I'm going to exit this discussion. It gets me too upset. Pinga, I can't converse with you about this anymore.

Kimmio, i absolutely get it.  I would not want my daughter to be a drug addict.  Iwould not want my son to be victimized and abused and feel he was only worthy of selling sex.

 

Yet, if either a son or a duaghter ended up selling sex, then I would want them to be able to have a safe place to do it.  I would support them, while we tried to figure out alternatives....(to be honest, drug addicts don't hae many options for making their way).

 

Similair to homeless folks, I would want them off the streets and in a safe place to stay over night.  I would then ensure that place had folks to talk to them, to be with them, to recognize their humanness and support agencies to help them move on.

 

Legalizing prostitution is a step in the direction of support places.  

Hi Pinga...

 

 

This is what a small United Church congregation offered while I served as their minister. Working with diverse advocacy and intervention associations we did all in our power to make a positive difference for the folk who responded to our offer of unconditional affirmation of them as persons. We provided warm breakfasts, listening ears and helpful hands, along with means for harm reduction provided by the BC Centre for Disease Control through its street nurse outreach program.

 

This creative response to a major social problem was not well received by some in the neighbourhood. The Church was repeatedly graffitied with slogans demanding the sex workers leave. I was on two occasions threatened with bodily harm. Once in the sanctuary by a man who showed me a hammer and intimating that he knew how to put an end to the problem I was causing.

 

Such aggressive refusal and resistance concluded with a police action. The vulnerable persons were driven from the Church property and back into the danger of life on the street. They were threatened with arrest should they return and their belongings were tossed into a garbage truck. This at the time Robert Picton was mutilating and murdering female sex workers snatched from the streets of Vancouver.

 

This extreme rejection of those lost and broken persons was authorized by a lower mainland Presbytery's executive. They took my keys and ordered me to stay away from the Church property.

 

Here is a snippet of a short documentary made by a local film maker. It played on the Knowledge network for several years following. I have never seen all of it. I did record this bit after being called by a friend who told me that it was being aired.

 

 

George

Pinga: it's this comment I'm still not quite over. And besides, fully legalizing prostitution is not the same as safe injection sites. Because it's not the prostitutes who are the users ( yes, to other substances- but the johns are the users of them). So, there has to be a deterrent for the men who use- and exit programs for the workers. Not, let's see how we can spin this as a 'regular service job' programs.

Let us be clear on one thing here (and I did mention this in my OP) - Prostitution in its strictest form, the exchange of money for sex, is LEGAL in Canada. I can pay another person to sleep with me and no laws are broken.

 

What is illegal is communicating with your clients publicly (they can't do anything if you keep it on private channels like email or phone) about the product, employing people to help you, and operating in a home or other environment. IOW, all the things that would help you do it safely. The Supreme Court has said that if prostitution is legal, then all these things that are necessary for prostitutes to work safely must also be legal.

 

Criminalization prostitution is an option for the Conservatives to get around the decision but it is far from the ideal one. It will simply drive the trade underground and make it harder to keep women safe. For instance, Windsor, Ontario's licensing of escorts and escort agencies would be off the table. Right now, it ensures that these women (who are strictly speaking prostitutes but charge by the hour instead of the act) do have to follow some regulations and get regular health checks in order to keep their license up.

 

The Swedish model, which is what I think Kimmio means in her reference to Iceland, has been a mixed bag and hardly the panacea that Sweden has been presenting it as. A quote from a CBC report on the Nordic option of some of the problems it has created:

 

 

Read the full article, which also presents New Zealand's model, the one I would prefer to see adopted.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/prostitution-laws-what-are-the-nordic-and-n...

 

Mendalla

 

I think it is interesting that if all our human functions, somehow sex is consider special.
.

I recall reading clan of the cave bears and being so surprised by the natural, I feel an itch, sort of sexual encounter. I think we have our hang ups and it is difficult then to discuss things.
.

Sex can be like blowing your nose in a way. Natural, everyone does it, but perhaps you might want to be discrete. But that doesn't mean it needs to be discrete. It is just our culture.
.

We think of selling sex as demeaning, or at least some like kimmio do. But there is nothing essentially demeaning in it, that is just our cultural norms.
.

