminalization.... now even more as false information is spread about all sex workers - or the majority - being victims unable to think for ourselves - that our choices aren't valid....that our safety is secondary to some perceived goal of abolishing sex work.....

your arguments support decrim....

you are correct that being forced to work without access to a bathroom or even the most fundamental safety mechanisms is unacceptable....

this is why we are fighting the broad criminalization of the places where we work. every time a massage parlor is closed due to misinformation, bias or stigma.... workers loose their jobs, loose their access to clean up after seeing a client, are left with only baby wipes for sanitation...

you are right that being alone in an isolated area with the client is dangerous... that is why we are fighting to protect our safe work spaces... people need to be able to work with others in a safe environment...

as for poverty, drug addiction or mental health issues...

all professions/ jobs/ communities are affected by these issues... not just sex workers.... we don't see anyone trying to shut down hair salon because someone there has an addiction issue... we don't see people calling for an "end demand model" of criminalization for care givers....

In spite of your "feelings" and "opinions"....

all of the things you listed could be addressed by ending the criminalization of sex workers work spaces and labor....

sex workers on street makeup 10%-15% of all sex workers, that does not mean the issues they face are not front and center, there are many org's working to triage the situation and doing their best to support workers placed in this precarious position by.... criminalization.

At what point to abolitionists recognize they are causing the very problems they claim to want to address? at what point does the lack of safe work spaces become the focus? so that more workers aren't forced into the dangerous street level trade? at what point do anti sex work crusaders listen to the voices of those they pretend to want to help? I say pretend because as Pondering has shown above...."our choices aren't valid" and we should bow to the will of the anti sex work crusaders for the sake of "all workers".....or the minority of workers in our community.... giving no thought to the fact that we migrate between indoor and outdoor work, between exotic dancing and full service sex work, between adult film and full service sex work....

basing policy on the experiences of people who are casualties of those bad policies... is ridiculous... let's keep going around in circles!! let's harm sex workers and then blame them for their own harm!!! let's close everywhere they work and place them in danger and then say "look! we told you sex work is dangerous!"

I mean for christs sakes.... at what point do anti sex work crusaders recognize what they are doing?

Fri, 2022-10-28 16:17

(Reply to #3) #4

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The most recent statistics from the Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada (AWCBC) tell us that in 2019, 925 workplace fatalities were recorded in Canada. 882 were male workers, and 43 were female workers.

https://www.ccohs.ca/events/mourning/

I don't get your point. How does this relate to street prostitution? As long as women don't die it's okay?

Fri, 2022-10-28 17:27

Paladin1

Susan what do you think of the Netherlands' model for legalized sex workers?

Do you think this would ever fly in Canada?

Sat, 2022-10-29 00:08

susan davis susan davis's picture

Thank you for the question;

Legalization is actually what we had before in Canada and did not work well for Canadian sex workers. There are some serious issues with sex work regulation in both the Netherlands and Germany which are often toughted as "what the sex work lobby want".

What Canadian sex workers are asking for is similar to what was done in New Zealand and more recently Queensland Australia.

Decriminalization - the total removal of all laws related to sex work from the Criminal Code of Canada.

There are laws to fight child sexual exploitation, child pornography, sexual interference with a child, laws to fight human trafficking, laws against assault, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, kidnapping, non consensual sharing of intimate images, extortion. murder...

people exploited in sex work should be treated the same as other people when they are violated during crimes such as those listed above. the fact that anti sex work crusaders, evangelicals, roman catholics, police ( who have a conflict of interest as they make money from our criminalization) and others fight to keep separate laws to prosecute violence against sex workers and people exploited by being forced to work in the sex industry demonstrates how deep bias against my community runs...

Violence against people in the sex industry, violence as being forced to work in the sex industry.... are different than violence against "real" or "normal" people.... the laws must be kept separate in order to ensure our subjugation... to ensure we never acquire any rights or power over our own lives...

Under the Charter, occupation is not listed.... but is a human rights violation under Tenancy law.... you may not discriminate against a person by not renting them an apartment based on their occupation. This law with regard to housing was intended to protect people on disability or social assistance from bias during rental applications. It inadvertently gave sex workers, who experience extreme bias when trying to find housing - including "no sex work agreements" - human rights as a member of a "class" or "distinct group" for the first time...

Remember, sex workers were only classified as human beings in this country around 1973.... the bias and discrimination we face is embedded....

So no, we do not want to go back to legalization. The Bedford Decision demonstrated that legalization was dangerous and unconstitutional. Serial Killers operated under legalization - at least 3 in Vancouver - historically the numbers of murders are unknown as when sex workers were found deceased they were classified - NHI - no human involved - so deaths were not investigated even if deemed suspicious. We learned this from searching the Vancouver Archives and old arrest records.
We are hoping to improve on New Zealand Decriminalization, to include migrants sex workers as an example.... and to work with government and other stakeholders on a path forward.
But until facts... not feelings and opinions are removed from the equation... this is difficult...maybe impossible...which is why we have to keep going back to court....

So, decriminalization, implementation of already under development Occupational Health and Safety Standards and information, protection under labor law, protection under the criminal code as enjoyed by other citizens, protection from discrimination, protection of our safety by police, protection from malicious and vexatious claims which place our safety at risk - such as those made by anti sex work crusaders, protection of our families from prosecution, protection from child removal due to simply being a sex worker, protection from bias when seeking medical attention, protection from bias when seeking social assistance... and the list goes on

Not legalization.

