Author
|
Topic: Legal framework around the sex trade?
|
MartinArendt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9723
|
posted 04 August 2005 12:18 AM
I would really like to hear from some feminists about constructive ways one could create a legal framework around the sex trade. This would include:- regulations around the safety and protection of sex trade workers. The Picton trial highlights the incredible risks sex trade workers face every day and night, and I think a big aspect of this is the lack of legal protection, and the general taboo and stigmatization around sex work. - regulations around sex toys. Currently, from what I understand, sex toys are considered "novelty products", and thus can be basically be made out of just about any material. There are a few stores which attempt to sell safe products (Womyn's Wares in Vancouver, Come as you Are in Toronto, etc.), but there's no over-arching framework providing regulations around the creation of sex toys. - An over-arching framework around pornography. I find that the laws we have now tend to be fairly random, and also tend to penalize some groups more than others in terms of what is "indecent". An example of this is the fiasco with books and movies being stopped at the border destined for "Little Sisters" bookstore, in Vancouver. I believe that other GBLTQ bookstores have faced similar problems at the border. In general, while I know that sex tends not to be dealt with very well at the political level (if it's dealt with at all), I think it's crucial that it be addressed institutionally, if only for the safety issues. Thoughts?
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 04 August 2005 08:51 AM
MartinArendt,Thanks for starting this thread. The issues you've raised are all _very_ different, imo. 1. In terms of sex trade workers' issues, I suggest you check out this link. You can also google Maggie's (although I'm not sure if it's still around), SWOT (Sex Workers of Toronto) and Mira Soleil Ross, who's a transgendered sex worker who just had a show at Buddies earlier this year. 2. As far as I know, Canada does not have sex toy laws the way some states in the US has (eg in Georgia, I believe, it is illegal to sell sex toys, or "marital aids" as they're called). But check out Good For Her and Come as You Are as well. Since they get most of their toys from the US, I'm not sure how much the staff there would know about production issues. 3. When I first started lurking on babble there was a porn discussion going on, and I'm not sure if we want to get into that again. But let's be clear (and you stated this in your post) that the only reason why Little Sister's and Glad Day (and others?) were/are harassed by customs is less because of porn and more because of being queer stores. Little Sister's won their fight, after many years (10 I think) of struggling, and Glad Day was not able to continue the required legal wrangling. I'm not sure what this has to do with "safety" issues. As far as I know, all the areas you raised have advocates who are doing political work to change laws and try to make them more sex-positive.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 04 August 2005 09:35 AM
Re issue 3: The problem is not just our laws about porn, although that is a difficult issue in itself, but also the semi-independence in practice, it appears, of the customs tyrants at the border. Even after court decisions against them, they appear determined to go on harrassing LGBT bookstores, which, as bcg says, has finally forced Glad Day, for one, to give up their legal challenges. That, I think, is an outrageous situation, but Customs Canada seems an almost untouchable dictatorship.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
MartinArendt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9723
|
posted 04 August 2005 07:44 PM
Thanks for the info, BCG! quote:
1. In terms of sex trade workers' issues, I suggest you check out this link. You can also google Maggie's (although I'm not sure if it's still around), SWOT (Sex Workers of Toronto) and Mira Soleil Ross, who's a transgendered sex worker who just had a show at Buddies earlier this year.
