|
Author
|
Topic: Prostitution: An honourable career choice
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 01 September 2004 07:56 AM
It's been a while since our last prostitution debate, hasn't it? But it's on my mind again due to the Hallowe'en "ho" costume thread. I would like to see a time when sex for money is a legitimate career, as honourable as being a masseuse, or anything else. Selling sex is an environmentally-friendly business. It's skilled work. It's one of the few types of work that women get paid well for doing, better than men. I personally have no problem with it at all. What I have a problem with is men exploiting women in the sex trade, and I think a lot of that happens because prostitution is illegal, so women who engage in it do not have the same type of protection that people in other trades have, such as the right to have a storefront operation, the right to practice it in an open and above-board fashion so that there is recourse if she is hurt by someone, etc. And then there would be no need for women to be "protected" by pimps, making it a more empowered career. It wouldn't be for every woman. Many women couldn't do it. Which is good, since that will mean better wages for those women who can. But for those who do it, it should be considered every bit as valuable work as any other service.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650
|
posted 01 September 2004 08:54 AM
This is my reasoning - I don't know how valid it is. Even if prostitution is completely legalised, there will still be men who will try to lure or coerce women into the sex trade. The main way pimps control their 'girls' is through drug dependency (a condition induced subsequent to their introduction to the sex trade), and that dependency will be all the more acute if the drugs are illegal.Edited to add: regarding which came first, the drugs or the sex trade, in Vancouver most heroin addicts hook to make money for heroin - but most crack addicts were lured into prostitution *then* hooked on crack by their pimps or other girls. [ 01 September 2004: Message edited by: Anchoress ]
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062
|
posted 01 September 2004 09:04 AM
As I understand it, prostitution is legal in Canada, but 'soliciting for the purposes of prostitution' is not.I think it should be totally legal, as I think the shady legal status is what puts prostitutes in a position of weakness. (D'you remember years ago, there was a rather upper class woman who was a street-walker for personal thrills, and one Toronto cop found out about her 'respectable' life and threatened to expose her unless she did things for him? She eventually got tired of it and sued him and won.) Personally, I see nothing wrong with it, though given the fact that us men won't reform ourselves significantly enough so that many prostitutes won't end up abused, and given how it is an occupation with far too much other inherent exploitation, I don't plan on seeing a prostitute in my lifetime.
There's just too many things wrong with it at present.
But if all the conditions you're talking about were put in place, I see nothing wrong with sex for money. The jobs that demand that people hurt one another for money, now that's scandalous.
From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836
|
posted 01 September 2004 10:57 AM
quote:
I would like to see a time when sex for money is a legitimate career, as honourable as being a masseuse, or anything else.Selling sex is an environmentally-friendly business. It's skilled work. It's one of the few types of work that women get paid well for doing, better than men. I personally have no problem with it at all.
I'm afraid that, personally, I just can't see prostitution as an "honourable" profession -- any more than I would consider being a porn star as an honourable profession. However, I recognize that I feel more disdain for the men who buy porn or sex. That said, I am concerned with the plight of prostitutes here. If legalization helps, then maybe that's a good next step. It doesn't seem that the judicial system has been that effective.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 01 September 2004 11:20 AM
Paxamilion: "I'm afraid that, personally, I just can't see prostitution as an "honourable" profession -- any more than I would consider being a porn star as an honourable profession. However, I recognize that I feel more disdain for the men who buy porn or sex."I'm not sure that that makes sense. The porn stars are making their income off of those men who buy their products. How can you then feel more disdain for the buyer than for the worker? Fully legalized and licenced prostitutes & brothels may well help a lot in the business, but there will aways be an illegal street trade made up of drug addicts and young runaways, offering their services at much lower rates than the legal establishments. These are the ones who are most likely to be victimized by predators. I believe that this is the case in places such as Amsterdam and some German cities. A few years ago, one of the provinces - I think Alberta - passed some legislation allowing police to apprehend under aged street workers and bring them to a shelter for kids, where they could at least be offered help and a chance to get out of that life. That's a good idea, they should do it here. They should also offer something similar to adult women charged with soliciting when it's their first offence - something voluntary, where they could chose drug treatment & councelling in return for which the charge would be dropped. After all, they offer "John school" to the clients - why not something for the women? (The real reason of course is that John School is a money maker for the agencies involved. The Johns have to make a "donation", usually about $400. Street hookers don't have that kind of cash, so there's no money in it for the agencies. It would have to be funded by the government.)