As a nurse' I have done a lot of things to adult bodies, of both sexes, that i actually wouldn't do to my husband. And no one says it's demeaning to nurse or patient. It is just required.
.

Disemacting someone who is grossly constipated It can't get more demeaning for anyone. But it gets done calmly, cleanly and with respect
.

And that I think is the issue with prostitution. We can't get over our sexual hangups and cultural norms

When you're clearing someone of constipation- you use laxatives and an enema- not your own private parts.

If they don't consider sex special, at least an integral part of their personhood (we can cut out polly Anna words like 'special') then if they keep prostituting they won't be able to, and neither will the clients. It gets into the psyche like no other thing does. If that weren't the case, every married person would be having sex all over the place. None of us is immune to recognizing an attractive stranger when we see one- on the movie screen, on a billboard, on the sidewalk. People perhaps more attractive looking than our own partners. Why bother even having real relationships? We'd be doing it shopping malls with attractive passersby, on public beaches- anytime our animal instincts got the itch- but we don't, because we are not wild animals, we've evolved, and we generally respect personhood.

I'd like to point out that violence could be said to be an animal instinct too- we don't tolerate it. And we agree that we shouldn't. Because we've evolved from cave people.

And with prostitution- it's a one way street. The client has the attraction, the prostitute does not. Her very personhood is the product being sold to scratch that itch. If the itch she needs to scratch is the itch for a roof over her head and a safe place to be- then there are better ways, there should be better ways, to attain that than by giving up such an integral part of her personhood to scratch someone else's different sort of itch- scratching that itch is not her problem or responsibilty. She is her own person- and deserves to keep her personhood respected and intact. If we care about human rights. Her clients only care about their sexual itches.

We could argue that slave owners needed people to work their farms cheaply and efficiently- and so slaves were an expedient way to that end goal- and giving them no better options kept them serving that end goal. We can argue that maybe it's an animal instinct to exploit situations and other people to get what we want. But we all agree that it wasn't right. And we agree that we try to serve better, more evolved instincts of justice and compassion as evolved people.

If we fully legalized it- do you think the dangerous ones would stop buying it? Or would they just have more options? Do you think the violence would go away if it was fully legalized, and hidden behind silk sheets- or would the violence would happen anyway, but she just might be able to identify and report the attacker after the fact? What about the violence of being violated by a smelly stranger day after day- a person having to mentally 'remove' herself from the situation in order to do it- and the long term effects of that? Mental health problems? Should there be no focus at all on rehabilitating the men who buy prostitutes?

And are the above options the only ones we can think of?
What about really looking at the different forms of prostitution? IMO, strip clubs are more exploitative meat markets, more dangerous in many ways than licenced escort services where the escort charges for her time, and is fully in control of meeting screening, and setting and ending the terms of the 'contract' rather than the other way around. But that form is generally not the type that a young abused runaway will engage in. Therefore, I think it should be made illegal to buy the other forms. There should be some sort of deterrent to make it less, not more, attractive to buy prostitution.

kimmio, you are misinformed again. What lastpointe was referring to was disempaction -- the manual removal of stool.  Not laxatives.

 

Sometimes people do things you don't understand.

 

I wouldn't sell my body 20x a day, but, I could see a person selling sex.

I also can see those who sell sex a lot because of hardship.

 

 

You can't imagine that, i get that.

 

Can you even move a littlebit to the point where you could see a service.

I'm sure laxatives are tried first. I mentioned the enema- non-human tools used when possible. It's agreed that this is not a 'kinky' thing, it's a medical one- the service might be life saving. I've never heard that blue balls is life threatening (well, actually I have, but it's bs). Only if a person cannot control themselves- then the threat is to others (if you love me you'll do it/ if you love me- say men who think this is a 'needed' service) you'll let me buy you/ if you need the money you'll let me do it). So, just who is it and what is it we have compassion for?

And I can see that it is sold as a service. And I think that's devolution, not evolved and compassionate- of those who think that the practice of exploiting others personhood as a service should continue.