I saw Ross' show at Buddies! It was a bit over the top, but generally I got a kick out of it. I agree, the third point was less about safety...mostly, it's just frustrating that there are all kinds of puritan sex laws out there, but hardly any sort of legal protection for...well..everybody else. And I am clear on the border issues; it's homophobia, no more no less. My point was just that there's a huge double standard in terms of how the law is interpreted when it comes to what is "indecent"...queer stuff is considered indecent, str8 stuff is just fine.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052
|
posted 04 August 2005 10:46 PM
This is a point that has always intrigued me in many ways. My first question is why does this “market” exist? Is it because men require having regular sex and for some this is the only way? Am I too naive to believe that sex occurs naturally between people and there is not need to buy it? Second I have to assume that women in the sex trade business do not have other viable financial options or are in some particular situation (abuse, lack of legal documents etc) which preclude them from making a living in a different way. In my opinion if we were to have a legal framework it should be not only to protect women in the sex trade but also to help them have options to get out of that type of work if they wish too. [Oops: this is LOCA posting from Albireo's computer.... ] [ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Farmageddon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9572
|
posted 05 August 2005 02:24 PM
Supply and demand.Although when you say sex trade, you should also keep in mind the male and the gay sex trade as well. It's not just a womens issue. The models are already developed, tried and tested in several U.S. states and other countrys abroad. I think making it legal would make it safer, just by eliminating the pimps and the pushers that feed off the industry. Then an individuals choice to leave the trade would be solely a personal one, without danger and retribution. F
From: The seventh ring of a watery hell... | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 05 August 2005 02:33 PM
quote: Am I too naive to believe that sex occurs naturally between people and there is not need to buy it?
It certainly occurs naturally among couples, and among attractive people. But try this: next time you're on the bus, take a look around you at the other guys on the bus, or the guys you pass on the street, and ask yourself how likely it is that that guy there is a big hit with the gals. Chances are that a relatively high proportion of the men you see probably aren't going to be getting much pro bono action. One of my odd fascinations, while grocery shopping, is "the person in front of me". When their stuff is on the belt waiting to be rung it, it can tell you a lot. When I see a man, typically middle aged, buying pop, chips, cat or dog food, and a single tray of meat (usually a cheap pork chop or tough steak) I know I'm looking at a bachelor, probably recently divorced. Hard to imagine him saying to some gal "Hey, wanna come up to my rooming house and split a fried pork chop and see what comes naturally?"
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 05 August 2005 02:46 PM
Oh come now, Magoo, surely you don't think only conventionally attractive and/or young people have or still have sexual relations? I think prostitution is a power relationship: many clients are married, and not necessarily in a dead, sexless marriage or other relationship. I think prostitution has a lot to do with control through money, and seeing other human beings as consumer goods. I certainly agree that everything should be done to protect people in the sex trade and ensure they have equal rights in terms of police and legal protection. But I see prostitution itself as the antithesis of equality. By the way, there is no one feminist perspective on prostitution. I share that of most feminists in France and many here, that prostitution is a form of violence against women. Many others see sex work as a job like any other. Feminists of both opinions are, of course, against targeting prostitutes and in favour of doing everything possible to reduce violence and coercion.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 05 August 2005 03:05 PM
quote: Oh come now, Magoo, surely you don't think only conventionally attractive and/or young people have or still have sexual relations?
I never said young, exactly, although I think youth is a definite advantage if you're looking to be more sexually active. And I wouldn't limit it to "conventionally" attractive either. You just need to be attractive to someone who's attractive to you, period. But I see lots of people every day who, if they were single, probably wouldn't be all that likely to attract a member of the chosen sex. Surely we all realize that a short obese guy in a stained t-shirt, or a 50 year old single woman with a moustache probably don't have plans for this Saturday? What you say is, I think, quite true of one subgroup of Johns: no real necessity, just like a little 'strange'. Hugh Grant springs to mind. But I do think that a certain proportion of Johns, as well as strip bar clientele or porn consumers, are men who don't, in any real sense, simply have the option of regular sex with someone. I believe it's the Netherlands (where else?!) that subsidizes visits from a sex surrogate for the disabled and shut-ins of various sort. They recognize that probably nobody is going to answer a personal ad that begins with "Outgoing and effervescent middle aged woman with Spina Bifida seeks..."
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795
|
posted 06 August 2005 09:43 AM
Tape: That's just sad.