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 01 September 2004 11:32 AM
quote:
but there will aways be an illegal street trade made up of drug addicts and young runaways
I kind of wondered about this. Downtown there are plenty of addicts who perform sex in exchange for drugs, and similarly plenty of skeezy guys exchanging $5 worth of rock for sex. Even if we succeed in bringing the first group up to a decent 'workplace' standard, the demand from the second group will still exist, and I suspect it will be filled by someone or other. This is just an observation, mind you, not an impediment to decriminalizing or legalizing sex work.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 983
|
posted 01 September 2004 12:59 PM
quote:
They should also offer something similar to adult women charged with soliciting when it's their first offence - something voluntary, where they could chose drug treatment & councelling in return for which the charge would be dropped. After all, they offer "John school" to the clients - why not something for the women?(The real reason of course is that John School is a money maker for the agencies involved. The Johns have to make a "donation", usually about $400. Street hookers don't have that kind of cash, so there's no money in it for the agencies. It would have to be funded by the government.)
Actually, at least in Toronto, there are places who have programs like this for street workers: Streetlight Support Services has both programs for street workers as well as a John School.
From: pleasant, unemotional conversation aids digestion | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 01 September 2004 03:55 PM
quote:
It would be great to see them unionized.
[old joke] A staunch unionist and his buddy hit Nevada for a weekend, and decide to visit a brothel. In keeping with his beliefs, the unionist insists on visting a brothel with a good labour/management record and a fair cut for the workers. At the first brothel he asks the madam "What cut does management keep, and what goes to the worker?" "The house takes 70, the worker gets 30" replies the madam. The unionist and his friend leave, disgusted. At the next brothel he again asks the madam "What cut does management keep, and what goes to the worker?" "The house keeps 40 and the girls get 60", replies the madam, "but they have to work holidays for straight time if they want to get paid". Again, the unionist and his friend head for the door. Finally they arrive at another brothel, and again ask about profit sharing. "We're a worker's co-op here", replies the madam, "with free child care, full medical and dental, and all profits after benefits are covered go to the workers". Excited, the unionist spies a lovely redhead and tells the madam he'd like to spend some time upstairs with her. The madam leads him to a room where he waits. A few minutes later a middle aged woman with dark roots and tarty makeup sashays into the room in a cheap negligee. "Are you here to clean the room?", asks the unionist. "No", replies the escort, "I'm your date for the next hour". "What?" asks the man, "but I specifically asked for the lovely young redhead by the piano!" "That's nice", said the escort, "but in this shop, I've got seniority." [/old joke]
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478
|
posted 01 September 2004 04:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Anchoress:
I also think that as long as hard drug use remains illegal and stigmatised, sex trade workers will be under threat of victimisation by pimps and exploitive johns.
Has the Netherlands successfully resolved these issues in your opinion? While I would agree that it CAN be a noble profession to provide a noble service to often sexually repressed individuals, there has to be some honest ground rules, IMO. Assuming some sort of state-sanctioned protection/labour standards with the trade, I would like (can't demand it of course) the whole pseudonym thing to be phased out. I understand completly the necessity of having it today, for the sex workers safety, BUT at the same time legal protection should IMO come with some increased honesty when it comes to people choosing this profession. (ie. a sex worker shouldn't viel themselves as an "exotic dancer") That said, I see this as a eventual goal, like the phasing out of gay bars, and not something forced upon the unwilling. For example, I have a friend whose girlfriend told him that she was an "exotic dancer", and he was perfectly comfortable with that. It was later discovered, however, through some easy web surfing, that she was in fact a full service escort... the site was complete with reviews on how great she was to her clients, even providing a great "girlfriend experience". Now, I have nothing against this women and her profession... in fact, I think she should be congratulated on making people so very happy sexually adn emotionally. BUT, she's being fundalmentally dishonest with her BF, who, to be fair, is an incredibly myopic SOB who enjoys living off her wages while he remains a struggling musician... still, he deserves to fully understand the risks he's taking when he sleeps with her. Therefore, I'd like to see fully legalization of the trade (complete with union wages and work/safety standards), with a fairly public registry (not web based) where people could inquire if so and so is what they say they are. Obviously, it would have to be an inquiry based system (so people couldn't just photocopy the list), as to protect peoples privacy. Slippery slope I know, but I still think it would be a necessary step in legitimizing the profession. I want sex workers to be proud about their work, and to do it for the right reasons... people who are afraid of their reputation and/or are doing it due to addiction problems are simply doing it for the WRONG reasons, IMHO.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478
|
posted 01 September 2004 06:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by paxamillion:
I'm personally disgusted by the idea of buying sex or using porn. These things seem exploitative and objectifying to me.