Yes, they do sell their bodies. If they're not bodies the customers are buying, what the hell is it? Why not use their own hand? They are buying bodies, of people who wouldn't othwerwise have them. Yes, a person agrees to forfeit their own body and in the process, their personhood, for the act. It may be a service, but it's an exploitative one. Slavery was a service too. Slaves went into it beaten, dejected, personhood exploited, and flexed their muscles, displayed their bodies, in hopes that the 'good'
slave owners would buy them- or else their lives were at risk. There were no other options for them to secure a decent roof over their head, and their dignity was being sold along with them. Generation after generation. What makes brothel owners and government legislators, and us, any different for condoning it, long term? Profit?

Here we are.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

When it comes right down to it, buying sex from prostitutes, and the profiting off of it IS trafficking. And we ought to think about how to deter it, not repackage into an illusion that it's okay. Seeing as most of the prostitutes' choices were exploited already, that they come from a severely disadvantaged place to begin with, they're not the ones to blame. But if we condone it, I think we become complicit.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/what-is-human-traffickin...

Pinga: what do you think- my best friend was a stripper, when I first moved to the city, my old roommate worked in a sex shop as a retail clerk. Her friends that came over were escorts, dancers, massage 'staff'- I got to know them- and this was in the formative years when I was a younger adult and dating, the world was opened up- and thinking I was pretty 'open minded' about everything. Do you think I have the awareness of someone who was raised in a convent? Maybe it's you who doesn't understand. I live in a red light district, still, pretty much. Different apartment. Different life. Same neighbourhood. A residential one. If you look around late at night- there are still apartments that shine a 'red light' from their windows. I noticed it from my neighbour's place on the 18th floor years ago- and he explained. It's not just song lyrics.

I understand that the choice is made when there is no choice- both financially and psychologically. My roommate who was selling sex toys could have done it. I could have done it. We didn't. We lived in a crappy apartment and shared the rent instead. We were lucky. We learned about the way it is from people who did. Some of them lived in nicer apartments- but their lives weren't any better- and every one of them was abused when they were young, or married off when they were young because of religious expectations. One married when she was 17 or 18 to a jerk of a husband (JW's education and women's equality discouraged, man was king of the house and wife was property), and 10 years later she left him and had absolutely no other job skills- and a 'dream' of a better life. With no way to pay her rent, no family help because they disowned her, and no friends because her church disowned her, she moved to the city and went to work for an escort service. That wasn't part of her dream. I do get it.

I could name sex workers, and tell you a fair bit about who they were (some have passed) and are as persons. Their stories, well heard, offer opportunity for reconsideration of our societal  norms. They were persons, sons and daughters, deserving of respect irrespective of appearances. Robert Picton was slaughtering them on his pig farm. Mean spirited persons in general simply laid beatings on "non-coopertaive" workers, or sometimes for sadistic fun. The Police were harrassing them at every turn. The general population simply despised or pitied them, wanting to have them kept out of sight.

 

(Can you imagine the global outcry if they were LGBT)

 

Taking Grace Memorial as a case study, we have opportunity to question ourselves about freedom, responsibility, creativity and courage. I could tell you about two persons involved in this case.

 

One was a leader among a small group of persons investing in the gentrification of Mount Pleasant. He had some years back participated in the forcible eviction, from the premises of Grace Memorial, because the neighbours opposed the provision of food stuffs for persons at risk in the neighbourhood. It looked bad, from the property evaluation perspective, to have the poor so visible. Investors are leery of the East Side and are keen to spot risk.

 

This person worked for the BC Public Insurance Corporation. Well respected in and through all his relations. He was known as a bit of a loose canon when it came to money and politics. In the short video clip you can hear this person's temperament, ready to demonstrate who is clearly in the right.. He interjects while the spokesman is stating the Community Watch position.

 

The spokesman invokes the "enabling" argument. This is unsustainable by resort to any peer reviewed research across various disciples. We, to the best of our ability, and, in partnership with respected advocacy and interventions persons, devoted ourselves in service to the poorest of the poor. Failing in body as in spirit. We breathed compassion through acts support and encouragement., including the distribution of condoms and syringes, to minimize risk for all.

 

A major complaint was the the sex workers were leaving condoms and syringes all through the neighbourhood. This certainly was the case before we opened the door of radical hospitality. With every passing day, the neighbourhood was freed from the presence of discarded condoms and syringes. We operated a small exchange while we practiced our radical hospitality.