Sat, 2022-10-29 08:41

Pondering

Susan, this is such a broad topic that I find it more productive to focus on specific aspects of prostitution in this case labour rights and street walking. You are of course free to discuss whatever and I am certainly guilty of going off on tangents which is not at all unusual for me or anyone else on this board.

You take me to task on language. As I understand it "sex work" covers all aspects of the sex industry not just prostitution. Other than street walker I know of no other term that refers to selling sex on the street. I understand the association with stigma but every angle can't be covered in every discussion. Attempting to police the use of the only language available that defines the various forms of prostitution is silencing which I suspect is the point.

I do want to discuss brothels in this topic too but not in relation to working the street because it is not an either or situation. Both can be acceptable work environments or neither can be acceptable or just one of them can be. Their safety and suitability as workplaces are not inter-dependent.

The arguments for making all prostitution illegal are not rooted in labour law. Labour law is very specific. A blanket law against prostitution from a labour perspective would be too broad. Even if labour law were to ultimately apply to all forms of prostitution it would likely be for different reasons.

You acknowledge:

susan davis wrote:
you are correct that being forced to work without access to a bathroom or even the most fundamental safety mechanisms is unacceptable....

you are right that being alone in an isolated area with the client is dangerous...

From a libertarian perspective you have an iron-clad case.

Labour laws are rooted in the power imbalance between employer and employee. Even if an employee isn’t desperate the power imbalance allows the employer to take advantage of the workers need for a steady income. Libertarians would say “get a job somewhere else if you don't like it”.

The feelings and opinions of men led to analysis of the balance of power between labour and employers. Men deemed the balance of power morally unfair.

Street vendors usually sell objects rather than services and the services sold, like shoe shining, can be performed in public providing a degree of safety for the independent worker.

The individual buying sexual services is an employer. The worker is required to accompany them elsewhere in order to provide the service. For example, if you hire a babysitter you are an employer not a buyer.

In essence street prostitution is male employers soliciting female employees who are required to accompany the employer to a private location where they are vulnerable to abuse by the employer. Women are particularly vulnerable to both sexual and economic exploitation by male employers.

In labour law the desperation of the employee for money is not justification to allow the continuation of abusive employment even if that results in unemployment.

It appears that labour rights when applied to women are translated into the right of women to work under abusive and dangerous conditions as long as they are desperate.

Sat, 2022-10-29 11:42

epaulo13

Labour laws are rooted in the power imbalance between employer and employee.

..this needs to be broadened. class structures are created by the powers that be. ie. 99% vs 1% in the here and now. within these class structures are labour laws.

..which are mostly enacted because of pressure created from below via various struggles. but created still in the interest of the patriarchy/capitalism. a ceding of a little power you can call it. but still a form of control. but still within the paradigm that will fight tooth and nail for the status quo. but having some labour rights is better than having none.

..in spite of this there are still ways for a safety first approach to happen. it must be sex worker led though imo. sex workers know best what is needed for their own safety.

..in the mean time other struggles continue on many levels. an example. defund the police. another is more engagement within the left to make change in their respective organizations.

Link:

“For local labour councils, activists and unions that are operating across Canada there’s nothing stopping you right now from reaching out and connecting with your local sex worker justice organization and taking the position that sex work is a real and valid form of work,” said Ellie Ade Kur.

Ade Kur is a sex work organizer in Toronto who organizes with Maggies, one of Canada’s oldest sex-worker-led organizations. Member groups involved with CASWLR have made an effort to reach out to labour organizations, she said, to no avail.

Considering how sex work is the site of various struggles, it seems like an important venue for support from left parties and organizations. But sex workers and sex work advocacy groups are still waiting for the left to show up for their rights......

Sat, 2022-10-29 12:14

(Reply to #8) #9

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:
kropotkin1951 wrote:

The most recent statistics from the Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada (AWCBC) tell us that in 2019, 925 workplace fatalities were recorded in Canada. 882 were male workers, and 43 were female workers.

https://www.ccohs.ca/events/mourning/

I don't get your point. How does this relate to street prostitution? As long as women don't die it's okay?

It was a response to your inane comment. The most dangerous jobs in our society are generally done by men because they pay well above less dangerous work. In fact it is young men especially that die from doing ridiculously dangerous thing on job sites urged on by bosses in a hurry to get the job done. Of course you also miss the elephant in the room which is that sex workers come in all genders and orientations.

Then you have go on and on with the hate on for left wing people. You and Paladin need to move to some of the redditt sites that are closer to your world views.

"It is my contention that leftist men would never promote the acceptance and institutionalization of an equally dangerous job for men no matter how desperately they needed the money."

Sat, 2022-10-29 13:23

(Reply to #9) #10

JKR

Pondering wrote:

The individual buying sexual services is an employer. The worker is required to accompany them elsewhere in order to provide the service. For example, if you hire a babysitter you are an employer not a buyer.

Isn’t the individual buying sexual services by definition a buyer?

Sat, 2022-10-29 15:14

#11

susan davis susan davis's picture

Agreed JKR ..... Is the person buying a hair cut by this definition an "employer"? Is the person buying vegetables from a farmer an "employer"?