As for you, Martin--
quote: - regulations around sex toys. Currently, from what I understand, sex toys are considered "novelty products", and thus can be basically be made out of just about any material. There are a few stores which attempt to sell safe products (Womyn's Wares in Vancouver, Come as you Are in Toronto, etc.), but there's no over-arching framework providing regulations around the creation of sex toys.
Just be glad you don't live in Alabama
quote: A federal judge has been asked to strike down a 1998 laws that bans the sale of sex toys in Alabama.
If U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith agrees it would be the third time he has declared the ban unconstitutional.
A group of 10 storeowners have been fighting the state since the law was enacted. Michael Fees, the lawyer for the group, argues that the U.S. Supreme Court decision banning the criminalization of gay sex based on privacy issues also protects his clients' right to buy and sell sex toys.
In 1999, Smith ruled against the law only to have it reversed by the 11th Circuit Court after the state attorney general's office appealed his decision.
In 2002, Smith again ruled against the law, but a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit overturned him. The judges, however, sent the case back to Smith to review some other issues, including whether states have the right to legislate morality.
In February the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal, allowing the law to stand. story
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DA_Champion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9958
|
posted 06 August 2005 02:02 PM
On Legalizing Prostition, My views on prostitution, and for that matter narcotics, are presently in flux. For a long time, my perspective was that these resources were demanded, and as such would be received, regardless of government legislation. Legislating against these actions would simply feed a black market and cause significant amounts of crime, such as during prohibiton and today, and as such a more viable option would be to legalize and regulate, thus cutting out the need for the black market to involve itself.Of course, I think I've now realized that doesn't necessarily work. Biker gangs aee involved in plenty of "legal" operations, clubs, bars, video lottery terminals. No doubt if prostitution was legalized, they would make money off "protection." If drugs were legalized they would probably make money by owning a lot of coffee shops. Unfortunately I'm not thinking the solution will be a lot more difficult and will require tackling these social problems head on. This is what needs to be done regardless, but unfortunately a lot of Canada's political class is more concerned with being perceived as caring about poverty than about actually caring. On the need for prostitution, be realistic, sex may occur naturally for most people, but a lot of individuals may have trouble. I think I agree with Mr. Magoo. The solution for such people is to learn to get out more, granted. Prostitution, I think, will merely be a temporary aid for some, a placebo. Ultimately it's a lot more preferable to be with a woman who actually cares about you.
From: montreal | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 06 August 2005 09:13 PM
quote: Originally posted by DA_Champion: Ultimately it's a lot more preferable to be with a woman who actually cares about you.
You mean YOU prefer to be with a woman who actually cares about you. Not everyone is interested in a personal relationship, some men are in a situation where they have sexual needs that can't be met in a relationship, etc. It's not for you to decide what's preferable for other people.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 06 August 2005 09:28 PM
quote: regulations around the safety and protection of sex trade workers. The Picton trial highlights the incredible risks sex trade workers face every day and night, and I think a big aspect of this is the lack of legal protection, and the general taboo and stigmatization around sex work.
I don't know that you are ever going to regulate it into a safe profession. The reality is that many of the individuals that are selling themselves for money have substance abuse issues and psychological challenges that make it so they don't value themselves to begin with. quote: What is a feminists view point on women selling their bodies for money
I am not going to speak for feminists but it's troubleosme to me that so many of the people entering that profession have serious life difficulties. I don't know that they are choosing this in the context of a true choice - often it's desperation. quote: This is a point that has always intrigued me in many ways. My first question is why does this “market” exist? Is it because men require having regular sex and for some this is the only way? Am I too naive to believe that sex occurs naturally between people and there is not need to buy it?
I hear people tell me that it's very easy to go to a nightclub and leave with an overnight date so it's a mystery to me why someone would pay for it. quote: What you say is, I think, quite true of one subgroup of Johns: no real necessity, just like a little 'strange'. Hugh Grant springs to mind.