 

The second person was injected with heroin when she was eight. Her mother wanted her quiet while she had a  boyfriend in to help with the rent. She an I found common ground in poetry. She noticed a book I carried and asked about it. She took it with her to read. After some time, she began to reveal her own poetic writings. Deep poems born in dark places. We found common ground. Two human beings in a relationship of mutual regard.

 

Of the two persons, the prominent neighbour or the sex worker, I suspect the latter would be more at home in the company of Jesus. The other would most likely gather a band and drive Jesus out of town.

 

What becomes possible once we step out of the box? Were I to have opportunity for conversation with either Peter or Stephen, I would consider it a godsend. In the course of our conversation, I would turn our attention to the matter of the religious constituency in which they found substantial support. This to ask the question: What do we notice in the Christian bible which might inform our legal posture specific to persons caught in the act of adultery?

 

Thinking theologically, I notice a pattern in the revelations of God. The bible shows us a powerful metaphor in its diverse references to prostitutes and the persons who practice prostitution. By the light of this metaphor I see that those who would hold the poetic sex worker guilty of some crime against society might wish to think twice.

 

The sex worker has an advocate, an intercessor. A voice sounds clear: "Is there one present who has no measure of blame in this matter? Let that one pronounce the sex worker guilty and liable to that punishment which the law will deem appropriate.

 

The sex worker may also benefit by the advocate's insight. She hears healing words sending her to seek her freedom along the opening way.

 

So, Peter or Stephen, where do you stand in relationship to one who advocates for the sex worker's liberty, when those who make their money by the practice of law find for the state against the person?

 

Just a bit about outcomes. Three years after the Police Action against the broken poor by the authority of the UCC, the community at worship noticed a young couple with an infant in arms, standing shyly near the back rows. The couple lingered as the community gathered to the coffee and cookies. She explained why they had come. We had taken hold in her imagination. Her acceptance of our kindness had served to change the course of her life. Now well married with son, free from her addiction and her work for just short of two years.

 

During our practice of radical hospitality persons from the neighbourhood joined in to play their part. The original six grew to about twelve. These remained following my retreat and relocation. To this day they serve a small community who gather for food once every week. They host genuine community and hear confessions of every manner. With no affectation, they communicate healing grace. They serve ably as members in the purpose of Christ.

 

I digress...

 

George

 

 

 

George, do you think the customers should be criminalized, or at the very least somehow or other deterred? You know- not to drive Jesus out of town by criminalizing the women, putting them in jail and out of sight- but to 'resist the devil' by resisting the acceptance of the purchase of sex. I speak in metaphor about real life- about doing something to stop, and to heal, the pain and damage done to everyone- most especially the women. I think we can do it with education, that's a big part of it- but how do we get the buyers into this education? That's the 'service' we should be providing to these men.

I don't see any decrease in the 'supply' of prostitution if we don't decrease the demand. And we don't decrease the demand by legitimizing it as a product/ service for sale. I do not blame, and would not criminalize the prostitutes.

Yes, these are persons, deserving of respect. I don't thing legitimizing the sex trade as a viable job option ongoing is the answer. Delegitimizing the purchase of sex is not devaluing the persons who sell sex.

And what about the 'higher level' sex work? We know that survival sex workers on the street face the most immediate danger, and need to be kept as safe as possible. What about the 'higher level' sex work though? What about the ones who were still abused, still runaways maybe now a little older, and only a wee bit luckier if you can call it that- still are having sex with strangers who see them as objects, pounds of flesh, live masturbation tools- and are selling away their personhood for money? They have still been 'groomed' by abuse, neglect, when they were too young to make a choice. I don't think the fact that they sell sex wrapped in silk sheets changes that- and it doesn't legitimize the abuse they still take when insults are hurled at them, vulgar comments, threats whispered in their ears- people they have no reason to trust- when their bodies are commodities for use by strangers and their personhood is erased, ignored- day after day, by strangers- to the point that they have to shut down, check out, depersonalize- just to go through with it, with being consumed. What do we do about that abuse? Do you think the majority of men buying sex are respectful of women? I do not. I still think the buyers need to be deterred.