And while I realize you would "prefer" to discuss this withinin your narrow view point, I would suggest this is typical of discussions about sex work. Only those experiencing exploitation or abuse have "valid" perspectives.

Your assertions assume all sex work places are abusive... and while i know you want to talk narrowly about on street sex work... this is not the reality of the majority of sex working people - who in this discussion - Sex as Labour - should be the focus of what sex as labour looks like.

The worker is not always asked to accompany the client elsewhere, many on street live close to where they work and take clients into their own homes/ rooms/ apartments....

I have the power in my own space, I have control of my working environment and safety....

your examples are based in a real lack of knowledge about how sex work actually happens, where sex work actually happens, who sex workers actually are and where sex workers believe the power imbalance actually exists....

The power imbalance is with people like you, who make broad sweeping assertions about our lives and working conditions with no real understanding of the conditions which exist. The power imbalance is with police buying into what people like you say about our safety and working conditions. The power imbalance lies with people like you enabling police violence against sex workers via enforcement based on your narrow and biased view of who, what, where and why of sex work....

Until sex work is decriminalized, theoretical discussions about a narrow section of a broad industry based on a such a biased and skewed perspective about sex workers lives are really unhelpful and in my view intended to confuse to conversation about sex workers labour rights, sex as labour and who is actually doing sex as labour.

Sat, 2022-10-29 18:03

(Reply to #11) #12

JKR

susan davis wrote:

Legalization is actually what we had before in Canada and did not work well for Canadian sex workers. There are some serious issues with sex work regulation in both the Netherlands and Germany which are often toughted as "what the sex work lobby want".

What Canadian sex workers are asking for is similar to what was done in New Zealand and more recently Queensland Australia.

Decriminalization - the total removal of all laws related to sex work from the Criminal Code of Canada.

There are laws to fight child sexual exploitation, child pornography, sexual interference with a child, laws to fight human trafficking, laws against assault, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, kidnapping, non consensual sharing of intimate images, extortion. murder...

people exploited in sex work should be treated the same as other people when they are violated during crimes such as those listed above. the fact that anti sex work crusaders, evangelicals, roman catholics, police ( who have a conflict of interest as they make money from our criminalization) and others fight to keep separate laws to prosecute violence against sex workers and people exploited by being forced to work in the sex industry demonstrates how deep bias against my community runs...

This makes sense to me. Why haven’t the courts supported this?

Sat, 2022-10-29 23:34

(Reply to #12) #13

Paladin1

susan davis wrote:

Thank you for the question;

Thanks for the in-depth and thoughtful response. I'll have to get a better understanding of the New Zealand model. I've met some very nice Sex Workers in the Netherlands and they explained how it works in the Netherlands. It seemed pretty good.

I'm surprised Canada isn't more forward-thinking.

Sun, 2022-10-30 00:40

(Reply to #13) #14

susan davis susan davis's picture

JKR wrote:

This makes sense to me. Why haven’t the courts supported this?

The courts do support it, they struck down the laws the last time we went to court...the court is reliable because the do not have the luxury of indulging in "feelings" and "opinions" and must read everything to determine fact from ideology.... the court can only consider information which qualifies as evidence in law.... so the myths promoted by abolitionists do not meet the test...... that took 7 years... now we are in court again... after years of prep... we are at the first stage - Ontario Superior... after which the government will appeal and it will go to the supreme court of canada....
The government could save us all the hassle and simply stop fighting us in court.... but the anti sex work crusaders are such a powerful voice/ lobby/ whatever you want to call it... no one dares to disagree with them...

so.... waste of time, waste of money, heart break and more violence.... while we wait for justice...

Sun, 2022-10-30 00:56

(Reply to #14) #15

susan davis susan davis's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Thanks for the in-depth and thoughtful response. I'll have to get a better understanding of the New Zealand model. I've met some very nice Sex Workers in the Netherlands and they explained how it works in the Netherlands. It seemed pretty good.

I'm surprised Canada isn't more forward-thinking.

It is... pretty good... but sex workers are still vulnerable to the whim of police and government as the laws could be applied in ways which harm... it's not as bad as Sweden for example.... The Netherlands is much smaller geographically as well, Canada's size plays a role as well as differences across provinces...which provinces control "health", worksafe,etc... so each province has it's own challenges and are working those challenges in different ways...
In BC we have a "lowest level of enforcement policy" which protects consensual adult sex workers and clients from broad based enforcement which we see in other provinces....
http://docs.openinfo.gov.bc.ca/Response_Package_PSS-2018-86039.pdf

As well as the City of Vancouver have a similar policy which states sex work is not a "by-law violation" - which means the don't target massage parlors for closure any more.

These policies are the result of the Missing and Murdered Women's Commission of Inquiry Recommendations - Forsaken - is the name of the report.....

It's almost defacto decrim.... in that sex workers, sex buyers, sex industry business owners,,, do not face broad based enforcement.... the threat is always there however.... all it will take is an anti sex work zealot in office - as the VPD chief or in charge of the BC Prosecution service.... and we will be back to the really bad old days....
which sex workers on street here still face over surveillance, bias, discrimination and violence at the hands of police here so.... it's not perfect....

With decrim, we could demand rights, fight injustice and hold those people who harm us accountable....
I know sex workers in The Netherlands as well, as part of the global network of sex work projects.... it's not to bad there for sure....

