Sex as labour

JKR wrote:

• In a legal sense, what do you mean by "street prostitution"?
• Why are you focusing just on “street prostitution” instead of sex work?
• Are you equating sex work with “street prostitution”?   

 I provided the definition of prostitution by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Bedford case. I explained why I was focusing on just street prostitution and made clear that I do find it different from other forms of sex work. I can only surmise that you are being deliberately obtuse. The questions are about me and my views and why I am addressing street prostitution and how I define it.  Do I need to fill out an application of some sort?

The sex industry and prostitution in particular rely heavily on free market capitalism and libertarian arguments. I accept that under those philosophies it is an issue of freedom and individual rights. That becomes a debate between ideologies that I am not interested in having in conjunction with the topic of street prostitution or any other form of it.

Street prostitution is absolutely an occupation and a form of labour.

Post 56; still no labour analysis from the supposedly more knowledgeable members of the board, coincidentally male, passing judgement on my analysis without providing any of their own.

pondering wrote:

 You have all completely failed to post any coherent defence of street prostitution from a labour perspective. I don't need you to admit it because you never will. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I merely posted some of what is generally considered labour theories. They are economic not  labour law references, straight out of wiki. You post ignorant posts were you claim the right to use words in any manner you want to because " If my interpretation is confused and not very coherent it should be easy to dismantle by people who know better than I." You might want to relive yourself of some of your ignorance prior to using terms of art. I regularly look up terms I think I understand to make sure I have the correct interpretation. You claim the right to not have to bother.

I think that in any economic interchange workers that belong to syndicates will have the best outcomes.

Oh gee, a man telling me I am not worthy of debate because I am insufficiently educated so I should go take care of that before expecting to be heard. No one on this board checks definitions of words more than I do.

The arguments in favor of street prostitution rely on a smokescreen of complexity and accusations of ignorance while offering the simplistic solution of unions for marginalized street prostitutes. I’m sure Unifor will get right on that.

I don’t think that I’m the one that is ignorant.

Bedford judgement contained:

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).

I guess it is just a coincidence that so few women ever show up here. If those are my choices I will go with ominscient. 

I am about to summarize and conclude my argument on street prostitution. I would like the next post to be open for rebuttal by Susan if she wants the spot. I leave the last word on street prostitution to anyone who opposes my argument.

Susan, if you choose to, post a quick note to reserve the next post spot.  It will give you time to summarize your position even if the conversation moves on because you can always edit. The first post in this thread will reference my conclusion. If you post a rebuttal I will note it along with my own summary. I will refrain from posting for a few days in case anyone else also wishes to disagree.

 I specifically stated that misanthropic does not mean misandrist. I knew you were accusing me of hating all people not just men but decided to respond in a light-hearted manner. 

I've been considering the likelihood of the man-hater/prude argument coming up. That isn't what misanthropic means but close enough to have my fun. 

Followed by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5RKxKv3gfg&ab_channel=StefanJak%C3%B3bc...

Ironically you have now raised the man-hater accusation. I should have just waited a post or two. I never suggested all women are hookers or that all sex-workers are hookers. I don't use that word. I also haven't been using the word "john" but feel free on your part.  I definitely don't believe all men buy sexual services. I think it is somewhere around 8% in Canada. Nor do I think that all men are abusive.  Your own words speak to your character.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I meant misanthropic not misandrist. Thank you for once again proving you don't care what other people actually write. You seem to be very taken with the idea that there are two sexes and that biological fact means that you can speak on behalf of all people who share your genitalia. I have no idea who you are in real life but you are not like the women in my life and they are all feminists. I wonder whether your dismal view of "men" is because of the ones you know. I am sorry if all the men in your life have been abusive however that does not make all of us abusive.

Just because most sex workers are women does not equate to most women are hookers. Any one who believes that is a misogynist pig. Because most buyers of sex are men does not make most men johns. Any one who believes that is a misandrist.  I said that I think your stated views show a profound distrust of other people .

I still believe that abolitionist feminists are gone because of the way they were treated here. Archives exist. I know which years the topic was most active.  I agree it is not the same as being here but I think I got a reasonable impression the times I have looked back. 