Pinga: it is sold as a service. It is not really a service to him and it's a disservice to her. It's a disservice to her that she should ever feel she has to do it. It is a disservice to women that men think women should be able to be bought. It's a disservice to women that their bodies are commodified for sex, and their basic needs aren't being adequately met by other means. It's a disservice to women that we are not equal- we are not sold into marriages, or pimped out by our fathers (some are), but we are neglected and abused into prostitution, and our bodies continue to be bought and sold by men who have more money, more power. It's a disservice to women that other women who have fought for equal status among men would allow more vulnerable women to be sold out to this exploitative practice- and they call that feminism. When women who've fought for equality condone the purchase of sex by men, then we condone what men have done for thousands of years to subjugate us. We become complicit in the abuse of our own gender. And knowing this, when we also condone the purchase of sex by men toward other more vulnerable men- we are complicit. And it is not a service to men to allow it to continue either- if men believe that society is served better when women are actually equal persons with equal rights. It's a disservice to men to dismiss the integrity of woman.

.
Guess you have never done it.

You use a glove, lubricant and your fingers.

You feel like you are invading them and they sure feel invaded

Well, you saved their life. It was necessary. Getting someone off is not quite as necessary. They can do it themselves. If they have no hands, I'd have more compassion towards such a stranger's need to 'release'. And invading a prostitute is not necessary to save her life. The customer is no life saver.

My point was that you talk about sex and the indignity.

.
We do other things that cause indignity depending on our chosen profession.
.
Things that we don't like to do.
.
You repeatedly talk about the terrible client. The person that the prostitute has to put up with because of whatever,; smell, ugliness, .......

.
I was only pointing out that other professions do too.
.
And , what you have to do, can make a difference in whether you choose it.
.
I have friends who would never do nursing because of the body fluids, the mess, the smells, the horrors. Let me tell you that you get some absolutely terrible clients. Naturally you do. Those terrible people you are talking about , eventually get sick and go to hospital. Ask any emerg nurse
.
Other people, while perhaps finding those things hard to stomach see the patient behind the smells and mess.
.
Believe me, changing a bed pan the first time as a teen is pretty stomach churning. Taking off the first dressing that is infected and reeks makes you turn away.....
.
I doubt many police officers went into policing without thinking of the terrible things they see. The first motorcyclist that is decapitated in an accident.........
.
I get the different jobs, my point was just that people do what they will do

If I could wave a magic wand, like you seem to want to do, would we eliminate sex workers? I am not sure. I see the need. You only see the exploitation.
.
The answer seems to be to remove the exploitation and take the jobs out of the shadows.

And I don't know about others but when I log on and see ten comments, I am looking forward to reading the dialogue. When most of those comments are from you, I tend to glaze over. Try waiting for some feedback before you post and then post and then post

I obviously feel I have a lot to say about it. Maybe I should write an article, not a bunch of thread posts.

You don't remove the exploitation by pretending it isn't exploitation. Having sex isn't undignified (well, that's debatable- lol- but it isn't shameful. Bodies are not shameful. Exploiting someone's person is). What is shameful is the abuse of power. That's exploitation, and that's what's wrong. And abuse of power is inherent in this provision of service that is provision of 'product' that is someone else's personhood. It's not about sexuality.

And your job as an emerg nurse- well, your patients need their lives saved. They don't get to come in- have the nurses all prance out naked, look them up and down and say, "I want the brunette with the big__. I don't want the blonde, she's got a fat__." and if they are really awful patients and do say stuff like that, tough luck, you're not there for their whims at your expense- they get the person who treats them, and they get what they need, not what they fancy. And, in providing the service you are not being physically violated on purpose (what's the protocol if you are, btw?), although work accidents happen sometimes.

 

No, it would not stop men from being violent but women would be freer to report the violence which may result in better enforcement when it happens. Is a woman going to report a violent john when it may get her arrested (e.g. if she's an incall escort which technically violates the bawdy house part of the legislation)? Are police going to take woman engaged in a semi-legal or illegal activity seriously when they do report it (though I have heard that the local cops do cooperate with escorts in dealing with "bad johns")? If it was a legal business paying taxes like any other, then there is no reason for the prostitutes not to report johns who assault them or rip them off and the police could be held more accountable if they don't take reports seriously. As long as it remains in a legal grey area or is illegal, the bad guys are going to take advantage of that to protect themselves. If it was legalized, we could even make assault on a sex worker a specific offense under the enabling legislation.