No doubt he leaves Elizabeth Hurley's bed for a sex trade worker? I'll never figure that out. quote: I believe it's the Netherlands (where else?!) that subsidizes visits from a sex surrogate for the disabled and shut-ins of various sort
Are you serious Mr. Magoo?
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 07 August 2005 01:21 AM
Could someone tell Hailey for me that the less-than-able-bodied, who can't hang out on street corners and in brothels, also have needs? And that a society that views sexual urges and the sex-trade as somewhat basic and legitimate might consider supporting it for people who don't have the mobility to get out and get laid, which, in the grand scheme of things, might in fact mean a tiny percent of social spending?And finally, could someone tell Hailey to stop pretending to be so shocked? [ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582
|
posted 07 August 2005 01:24 AM
Hailey, Hinterland, who is no longer speaking to you, wants you to know this: quote: Originally posted by Hinterland: Could someone tell Hailey for me that not only the able-bodied, who can hang out on street corners and in brothels, also have needs? And that a society that views sex-trade as somewhat basic and legitimate might consider supporting it for people who don't have the mobility to get out and get laid, which, in the grand scheme of things, might in fact mean a tiny percent of social spending?And finally, could someone tell Hailey to stop pretending to be so shocked?
Me, I wanted to point out that you've weighed into another sex-type topic on which you have nothing to say of any interest. More of the fundie mania. . .
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 07 August 2005 01:28 AM
Thanks, Fern. Also, tell her to read the latest version of that post; I edited it a bit.She should stay out of discussions like this. As if I need to hear, one more time, that she's shocked by something. [ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582
|
posted 07 August 2005 01:53 AM
Ok, I'm still up. I'll do it. "Z3!o¬lriginally posted by Hinterland: Could someone tell Hailey that, for someone who puts a lot of effort at trying to come across as some paragon of virtue and self-righteousness, she is awfully good at being a garden-variety bitch?[/QUOTE] But, what I think, Hint, is that s/he/it is a garden-variety fiction.
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 07 August 2005 02:09 AM
quote: It's not like the sentiment expressed in Hailey's comment is shocking or even anti-feminist. There are many people - including feminists who do not feel prostitution is a positive thing, and they post on this very board, in this very forum, even in this very thread! - who might react the same way to hearing about government-funded prostitution visits.
The comment had nothing to do with feminism. She thought the whole concept of providing sex services to the disabled "crazy." Teacher's pet is right. She's accorded way more understanding than any number of people I've seen pass through here. [ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 07 August 2005 02:13 AM
Oh, crap. She was obviously shocked at the idea of prostitution being paid for by the government. Lots of people would be.And screw your "teacher's pet" bullshit. First of all, I'm not the "teacher" here. Secondly, just because I think you're treating someone like shit and saying so doesn't make Hailey a "teacher's pet". You look at the posts in this thread and see where Hailey deserved to be called a "bitch" (oh, very feminist of you, by the way) and told to stop posting. She hasn't done anything wrong here. So yeah, I tend to speak up when I see someone getting picked on like that. Way more understanding? Also crap. But since we're throwing around accusations of bias, let me tell you that I think if anyone other than Hailey had posted the comment she did, you wouldn't have even batted an eyelash. [ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 07 August 2005 02:18 AM
No, I called her a bitch. And I stand by it. I'm not the first to, and certainly won't be the last. quote: There's no real reason for you to do this - she hasn't said anything controversial. It wouldn't have bothered me if this whole thing started because she said something rude or thoughtless or anti-feminist or mean. But she didn't.
Yes, she did. She said the thing was "crazy". I realise I'm being abysmally childish, but really, in the grand scheme of things, which is more important? That Hailey not get her feelings hurt, or that the issue of sexuality and the disabled not be labled as "crazy?"