I'm fine with your disagreement although you don't know the full extent of my views. Although I mentioned it in another topic the thought was ignored. I believe that ultimately the best solution would be for all sex work venues to be worker owned cooperatives by law but still under bill C 36. I didn't think of it until I started delving into the topic from the labour standpoint. 

I'm convinced the challenge to C 36 will fail but that is for another thread. If it does the law can be challenged from a different direction, again to be explored in another thread. 

A subject can only be addressed if the basic facts are agreed upon. For example, you say you disagree with me, does that mean you do believe street prostitution can be made safe? If so how? I am willing to listen but no one is willing to speak up about street prostitution. 

P..S. I think this thread is a good example of how abolitionist feminists were treated here if they tried to discuss prostitution. Stonewalling and insults.

Decriminalization or legalization or any combination thereof does not end street prostitution. It can't be made safe therefore it should remain illegal. That is my sole argument in this thread so far.  

I did not want to go there now but I will. The reason I would support only worker co-ops is because the law is failing to achieve some of its purposes. 

I would keep C 36, I agree with the goals of the preamble, but I would add a law requiring all massage parlors and strip clubs to be worker owned within 5 years, 10 at most. Only these worker co-ops would be allowed to run escort services. 

I think it is the best way and probably the only way to severely reduce trafficking, remove pressure from workers to perform acts they would rather not, and eliminate involvement of organized crime. With the exception of propery, medicare and old age pension all taxes would be reserved to be split up between a specialised anti-trafficking unit to shut down unauthorised venues using minors etc, and services for workers including exit services or dedicated health care workers etc. 

Not even governments should make a dime. 

We cross posted. I am not suggesting workers come up with money to buy their work places.  Government backed financing and organizational help would be required but I am pretty sure workers would have no problem paying it back in full. 

It would be very complicated to manage such a transition but whatever the costs they could be paid back over time. Each venue would have to be assessed for fair value. Workers would need to be guided through the process. 

Whatever costs incurred by the government could easily be paid back over time if the workers were collecting all the money. They are not likely to go bankrupt. 

If all the strip clubs and massage parlors were owned by the workers they would be utterly transformed within years, maybe months. Eventually they would be organized nationally and setting pricing and services offered. They would have full control.

I don't know all the ins and outs of how coops are set up because workers don't each own a portion which they can sell. I guess it is set up as a corporation.

I do know that there are lots of organizations, probably some government ones and NGOs that know all about how to organize them. Doing so many businesses, it would be thousands, would likely lead to a variety of set templates being used.

The power of government is that they can provide huge money up front at low interest rates. The grand majority of businesses would make enough money to pay it all back, even training costs. 

laine lowe wrote:

And as two women on this board, I do not agree with your position of sex workers.

Four women including Lagatta and Susan so we have two in favor of sex work and two against it assuming I remember Lagatta's position correctly which you could confirm. Sex work is the only topic that has interested Susan so I understand why she didn't occur to you.

I would support helping asbestos workers but I would not support them wanting to reopen the mines in Quebec unless they had information to show that it was now safe to do and that the product would not be harmful to others even if the work itself was safe.

I concluded my argument on street work in post 70. I haven't heard a single argument in favor of making street work legal so I would say I definitely won that part of the debate. The only defence has been "look over here" or "this is what I want".

It might take some time but the next venue I will evaluate from a labour standpoint will be strip clubs. They are legal or decriminalized if you prefer. I will evaluate the effectiveness of the law in preventing worker abuse.

I won’t continue on the co-op argument because it has yet to be established that strip clubs are abusive and the laws inadequate to prevent trafficking. Without that the co-op argument is indefensible.

I will continue editing my first post to add the summary on each aspect I explore from the labour standpoint. Each summary will also refer to my lead post and the other summaries including rebuttal summaries if anyone cares to make them. I will also link the threads I open on the topic.

Supporters of the various aspects of sex work can continue to obfuscate rather than defend.

I will make it easy for interested readers to compare arguments on sex work jobs and the impact of the industry as a whole. 