I understand that people get into sex trade work for a number of reasons, and I don't resent someone trying to make a living.
But you WOULD resent someone who engaged in sex work becuase they actually enjoyed it, and not because of addiction/poverty?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 01 September 2004 06:56 PM
Was that meant to be an insult? Nice try. If I were contemplating a career change as a prostitute, I wouldn't be ashamed of it. But I'm not. I'm an admin assistant, and I'll probably do that as my day job for the foreseeable future since I have a permanent position and family responsibilities. What I'd really like to do is write a novel. So really, I'm contemplating a career add-on. We'll see how that goes. You know what really bugs me about your post, though? The same thing that bothers me about anti-feminist or homophobic men who accuse women who stand up for gay rights or feminism of being "lesbians". There isn't anything wrong with being a lesbian, and I don't consider it an insult. But fuckheads who make these remarks obviously mean it as an insult or put down, so it's a double-whammy - not only are they condescending about the issue, but personally attacking the person making the argument. [ 01 September 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650
|
posted 01 September 2004 07:36 PM
quote:
Has the Netherlands successfully resolved these issues in your opinion?
I have no idea about the Netherlands model. Perhaps you could post some informative links?  quote:
While I would agree that it CAN be a noble profession to provide a noble service to often sexually repressed individuals, there has to be some honest ground rules, IMO. Assuming some sort of state-sanctioned protection/labour standards with the trade, I would like (can't demand it of course) the whole pseudonym thing to be phased out. I understand completly the necessity of having it today, for the sex workers safety, BUT at the same time legal protection should IMO come with some increased honesty when it comes to people choosing this profession. (ie. a sex worker shouldn't viel themselves as an "exotic dancer")
Huh? quote:
That said, I see this as a eventual goal, like the phasing out of gay bars, and not something forced upon the unwilling.
Uh, yeah... the phasing out of gay bars has always been my goal.  quote:
For example, I have a friend whose girlfriend told him that she was an "exotic dancer", and he was perfectly comfortable with that. It was later discovered, however, through some easy web surfing, that she was in fact a full service escort... the site was complete with reviews on how great she was to her clients, even providing a great "girlfriend experience".
Pffffft... so this is all because some friend of yours got hoodwinked by a hooker pretending to be a peeler? Boo Hoo. quote:
Now, I have nothing against this women and her profession... in fact, I think she should be congratulated on making people so very happy sexually adn emotionally. BUT, she's being fundalmentally dishonest with her BF, who, to be fair, is an incredibly myopic SOB who enjoys living off her wages while he remains a struggling musician... still, he deserves to fully understand the risks he's taking when he sleeps with her.
Oh, let me get this straight. He was victimised by her unwillingness to be forthcoming about her profession, but he's still going out with her and living off her wages while he remains a struggling musician. And he still doesn't understand the risks he's taking when he sleeps with her? Sounds like a misogynistic leeching moron. quote:
Therefore, I'd like to see fully legalization of the trade (complete with union wages and work/safety standards), with a fairly public registry (not web based) where people could inquire if so and so is what they say they are. Obviously, it would have to be an inquiry based system (so people couldn't just photocopy the list), as to protect peoples privacy.
I went out with a guy who said he was nice, but turned out to be a horse's ass... where's the 'registry' I could call to confirm that? I had another boyfriend who said he was 5'11", but he turned out to be 5'9"... Another who said he had a job but turned out to be on the dole. Caveat emptor, my friend. Anyone who is such an idiot that he can't figure out his girlfriend is a hooker should probably be going to them, not dating them. To put it bluntly, people have a right to lie about their personal lives to other people in their personal lives. It might be immoral, but there is NO WAY the remedy for this or any other immorality is a government registry. As for the (somewhat legitimate) safety issue, if your friend thinks it's OK to have unsafe sex with a stripper or any other woman he is playing dangerous games with his life.