But New Zealand is the best by far, I hope we can do even better here and set the standard in the world

Sun, 2022-10-30 21:44

#16

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
It was a response to your inane comment. The most dangerous jobs in our society are generally done by men because they pay well above less dangerous work. In fact it is young men especially that die from doing ridiculously dangerous thing on job sites urged on by bosses in a hurry to get the job done. Of course you also miss the elephant in the room which is that sex workers come in all genders and orientations.

The vast majority are women or marginalized men serving men. We have already established that street prostitution does not pay well above average.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Then you have go on and on with the hate on for left wing people. You and Paladin need to move to some of the redditt sites that are closer to your world views.

Ad hominem — Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument.

I said: "It is my contention that leftist men would never promote the acceptance and institutionalization of an equally dangerous job for men no matter how desperately they needed the money."

I am left wing. I don’t hate left wing men. I am firmly opposed to the politics of right wing and libertarian men but I don’t hate them either. Libertarian, left wing, right wing, the more extreme in any direction, the more extreme their views on what constitutes sexual freedom versus sexual abuse.

It seems extremely difficult for men to recognize sexual abuse if it is “consensual”.

Sun, 2022-10-30 23:15

#17

Pondering

susan davis wrote:
Agreed JKR ..... Is the person buying a hair cut by this definition an "employer"? Is the person buying vegetables from a farmer an "employer"?

If a farmer hires a worker off the corner to pick apples on his farm he is an employer. If a woman picks up another woman to come do house-cleaning she is an employer.

susan davis wrote:
Only those experiencing exploitation or abuse have "valid" perspectives.

Labour activists will shut down a dangerous factory even if employees object and even if they are migrants. Those experiencing exploitation are not necessarily in a position to resist.

susan davis wrote:
Your assertions assume all sex work places are abusive... and while i know you want to talk narrowly about on street sex work... this is not the reality of the majority of sex working people - who in this discussion - Sex as Labour - should be the focus of what sex as labour looks like.

Evaluating sex work from a labour perspective assumes that it is labour. To assess it from the perspective of labour each aspect is evaluated separately from pay to working conditions including location.

susan davis wrote:
The worker is not always asked to accompany the client elsewhere, many on street live close to where they work and take clients into their own homes/ rooms/ apartments....

That’s great for you and them but it cannot be assumed to be the case for the average street worker.

Awhile back dwarf tossing was popular. There was another dumb show that kids copied that I think was called jackasses on which they did stupid stuff. It is conceivable that some men could take it into their heads to pay homeless men on the street to go in the sewers and catch rats with their bare hands wearing a go pro camera. It could become a youtube trend. 5$ a rat.

From a labour perspective men would want to know the average rat capture per hour and would demand they get protective gear to wear not just a go pro camera. They would use city laws against entering the sewers to prevent it from happening if conditions were unacceptable. If conditions were acceptable they would demand the city alter the law to make it legal. Neither the degree to which the men needed the money nor the humiliation aspect would be considered.

That is what I am challenging leftist men to do. Evaluate from a labour rights perspective instead of viewing women as different creatures who shouldn't be subject to labour laws.

Mon, 2022-10-31 01:14

(Reply to #17) #18

JKR

Pondering wrote:

susan davis wrote:
Agreed JKR ..... Is the person buying a hair cut by this definition an "employer"? Is the person buying vegetables from a farmer an "employer"?

If a farmer hires a worker off the corner to pick apples on his farm he is an employer. If a woman picks up another woman to come do house-cleaning she is an employer.

Is a person getting a hair cut an employer? Is a person buying vegetables from a farmer an employer? When you get a massage done are you the employer of the masseuse?

Mon, 2022-10-31 01:10

#19

susan davis susan davis's picture

rat catching in sewers = sex work..... thank you for your informed perspective...

the "average" on street sex worker? have you ever even met a sex worker who works on street? do you not think most have homes? or a room? again... you really have no idea what sex workers do, who we are, how we work, where we work or even why we work.... you want to discuss sex as labour but don't accept sex as labour....

Mon, 2022-10-31 02:11

#20

Pondering

Sex work is not rat catching hairdressing farming or shoe-shining. All of these jobs are different and occur in a variety of places. Hairdressing, farming and shoe-shining are all safe pursuits as are the grand majority of jobs.

If you had real arguments you wouldn't have to use vitriol and dramatic outrage as tactics. You can't defend street prostitution as safe because it isn't safe.

Mon, 2022-10-31 15:00

#21

epaulo13

..removed.

Mon, 2022-10-31 17:19

(Reply to #21) #22

Pondering

miscommunication

Mon, 2022-10-31 15:00

#23

epaulo13

..apologies i misread your post pondering. i will remove my post.

Mon, 2022-10-31 16:40

#24

kropotkin1951

It seems extremely difficult for men to recognize sexual abuse if it is “consensual”.

So who gets to determine if sex is consensual, if not the people involved and our laws?

Mon, 2022-10-31 17:30

#25

Pondering

So who gets to determine if sex is consensual, if not the people involved and our laws?

The people involved and our laws do get to decide. A worker cannot consent to working below minimum wage. A worker cannot consent to abusive working conditions. An employer cannot say "well he was willing to work 7 days a week 10 hours a day because he is desperate".