To be clear I am not just claiming that men of the left on this board dumped traditional feminists for sex positive feminism. I am claiming progressive men in general did this, but that isn't a labour argument.

I don't have a problem with being the only abolitionist on the board. Whether you agree or not I am confident that a very significant portion of the feminist movement is abolitionist and that it is a traditional feminist position. 

I am going to work my way through various arguments on the sex industry at my own pace.  

Sex workers are not being segregated. There are tons of sex workers working in various aspects of the industry and it is extremely visible. 

Sex workers as a group have no special rights beyond what any other group of workers has. 

I would welcome a transition shelter for women recovering from prostitution in my neighbourhood. I would not welcome a prostitution establishment in my neighbourhood. I don't consider that discrimination as zoning laws impact all businesses and residential areas and prostitution is illegal.

laine lowe wrote:

<p>Pondering, "recovering from prostitution" is pretty heavy handed. Forced prostitution is abuse and can be viewed as traumatic as rape and other sexual abuse. Are you saying that all sex work should be viewed as abuse that you need to recover from?</p>

Sex workers who leave the industry like people leave any other industry wouldn't need a transition shelter. For those who are in need of the shelter by definition it is there so they can recover from prostitution.  

Not all sex workers that suffer trauma were forced into it or subjected to violence. Having said that I think the ones needing a transition shelter would mostly come from the street. I would welcome them. 

Laine, why would you think all sex workers would require a transition shelter? 

laine lowe wrote:

You used a catch all phrase of "prostitution" in your statement of giving recovery support. 

Prostitution isn't a catch all phrase. It is a word that describes selling sexual services. There is no synonym for it. New Zealand Prostitute's Collective uses it. It is in the dictionary.  

"Sex worker" is a catch all. It doesn't refer only to prostitution.  

​Is there a form of prostitution in which you think it would be impossible for a woman to suffer trauma related to prostitution? 

Just to be clear, I am not making any claims here or presenting an argument of any sort. I'm just responding to confused posters that can't understand plain language.

PS My summary on street prostitution and leftist labor rights is post # 70. I invited a rebuttal but so far no one has taken me up on it.

susan davis wrote:

except, people have answered you... more than once.... you refuse to acknowledge it however and revert to talking over me as if nothing i have said is relevant or related....

Susan, name whichever post you want as a rebuttal to my summary post #70. I will reference your reply directly regardless of what you say in it.

My post 70 is my summation on street prostitution. That means I am giving you the last word on this part of the labour discussion. No matter what you say in it I will not respond to your rebuttal post. You can just sum up your argument if you want, or put links.

I will add the post number for your response at the end of post 70 so people can go directly to it. I will also add the post number to my first post in this thread so both our summaries can be found. Anyone else who wants to summarize is also welcome to and I will link to those posts as well.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

My post in 94 is a rebuttal of your view that street prostitution is uniquely dangerous. Most of the 173 women murdered last year were not prostitutes but merely women unfortunate enough to live with the wrong men. Most of the people killed on the job were men and they did not work in the sex industry at any level.

You are morally opposed to prostitution which is your right. I personally have never had any use for the sex industry's products but I am not opposed to people making a living in it.

I am morally opposed to abusive labour conditions for all workers. So far I have only addressed street prostitution entirely from that perspective. I never claimed street prostitution was uniquely dangerous. Death is not the only abuse workers should be free from. That's pretty extreme from the perspective of labour rights. It's not a contest between who dies at work the most, men or women, as if we should strive to catch up.

You are a hostile man who regularly trolls me. Stick with stating your own views don't summarize mine. I can speak for myself.

Your only purpose in this thread is to try to trash it. Even so I referenced your rebuttal post 94 in my lead post and in my summary post #70.

I find your perpetual outrage tedious. Why did you put "everyone" in quotes? I never said anything about "everyone" so you aren't quoting me. 

There seems to be an addiction to trying to put words in my mouth. 

I could be wrong but I don't think I have ever accused Susan of trolling. Attacking sure, trolling no. Susan comes by her emotions honestly due to her extensive history battling for sex worker rights. I also have very strong feelings for different reasons but the onus is on me not to escalate which isn't to say I won't get snappish.