 

Oddly, given that I started this thread, I'm bowing out. I've said my piece a couple times and the thread is now really just about trying to sell Kimmio on something that she clearly isn't going to buy.

 

Mendalla

 

I know you bowed out- but don't make it illegal to sell it- make it illegal to buy it. Then she doesn't go to jail. It seems counter-intuitive that if it is illegal to buy that it should not be illegal to sell. But that's because we're looking at it too black and white- and not seeing that she is the exploited party to begin with- not just after an immediately obvious act of violence occurs.

Okay. Other than safety, lastepoint, what is the 'need'? Or is that a cop out justifying the exploitation? Is there a 'need' to get off using someone else's body of your choice, even though they don't want your body- just because they're there and you can because you have more power? Is that a 'right'? But, isn't that what rape is? Or is that an animal 'need' too- that there's no other way to deal with than to exploit women to 'service' that 'need'?

You're right, Mendalla. Noone can sell me on the idea that johns shouldn't be deterred. And no one can sell me on the idea that this is a legitimate service that doesn't exploit women and should even be promoted. I used to buy that argument- sort of. I felt it was no big deal that men grabbed, groped and 'did' whoever they wanted as long as they paid for it- because men who grab grope and 'do' whoever they want, and use their power, usually in the form of money in our society- are commonplace. You might be surprised. Chansen's a normal guy and he already suggested that it's not okay to do it to the barista at Starbuck's but it is okay to do it to a prostitute if a grope is what he pays for. So, I used shrug it off. I no longer think that it's okay. I no longer think that's an acceptable attitude about how we should treat others or let others treat us.,I do agree that it will happen for the foreseeable future and therefore women need to be safe and police need to take their reports seriously. I don't think we should stop ourselves at resigning to legitimize sex work like any other job, long term, though. Because that's not good enough. I think we can do better than that.

yup

Flippant

Honest

How does that make any sense? How can you make something legal to sell but at the same time make it illegal to buy? To me this is similar to saying make the sale of illegal drugs legal but make the purchase illegal. Fine the the person purchasing the illegal drugs but don't fine the drug dealer.

If we are looking at banning prostituion, strip clubs and intimate massage parlours then are we going to ban any pornographic material that exploits women? Is the making of porn not also a form of women selling their bodies for sex? I guess if that is the case then wouldn't anyone purchasing pornographic material be complicit in promoting the exploitation of womern. Just adding my two cents for what it is worth.

Yes, if we buy porn we are complicit, too. We've whitewashed the issue because it's popular, and it sells, but it's degrading. Just my two cents worth. I am very much a feminist with regards to this stuff. The type of 'sex' depicted in porn that sells is demeaning and objectifying- it's not 'erotica'- and it becomes normalized in the collective consciousness- it's a huge moneymaker and we're being brainwashed- and women's equality suffers for it. It's an affront to women. And, with regard to prostitution, I think it's paid for rape- caters to the same mechanism in the alpha male brain. You think that's outlandish, look it up.

Most of us here don't agree with men objectifying women as property. We don't agree with forcing them to fully cover their bodies or be sold into marriages and prostitution, but it's okay to demean them if it's seen as their 'choice'- the mechanism behind it is still male power and control. That's what I think.

Kimmio,

Your comments just get weirder and weirder

Firstly, I doubt that feminist agree with your positions on this . Most feminist are for things that empower women and giving women control over their bodies is certainly empowering.

You are trying to create some sort of utopian kimmio-land. Like Disney world but for you.

Grown intelligent women choose to do lots of things that some of us may not. That doesn't mean they can be banned, illegal, terrible,......... It just means that you don't agree.
.
When you refer to prostitution as paid rape in my opinion, you are degrading the real significant issues of rape.

.
If a women chooses to sell her body for sex it is not rape. If she is assaulted during that sexual encounter then she should feel able to contact the police. Those are the sorts of things that a change in laws will assist with.
.
For every woman who has been raped, your comments are ridiculous and offensive

.

And I don't think Pinga was being anything but honest. Post a thought and let others respond. Don't bombard people with so many posts. They get ignored.