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478
|
posted 01 September 2004 07:58 PM
Damn.... I can't seem to quote everything you said... only the latter half... is there any way to avoid this, short of cutting and pasting ?
As for the Dutch model on 'harm reduction', I'd suggest seeing "Sex, Drugs and Democracy"(1994).
quote:
Originally posted by Anchoress:
To put it bluntly, people have a right to lie about their personal lives to other people in their personal lives. It might be immoral, but there is NO WAY the remedy for this or any other immorality is a government registry. As for the (somewhat legitimate) safety issue, if your friend thinks it's OK to have unsafe sex with a stripper or any other woman he is playing dangerous games with his life.
First of all, he doesn't have a clue .... a friend and I found out about this on our own. He doesn't realize his being victimized, except for the fact that this girl treats him like she was his mother. Secondly, isn't there some point when a couple should be able to assume it's safe to not use a condom [they're common law] and still be safe? She apparently figures that being regularly tested for STDs is good enough for her conscience, which would be fine if she TOLD him the risks. My point about gay bars was that in an ideal world, queers wouldn't feel it necessary to have their own clubs/watering holes... same goes with strippers/prostitutes/writers/artists etc.... the need for psuedoymns due to your chosen occupation sucks, indicating to me at least that most sex workers are ASHAMED to be involved in the work they do, or less are afriad of shaming others.
So.. in short: for prostituion to be an "honourable career choice", people need to be straight up and honest about what they do, starting especially with their partners.
[ 01 September 2004: Message edited by: Panama Jack ] [ 01 September 2004: Message edited by: Panama Jack ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malek
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6497
|
posted 01 September 2004 08:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Was that meant to be an insult? Nice try. If I were contemplating a career change as a prostitute, I wouldn't be ashamed of it.
You know what really bugs me about your post, though? The same thing that bothers me about anti-feminist or homophobic men who accuse women who stand up for gay rights or feminism of being "lesbians". There isn't anything wrong with being a lesbian, and I don't consider it an insult. But fuckheads who make these remarks obviously mean it as an insult or put down, so it's a double-whammy - not only are they condescending about the issue, but personally attacking the person making the argument.[ 01 September 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]
If you believe it to be an honorable profession, then why would you take offence to my tongue in cheek comment on you original post? And how did you draw a connection between anti-feminism, homophobia, fuckheads and insults to my single line comment. Actually I agree with what you said and I wish we did live in a world where women were not exploited but could make their own choices for themselves, whatever the choices may be. So far in the last few days you've associated me with fuckheads, racists, homophobes and condesendng attackers. I'm not sure about fuckhead but I'm certainly not any of the other groups.
From: Upper Canada | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650
|
posted 01 September 2004 08:08 PM
Sorry if I came down too hard on you, PJ.My answer to one and two is, if they are common law, HOW THE HELL IS SHE ABLE TO HIDE THE FACT THAT SHE'S AN ESCORT? My opinion is that if someone is THAT determined to hide their profession (kinda like the stories you hear about people being fired but heading out every day for months pretending to still be employed) it's just a case of bad luck for the other person. Sure, it's worrisome that he may be exposed to an STD but a sex trade registry is not the answer IMO. And as to your last point, I bet GLBTQ (did I get that right? First time I've used that acronym) folks will continue to want their own social gathering-places irrespective of their status as a group v/v society. It's natural for folks to want to get together with like-minded people, and I can't imagine it being different for people who gather on the basis of shared sexuality.
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 01 September 2004 08:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Malek:
If you believe it to be an honorable profession, then why would you take offence to my tongue in cheek comment on you original post? And how did you draw a connection between anti-feminism, homophobia, fuckheads and insults to my single line comment. Actually I agree with what you said and I wish we did live in a world where women were not exploited but could make their own choices for themselves, whatever the choices may be. So far in the last few days you've associated me with fuckheads, racists, homophobes and condesendng attackers. I'm not sure about fuckhead but I'm certainly not any of the other groups.