Or rather in a libertarian world I suppose that would be acceptable. I just thought that leftist principles took into account the power of money over labour.

Mon, 2022-10-31 19:10

(Reply to #25) #26

Paladin1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Then you have go on and on with the hate on for left wing people. You and Paladin need to move to some of the redditt sites that are closer to your world views.

You need to stand in front of a mirror and take a hard look at yourself.

Tue, 2022-11-01 00:22

(Reply to #26) #27

susan davis susan davis's picture

Pondering wrote:

Sex work is not rat catching hairdressing farming or shoe-shining. All of these jobs are different and occur in a variety of places. Hairdressing, farming and shoe-shining are all safe pursuits as are the grand majority of jobs.

If you had real arguments you wouldn't have to use vitriol and dramatic outrage as tactics. You can't defend street prostitution as safe because it isn't safe.

you are thankfully not the person who gets to determine these things.... i like how when you are mad you revert to "street prostitution" after calling it work, saying sex worker, trying to defend your ridiculous and exclusionary arguments...

Anti sex worker crusaders "We closed the massage parlors!!! yay!!!! sex workers have no where to work but on street!!! now they can't claim sex work is work!!"

Your kind of thinking forces sex workers onto the street.... now your argument is "it can't be made safe!"

yes it can... by ceasing the attacks on our safe work places and ensuring everyone can find a job indoors!!!

And....

who is the one spewing vitriol......

Tue, 2022-11-01 15:59

#28

Pondering

Susan, I am not mad or angry or even mildly ticked off. I use the word prostitution because there is no other equivalent word. The New Zealand Prostitutes Collective uses the word. It remains in the dictionary.

Street prostitution involves male employers cruising the streets looking for marginalized vulnerable women, trans and gay youth to hire to perform sexual services. It leaves workers vulnerable to male predators who easily blend in with other employers. Working conditions are intolerable.

Free marketers and some libertarians would say let the market decide and workers have the right to work.

I have no official leftist handbook but I thought the most desperate and vulnerable workers are deserving of protection even if they are willingly subjecting themselves to the abuse and even if it meant shutting down the business model.

Some of you consider yourselves better informed and educated leftists. I have to agree that in many cases you are right. You guys know all the right buzz words. You know the ins and outs of labour rights.

I am challenging you to do the analysis, to apply your knowledge and principles as labour activists. If your own logic leads you away from the answer you thought was right will you accept it? Will you admit it?

Tue, 2022-11-01 18:00

#29

susan davis susan davis's picture

I have done what you are describing, i have worked on this for 20 years, we have developed so many processes and resources which are ready to implement some already being used....

You think I would fight for the rights, including labour rights , of sex workers if I hadn't done the work, read thousands... 10's of thousands... of pages... do you not think I live this everyday? that my experienc working on street means nothing? that the sex workers who are part of our orgnization and work onstreet do not know what would work best to protect their safety?

Until Utopia arrives and everyone can choose their dream job....

sex work will exist....

Until we can stop the attacks on and closure of our safe work places....

on street sex work will exist.

The question here is not "will I accept it...".... i have done the work...

The question is will YOU do the work.... will YOU admit it.... like Amnesty, like Eizabeth Fry, ike WAVAW, like Westcoast LEAF, like the Canadian Women's Foundation? UNICEF, UNHCR, WHO, WLO, UNAIDS.....

will you admit it?

Tue, 2022-11-01 21:47

#30

JKR

Susan, I admire your hard work, knowledge, and great contributions to Canadian society!

Tue, 2022-11-01 21:52

#31

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Brava, Susan. You are an amazing advocate and educator.

Tue, 2022-11-01 22:00

#32

susan davis susan davis's picture

Thanks people, it's nice that most people do get it

Tue, 2022-11-01 22:02

#33

Pondering

With all due respect Susan that is not a leftist labour rights based analysis of street prostitution. Your focus is sex worker rights not labour rights.

A Walmart closed in Quebec because of an attempt to unionize. Amazon workers have been fired and workers from many other places have lost their jobs too and that wasn't due to actively abusive conditions other than maybe too few breaks.

If there are unsafe conditions in a mine labour activists will try to get it shut down even if it means all the miners lose their jobs and are forced to move away.

There are supposedly principles that guide leftist labour theory and activism. I'm asking the men here who are familiar with labour activism to apply the principles to street prostitution.

Tue, 2022-11-01 23:54

#34

susan davis susan davis's picture

the title of the thread is "Sex as Labour".... narrowly an anti sex work crusader view of on street sex workers lives and safety and that their work cannot be safe....

If you actually read what I wrote, I explained exactly how on street sex work could be made safer..... via decriminalization and more indoor jobs.... eliminating the systemic issues which force sex workers onto the street....

but you don't want to hear that, you don't want a soltuion, a labour solution.