Again, I don't think this is the fault of the women. I think our society is responsible. We fought for equality, now we give it away by selling out our integrity. I took some courses in college with a feminist bent that really opened my eyes. There was a project we did- we had to do a presentation on the exploitation of women in advertising- and I came to see how entrenched it is- I couldn't 'not' see it anymore- and we have to ask ourselves why? What's driving this? And who really gains? That's honest.

There are two streams of feminism. Those who see porn and sex for sale as empowering women to make free choices, and those who see it as disempowering- because in order to gain 'equal' status in male society, rather than female 'culture' and ideas and decisions being respected, women had live up to normative standards of the male dominated culture. Now some of us are asking what happened. In the end what happens is women making decisions that cater to it- and that becomes 'normative' and seen as empowering- rather than opting to change culture to make it fairer to all. I think that's ridiculous.

deleted

deleted

 

Personally, i like erotica.  Have since i was a kid...and stumbled across some.  Sex is good.  i am a feminist.  Have been since befoe i knew of the term.

 

mendella, agreed.  Make it safe.  Have safe locations.  Let the business of sex occur.  There will be different qualities, high end escorts, and sadly, hooked/hiv-positive places.  What we can do is make it safer for all

Erotica is fine. But how do you define it? There becomes a slippery slope, pardon the pun, in how we define it. The more people feel the need for it, the more degrading the images people expect to see, become normalized. The men watching that stuff, who go and buy their fantasies from real women have usually been indoctrinated by the porn industry. And that is why there is cumulative psychological damage being done to women who do it- even if physical harm is not readily apparent. It's like a cancer. Here is the point of view of a former porn director about what he sees happening now. Being that he is a porn director- he is not against banning porn altogether- but his observations are well worth considering. He's urging people to get out of it (his language is crude). How do we stop the progression towards violence and psychological harm if we don't nip it in the bud, though?

Warning: Language may be offensive

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Anti-Porn%20Activist/4

umm, so your idea of nipping in the bud is making it illegal...

 

If I understand your arguments, it follows that

we shoudlnt' have sex because some epopel will be hurt by violent johns

 

we shouldn't have erotica coz some people wil lbecome addicted to pornography and more & more bizaree/dangerous sex

 

we shouldn't have alchohol, because some people will become addicted to heroin.

 

we shouldnt' drive cars because some folks will race and cause accidents

 

let me think.....how many other items do you feel humans are incapable of moderating their consumption of?

 

 

Read the damn article first before jumping to conclusions about what I think should be done. You're steamrolling me like I'm the only person who's tried to thoughtfully consider where society came from and where it's headed- and how to diminish harm.

And, yes, I do think we'd be better off without most porn, men and women alike, and without prostitution- eventually. I don't expect attitudes to change overnight if at all- but I hold to that opinion. I don't think sex between consenting adults is bad. I think exploitation is bad. I think inequality is bad.

I wonder how many slave abolitionists were called airy-fairy utopian idealists. The slave trade went on for thousands of years until the US determined in 1865 that it should be abolished (uk in 1833, just looked it up)- because crazy utopian idealists recognized joined the voices of people who were oppressed. I am also pretty sure there were slaves afraid to upset the status quo that the saw as 'normal'.

Kimmio, ummm....do you understand that slavery was about the ownership of another human being.

 

Prostitution, as proposed, is about the individual having the right to sell services.  It is not about slavery.

 

If you are referring to human trafficing, related to prostitution or any other item...of course that should be illegal.

 

 

It is an accepted form of slavery- the difference between a person working at a job and a person performing sex acts for a living is that she is selling her very self for survival. Do you understand how integrally connected a person's sexuality is to their personal self, their identity as 'self'? I think you do. And I am saying that should not be able to be bought for a price. This is how it starts: women are seen as objects and property when they are girls, someone exploits that through an abuse of power- rape, violence, emotional abuse- girls sense of self and ownership over her own body is damaged, her sense that she is somebody other than a sex object is diminished- and she continues this pattern because it's all that she thinks she has to offer and there are no other options for her to survive adequately. Men (and women) who buy and promote it perpetuate this abuse- and that is slavery. This 'talent' she sells is not some skill she learned though free choice, respectful relationships and education. It's a survival tactic learned through abuse that started early. We legitimize it- we legitimize abuse, because that's what underlies it.