Yeah, I knew that was the exact trap you were laying Malek, which is why I said that I don't consider being called a prostitute to be an insult, but then went on to say that I don't appreciate you pulling the old "if she's for gay rights she must be a lesbian" trick. It was the fact that you were using it as an insult that pissed me off. And there's no other reason I can imagine why you would suddenly make a personal remark out of the blue like that except as a dig. [ 01 September 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478
|
posted 01 September 2004 08:26 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anchoress:
Sorry if I came down too hard on you, PJ.
No prob... babble makes you tough..
My answer to one and two is, if they are common law, HOW THE HELL IS SHE ABLE TO HIDE THE FACT THAT SHE'S AN ESCORT?
Tell me about it! He even knows her stage name(again, which she claims to only use for stripping)!!! However, he refuses to use computers/surf the net (where I easily found out about her real job)... and she does most of her work out of town claiming to be "on a big shoot". I think it's probably his ability to self delude himself that takes the cake, and my other friend figures he deserves whatever is coming up to him.
Sure, it's worrisome that he may be exposed to an STD but a sex trade registry is not the answer IMO.
Well...the way I see it a registry would be a method of legitmizing the industry, raising health/work standards, etc. Sex workers should be recognized and protected, but they also need to be accountable, pay their taxes, etc. I want to cast off the image of "sex worker as victim"... and for that to be possible, I feel the profession needs to be professionalized, and since I don't see a formal instituion popping up to certify sex workers (imagine an "Academy of Sex Work" ?? )), government seems like the logical choice.
And as to your last point, I bet GLBTQ (did I get that right? First time I've used that acronym) folks will continue to want their own social gathering-places irrespective of their status as a group v/v society. It's natural for folks to want to get together with like-minded people, and I can't imagine it being different for people who gather on the basis of shared sexuality.
Oh, I'd fully expect that such places would still exist, but you still gotta dream, can't you? When I'm with a bunch of friends, both queer and straight, it's nice to be able to go a place that EVERYONE can have a good time at and not feel uncomfortable... [ 01 September 2004: Message edited by: Panama Jack ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387
|
posted 01 September 2004 08:28 PM
quote:
He doesn't realize his being victimized, except for the fact that this girl treats him like she was his mother.
Sorry, computer problem. And he's treating her like WHAT? by living off of her? If they want to mistreat each other, let them.
From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 01 September 2004 08:36 PM
quote:
Tell me about it! He even knows her stage name(again, which she claims to only use for stripping)!!! However, he refuses to use computers/surf the net (where I easily found out about her real job)... and she does most of her work out of town claiming to be "on a big shoot". I think it's probably his ability to self delude himself that takes the cake, and my other friend figures he deserves whatever is coming up to him.
Jack, your buddy may be playing dumb when he's with you, but he knows. I doubt he's deluded at all. Anyway, he's a grown up and made his own choice, it isn't up to anybody to save him. [ 01 September 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malek
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6497
|
posted 01 September 2004 08:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Yeah, I knew that was the exact trap you were laying Malek... It was the fact that you were using it as an insult that pissed me off. And there's no other reason I can imagine why you would suddenly make a personal remark out of the blue like that except as a dig.
I was not being insulting at all, it was in humour. If you took it as an insult, then you are assuming where the intent to insult doesn't exist. If you want a definition of insulting out of the blue, you agreed with some bonehead the other day that I was an anti-semite. Would acknowledging that you are perhaps wrong on that account as well on this one, be to much to consider?
From: Upper Canada | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 01 September 2004 10:38 PM
Malek, it seems to me as though your entire contribution to this thread could be summarised in one sentence: "Michelle, I'm pissed at you for what you said on another thread."Consider your point made. [/thread drift]
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117
|
posted 01 September 2004 11:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Nope. I don't have to accept "chastity" as the definition. Just because prostitution and sexual promiscuity has been seen as dirty in the past doesn't mean that it has to be now. That's why words grow and change.I'm not chaste. But I'll be damned if I'm going to say that I'm not an honourable person because of it.
But Michelle surely we have to accept any outmoded defintion, written by ones in a position to "know". No doubt none of us is honourable 'cept Hailey.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
steffie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3826
|
posted 01 September 2004 11:12 PM
So... an updated definition of honour might look like this: quote:
honour: n. 1. Staying true to one's own standards; 2. Maintaining dignity and the direction of one's own destiny; 3. Fostering self-respect and the respect of others.