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024
|
posted 07 August 2005 09:20 AM
Speaking as a disabled person (if only someone who's relatively recently joined that group), I gotta say that while the notion of subsidized sex surrogacy makes a certain amount of sense on the surface, it seems to me that in practice there would be a dark side to it also.The process for getting US Social Secuirty disability benefits is a humiliating exercise requiring one to list every little symptom and submit to examination by doctors in the government's employ. Your own physicians' statements alone are usually not sufficent. There are any number of repetitive forms, each worded slightly differently in logical switch-backs to try to catch applicants (and/or their doctors) in the tiniest mistaken assertion or incomplete statement (or-- to be fair-- in an outright lie). I understand that all of this is done to make sure only deserving people get the benefits, but I am certain that the process is also designed to see that a certain number of people just give up on it without costing the government any money. How is any of this related to the issue of subsidized sexual surrogacy? Given the machinations involved in 'proving' one's disability here in the US, I can well imagine what kind of humiliating questions one would have to answer, and what kind of intrusive investigation would accompany a request for some government-paid pseudo-nookie: When was the last time you had sex with another person? Did you pay that person to have sex with you? If yes, when was the last time you had sex with someone who was not paid? Can you sustain an erection for 15 minutes or longer? If, no, why not? Are you able to masturbate? If yes, how often do you engage in masturbation? When was the last time you masturbated? Do your efforts at masturbation sometimes result in orgasm? How often? etc... etc... etc.... [ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]
From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 08 August 2005 12:16 PM
quote: And screw your "teacher's pet" bullshit. First of all, I'm not the "teacher" here. Secondly, just because I think you're treating someone like shit and saying so doesn't make Hailey a "teacher's pet".
Isn't it called "poisoning the well" when you anticipate a situation and pre-judge it so that if someone is foolish enough to step into that situation the judgement falls on them and it looks like a done deal? It's already been pre-established that if you defend Hailey, you're being a "Galahad" and falling for her feminine wiles. No matter what you're defending, be it an unwarranted attack, or just a principle entirely separate from her. It's a remarkably effective way to ensure Hailey gets little, if any, support. Regardless. Apparently Hailey cannot ever be right, as defending that would still be criticized as "Galahadism". In fact I must assume that this post will similarly be labelled "Galahadism". And the irony is, I even saw it coming.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 08 August 2005 12:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by BleedingHeart: apparently they have masturbation therapists in some units.Maybe Ralph Klein could offer this enhanced service as part of his third way.
Maybe it could be his post-politics career. He's uniquely qualified, having jerked around Albertans for years. And Klein being the official government jerk-off artist would mollify those who have moral objections to anyone deriving any actual pleasure from it.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
MartinArendt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9723
|
posted 09 August 2005 12:04 AM
Thanks for the link, Heph!As for the rest of the debate, I think it's gotten out of hand. I don't really know if I wanted the topic to swing over to legalizing prostitution, or the ethics of sex trade work, or the mentality of someone who enters the sex trade (although, as a sidenote, if anybody can link to a babble thread which contains a debate on that subject, I'd like to read it)...I think I just wanted to see what sort of legal services or protection exists around sex work, sex toys, and the sex trade in general. Whether or not you think prostitution should be legalized, I'm assuming that most babblers here would like to see sex trade workers protected as much as possible. I don't think that's a ridiculous assertion to make.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SubHuman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7740
|
posted 09 August 2005 09:28 PM
It's a difficult thing to quantify exactly. http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_sex-trade20050329 quote: And Davies says she's also concerned about the escort business – noting it accounts for up to 95 per cent of prostitution in Canada.
"The hidden world of hookers" quote: ...most prostitution occurs off the streets -- in massage parlours, escort agencies, strip clubs, hotels and private homes..."Street prostitution is no more than 20 per cent of the sex trade in Canada right now," according to John Lowman. In the off-street sector, "you've got this huge trade in massage parlours, body-rub parlours. You've got a vast business in escort services. You have all sorts of women working out of their home using advertising."
[ 09 August 2005: Message edited by: SubHuman ]
From: nexus of the crisis | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|