Tue, 2022-11-01 23:57

#35

susan davis susan davis's picture

if a "mine" or massage parlor as a separate business... not the entire industry.... presents dangerous working conditions.... of course we would fight to shut it down... and do work to shut dangerous places....

but you don't shut down the entire mining industry because one mine or mining company provide unsafe or dangerous working conditions... that is not realistic....

the same applies to sex work

Wed, 2022-11-02 00:02

#36

susan davis susan davis's picture

and lastly.... no one is trying to say "street level sex work can be made safe" via decriminalization.... we are saying decriminalization will create more jobs indoors and allow more workers to find work inside....

as part of decrim those who do work on street will not be deemed criminals any more and work can proceed to create perhaps a sex workers cooperative brothel - for sex workers by sex workers - to allow sex workers somewhere to take clients - rather than a park or ally or logging road - somewhere to clean up be warm etc....

you should see the plans an architectural masters student drew up for us for just that pupose...

you think this work isn't proceeding... it is.... you think this work is easy.... it isn't....

the idea is to leave no one behind and to find safer indoor work for all

Wed, 2022-11-02 01:07

#37

Pondering

I created the thread. I specifically called it "Sex as Labour" because I didn't want to narrow it down to just prostitution. I said it can look like an easy way to make money to young women not that it is easy.

Sex as labour runs all the way from street prostitution to strip clubs, massage parlours, escort services, Sugar Daddy websites, film porn, online chats, and more.

From the perspective of labour law "sex worker" and "prostitution" are both too broad to be evaluated as one job or one workplace or one type of work. It is impossible to apply labour law that broadly.

Opening brothels would not wipe out street prostitution because drug addicts and alcoholics wouldn't be in them. The cost would be too high for what they could charge even if they were allowed in.

Those who work on the street aren't criminals now. Street work is not the entire industry but yes entire industries can be shut down for a variety of reasons. The plan is to shut down all fossil fuel industry eventually. The last two asbestos mines in Canada closed in 2011. Many industries vanish due to technological advances or off-shoring. Workers retrain.

I don't see the sex industry ever vanishing. I could see street prostitution being wiped out. However we still haven't established that it should be wiped out from the perspective of labour rights theory and principles.

I don't think street prostitution is compatible with the principles underpinning labour rights but I am willing to accept my analysis is wrong, as it was in the Haiti thread.

There are a whole bunch of leftists on this board who profess and do appear to be up on labour rights with a sophisticated understanding and historical knowledge. I don't have that background.

Wed, 2022-11-02 01:40

(Reply to #37) #38

JKR

Pondering wrote:

If there are unsafe conditions in a mine labour activists will try to get it shut down even if it means all the miners lose their jobs and are forced to move away.

If there are unsafe conditions in a mine labour activists will try to get the mine to implement safe conditions to replace the unsafe conditions.

Wed, 2022-11-02 02:50

(Reply to #38) #39

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

If there are unsafe conditions in a mine labour activists will try to get it shut down even if it means all the miners lose their jobs and are forced to move away.

If there are unsafe conditions in a mine labour activists will try to get the mine to implement safe conditions to replace the unsafe conditions.

If they can be but while it is unsafe it is shut down. Asbestos mining couldn't be made safe. Other than that as I mentioned entire industries do disappear.

If any job or jobs go away workers are displaced and have to get other jobs which can be a serious challenge but labour activists have never used that as an excuse to support any kind of job or business or industry as far as I know.

Do I recall correctly that you lean libertarian? If so how does that impact your views on labour law?

Wed, 2022-11-02 03:08

#40

JKR

I consider myself to be mostly a "social democrat" but I think there are a few libertarian ideas that have some merits like pluralism, civil and political rights, bodily autonomy, free association, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of movement, and voluntary association.

I think history has shown that governments can't shut down sex work like they do asbestos mining. This is especially true nowadays with modern communication. Instead governments should make things as safe and beneficial as possible for all their citizens including their citizens who are sex workers.

Wed, 2022-11-02 09:51

#41

Pondering

I don't like the implication that sex workers are, unlike other workers, incapable of doing any other job.

That you can't shut something down doesn't mean you have to legitimize or allow it to expand or allow it in every format. I am arguing street prostitution should be shut down based on the horrendous working conditions. Whether or not another location is available is immaterial to determining if street work can be made safe or should be shut down.

The language around this discussion frames sex worker as an identity instead of a job. Sex workers are regular people doing a job. It isn't a sexual orientation.

The viability of street work is not dependent on alternative sex work or alternative work of any sort being available. At least not by my understanding of leftist labour theory but I await correction from the better informed.

Wed, 2022-11-02 12:31

#42

JKR

I think what many sex workers are saying is that they just want to be treated like other workers. Street work of all kinds is already regulated. People already can sell stuff in the street by following certain laws and regulations. These laws and regulations are mostly at the civic level. I can't see why sex street work couldn't be regulated like all other street work already is. I think sex workers have obviously had to deal with a horrendous amount of prejudice, discrimination, and stigmatization. I think that has been horribly wrong. I think patriarchy has been the main cause of that. I think sex workers could be treated like all other workers where they also work under common labour laws. Street sex workers could be regulated like all other street workers. For instance I think it's good food trucks are able to serve customers within reasonable limits. I think it would be wrong if food truck workers would be called "prostitutes" and be singled out in the criminal code. I think the prejudice, discrimination, and stigmatization of sex workers should end.

Wed, 2022-11-02 15:26

#43

Pondering

Let me make clear my agenda. I am accusing the men of this board of sexism. Much has been made of the need for people to recognize racism in themselves and micro-aggressions. It is not the responsibility of PoCs to educate everyone. Likewise men should be actively tackling sexism within themselves and society instead of constantly wallowing in personal innocence because you don't rape or beat up women or cat call on the street.

You should recognize that not being a woman means you don't know how women experience life any more than you know how a PoC experiences life. Neither living with a PoC or a woman means you know or understand their experience of life. PoCs are just a different colour. Women aren't just smaller men or men without penises. Accepting men as equal doesn't mean treating them like women. Equality doesn't mean treating women like men either. The differences between men and women are far more profound than being different colours. This is from the Bedford decision which is for a different thread but this part is pertinent.

[86] First, while some prostitutes may fit the description of persons who freely choose (or at one time chose) to engage in the risky economic activity of prostitution, many prostitutes have no meaningful choice but to do so. Ms. Bedford herself stated that she initially prostituted herself “to make enough money to at least feed myself” (cross-examination of Ms. Bedford, J.A.R., vol. 2, at p. 92). As the application judge found, street prostitutes, with some exceptions, are a particularly marginalized population (paras. 458 and 472). Whether because of financial desperation, drug addictions, mental illness, or compulsion from pimps, they often have little choice but to sell their bodies for money. Realistically, while they may retain some minimal power of choice — what the Attorney General of Canada called “constrained choice” (transcript, at p. 22) — these are not people who can be said to be truly “choosing” a risky line of business (see PHS, at paras. 97-101).

A "safety first" approach would not legitimize street prostitution as a job for marginalized people even if it were well paying which it isn't.

Workers do not have a right to a particular type of job. The issue is worker rights not sex worker rights, although I find it difficult to apply even the term “worker rights” to street prostitution. It seems more like they need victim’s rights.

Men who fit the dominant male gender role cruise the streets looking for vulnerable women, gay, and trans youths who have no real choice other than to subjugate themselves to the desires of these men no matter how degrading, painful or dangerous. That is patriarchy in action in its ugliest form. It is also free market capitalism in its ugliest form.

You are no knights in shining armor standing up for the rights of any kind of woman worker sex or otherwise. Your opinion on sex work is fixed and rooted in your position in the patriarchy and your masculine sexuality regardless of whether or not you participate directly in purchasing services.

You choose sex-positive feminism. You choose happy sex workers who delight in servicing whatever man comes along as long as the price is right. Not like those mean sex-negative feminists trying to control other women for no reason.

Either way you are supporting women so you can pat yourself on the back for defending the rights of women to sexually service men for a price with a free conscience.

You are just spewing the usual sex worker rights propaganda spiel. Suggesting vague laws like for other street activities is dismissive. It’s not worth any thought to determine if that would be possible. It’s a woman’s issue. Your part ends with “Yay! Sex worker rights!”

Wed, 2022-11-02 19:32

#44

Bacchus

And just like that the discussion is over because as soon as you demonstrate you dont want debate but to lecture and bully and then insult and accuse everyone of characyer evil like sexism then there is no reason to participate

Wed, 2022-11-02 19:55

(Reply to #44) #45

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Let me make clear my agenda. I am accusing the men of this board of sexism.

It’s good you’re communicating what your underlying agenda is concerning this subject. That helps explain your attitude toward sex workers. It seems you view the viewpoints of many sex workers as being unworthy of consideration and respect.

Wed, 2022-11-02 20:19

#46

Pondering

And just like that the discussion is over because as soon as you demonstrate you dont want debate but to lecture and bully and then insult and accuse everyone of characyer evil like RACISM then there is no reason to participate.

How dare anyone accuse white people of being RACIST!

Post 45 and still no man is willing to address street prostitution from a labour perspective.

You want to talk about sex worker rights and stigma and discrimination and getting your feelings hurt but not labour rights. This is post number 45 and labour rights are not up for discussion

Yes. I am being harsh. Actually no I'm not being harsh. I am being blunt.

I like all the men here individually. Most of the men I have known personally are awesome guys generous with their brawn when needed. Men as a class not so much.

Bitter: (of people or their feelings or behavior) angry, hurt, or resentful because of one's bad experiences or a sense of unjust treatment.

That is how I feel not for myself but for women as a class. It is so disheartening to have men still so unwilling to genuinely hear us; to treat us as if we are the enemy of womens rights for being critical of the ever so uplifting sex industry that so improves our lives individually and collectively.

Wed, 2022-11-02 20:42

(Reply to #46) #47

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Let me make clear my agenda. I am accusing the men of this board of sexism.

It’s good you’re communicating what your underlying agenda is concerning this subject. That helps explain your attitude toward sex workers. It seems you view the viewpoints of many sex workers as being unworthy of consideration and respect.

Bullshit. I treated Susan with respect and got none back. I hear nothing but the so called sex worker view as expressed by a handful of women and endless men who immediately jump to the defense of sex work as an industry that must never be stifled as long as women are in the service position. (+trans & gay boys).

Men will use any excuse to avoid any detailed discussion or analysis. You are 100% defensive on sex work because it is women serving men. That is sexist. It's worse than racism. At least the left has admitted racism exists all the way down to micro-aggressions and even thinks white people should be doing the work.

Men and sexism, never heard of it.

Wed, 2022-11-02 23:44

#48

susan davis susan davis's picture

there are approx 100,000 sex workers in Canada... not "a handful of sex workers" and men who defend them.....

thank you though for once again attempting to strip sex workers of their voice and agency.

Only male serving "unregulated ejaculation responses profiteers" (my favorite name I was ever called here on babble) who are home wrecking, violence enabling, child harming and who are a minority.... women.... would ever choose sex work over toilet cleaning, construction, minimum wage jobs .....

You are are sexist and cannot see it.... you speak over the voices of a large group of mostly women who are dealing with poverty by choosing sex work....

you don't want to talk about that though...

as you state, you are here to pick a fight with men and are using sex workers as bait, as the reasonable causality in you personal beef with men about sexism....

for the record, you do not give me "respect"... you do not read anything or listen to those you so vehemently attack.... if "not showing you respect" is showing you the flaws in your arguments - none of which you actually answered - then sure...

you do not care about women in sex work

you care about arguing with and "punishing men" for sexism.

for all your false flags and pretenses, we finally get to the core of the issue.

thank you for throwing sex worker rights under the bus in your quest to fulfill your personal goal of punishing men....

Thu, 2022-11-03 00:07

(Reply to #48) #49

susan davis susan davis's picture

Pondering wrote:

The issue is worker rights not sex worker rights, although I find it difficult to apply even the term “worker rights” to street prostitution. It seems more like they need victim’s rights.

Victim.... is the last thing sex workers on the street would call themselves...
please, do some dang reading... look at the front of this report... these are the words they use to describe their lives.... not "Victim" , unreal

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/about-bc-justice...

Fri, 2022-11-04 15:39

#50

Pondering

I'm not talking with a 100K sex workers. You are the only one here. "A handful" was exagerating. I'm not speaking over you or anyone else. Your voice is every bit as loud as mine. You have been claiming only sex workers have a right to speak and only you have sufficient knowledge. Respect is not the same as deference. I haven't been rude to you so far.

as you state, you are here to pick a fight with men and are using sex workers as bait, as the reasonable causality in you personal beef with men about sexism....

I am genuinely against most forms of prostitution. The topic is in the news due to the court challenge. I am challenging men to examine their sexism in being so dismissive of the position of feminists that they appear to have fled the board years ago.

I have been reading what you have been saying and it is a simplistic circular argument/rant.

My sole argument has been that street prostitution contravenes the principles of labour rights. Nothing you have said provided any argument to the contrary.

As the application judge found, street prostitutes, with some exceptions, are a particularly marginalized population. Whether because of financial desperation, drug addictions, mental illness, or compulsion from pimps, they often have little choice but to sell their bodies for money. Realistically, while they may retain some minimal power of choice these are not people who can be said to be truly “choosing” a risky line of business .

I don't need to do any "dang reading" to determine the women described above are victims of a multitude of injustices. There are men suffering from the same injustices with the exception that they aren't offered the opportunity of prostitution.

It is horrible that men and women living under those conditions don't have the social supports they need. Adding the degradation and violence of street prostitution to the lives of the women just adds more damage.

The way I understand labour theory is that employers take advantage of the desperation of workers to gain consent for abusive labour practices.

Labour theory does not support the argument that the desperation of workers means the abuse has to be tolerated unless an alternative can be provided.

Sat, 2022-11-05 13:41

#51

kropotkin1951

Here are some labour theories.

The labor theory of value has developed over many centuries. It had no single originator, but rather many different thinkers arrived at the same conclusion independently. Aristotle is claimed to hold to this view.[16] Some writers trace its origin to Thomas Aquinas.[17][18] In his Summa Theologiae (1265–1274) he expresses the view that "value can, does and should increase in relation to the amount of labor which has been expended in the improvement of commodities."[19] Scholars such as Joseph Schumpeter have cited Ibn Khaldun, who in his Muqaddimah (1377), described labor as the source of value, necessary for all earnings and capital accumulation. He argued that even if earning "results from something other than a craft, the value of the resulting profit and acquired (capital) must (also) include the value of the labor by which it was obtained. Without labor, it would not have been acquired."[20] Scholars have also pointed to Sir William Petty's Treatise of Taxes of 1662[21] and to John Locke's labor theory of property, set out in the Second Treatise on Government (1689), which sees labor as the ultimate source of economic value. Karl Marx himself credited Benjamin Franklin in his 1729 essay entitled "A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency" as being "one of the first" to advance the theory.[22]

Mutualism is an economic theory and anarchist school of thought that advocates a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market.[43] Integral to the scheme was the establishment of a mutual-credit bank that would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate, just high enough to cover administration.[44] Mutualism is based on a labor theory of value that holds that when labor or its product is sold, in exchange, it ought to receive goods or services embodying "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility".[45] Mutualism originated from the writings of philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

The labor theory as an explanation for value contrasts with the subjective theory of value, which says that value of a good is not determined by how much labor was put into it but by its usefulness in satisfying a want and its scarcity. Ricardo's labor theory of value is not a normative theory, as are some later forms of the labor theory, such as claims that it is immoral for an individual to be paid less for his labor than the total revenue that comes from the sales of all the goods he produces.

It is arguable to what extent these classical theorists held the labor theory of value as it is commonly defined.[29][30][31] For instance, David Ricardo theorized that prices are determined by the amount of labor but found exceptions for which the labor theory could not account. In a letter, he wrote: "I am not satisfied with the explanation I have given of the principles which regulate value." Adam Smith theorized that the labor theory of value holds true only in the "early and rude state of society" but not in a modern economy where owners of capital are compensated by profit. As a result, "Smith ends up making little use of a labor theory of value."[32]

Sex as labour

Pages