How's that? We should re-write a dictionary. Bibliophiles unite!
From: What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow / Out of this stony rubbish? | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 01 September 2004 11:41 PM
Well yes and no, Michelle. Or, rather, no and yes. quote:
You don't have to suck up just because she's a moderator. Grow a set will ya.
That the best you can do, Malek? For some reason, I'm not surprised. Face it, your attempt at provocation didn't work. You didn't draw out the anti-semites you imagine infest this board. I'd say "better luck next time," but I wouldn't mean it.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717
|
posted 01 September 2004 11:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Malek:
I'm not attempting to draw out anyone, I'm not that sophisticated or sly. I'm not a semite and have no overriding desire to engage them or their detractors. I gave my opinion on the perils of religious based media concentration.
Let's gang up on the Presbyterians instead. I don't know about you, but their stranglehold on the media today is disgusting.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malek
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6497
|
posted 01 September 2004 11:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
Let's gang up on the Presbyterians instead. I don't know about you, but their stranglehold on the media today is disgusting.
All in good time. They'll get theirs too.
From: Upper Canada | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226
|
posted 02 September 2004 12:04 AM
quote:
He doesn't suck up because I'm a moderator. He sucks up because he thinks I'm hot.
mmmm..... Rabble moderators. gglarggh.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 02 September 2004 12:04 AM
Bringing this thread back to the subject of prostitution as a legitimate career choice, the one problem I can foresee is that people may not want to be prostitutes forever. A gay roommate of a friend had at one time been a prostitute, and it was all he had done for years. Once he got old enough and was not really "in demand" any more, he had few skills other than in the area of prostitution.I'm just wondering if there should be special retraining and career planning programs for people who plan on prostitution as a way to earn an income? It seems only fair and sensible.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478
|
posted 02 September 2004 12:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by billeh:
i knew a woman who put herself thru university with prostitution. it's the money, not the sex for most people in the trade.
And I guess for me it's a shame that society can't reward people who HONESTLY LOVE THEIR JOB... my buddy's lying girlfriend is like this, partially why I brought it up. I feel sorry for him mostly because he's an incredibly myopic SOB (you have to experience it to understand... it really boggles the mind how well he puts his head in the sand) AND, more importantly that she feels shameful enough to not freely admitt it. Weird love/hate complex with herself... she loves her work, and the guilt that comes with it appartently... she provides for my friend, who in turn lets her mother him incessently .... totally bizarre power relationship, he allows himself to THINK that he's some sort of pimp daddy... when really it couldn't be further from the surface (at on the surface). In retrospect... I shouldn't have used my friends saga as part of my argument for a sex worker registry, which I still stand by -- although I would welcome any other suggestion that could "bring honour" into this often victimizing profession.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 02 September 2004 01:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
sex for money
As Bill Clinton might say, it depends what you mean by sex. Isn't sex mutual? Masturbation isn't sex. Is a hand-job sex? Is anything sex if the other partner gets no sexual satisfaction? Personally I wouldn't find it worth paying for. Too lonely.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 02 September 2004 01:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Panama Jack:
That said, I see this as a eventual goal, like the phasing out of gay bars, and not something forced upon the unwilling.
Why on earth should gay bars be phased out?There are all kinds of bars, after all. Folks who enjoy a beer at the Legion Hall aren't likely to want to head downtown and hang out with club kids. No matter how far we progress as a society, people are going to want to hang out in bars that feature the kind of people they would like to go home with.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650
|
posted 02 September 2004 01:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:
Isn't sex mutual?
I don't think it has to be. quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:
Masturbation isn't sex.
Then what is it? quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:
Is a hand-job sex?
I say yes. quote:
Originally posted by Wilfred Day:
Is anything sex if the other partner gets no sexual satisfaction?
I say yes. Otherwise tens of thousands of victorian women were mothers a dozen times over without ever having sex. 
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722
|
posted 02 September 2004 02:40 PM
Hmm what have i learned?The moderators are HOT! (well I knew that since i've met Audra and Michelle) My BWAGA years of masturbation can now be referred to as "The Time period in Which I Had sex multiple times a day" But as for prostitution , I know a lot of dancers(not prostitutiong), dancers(prostituting), escorts and street prostititutes and their feelings, background, thoughts on the job etc vary a lot, just like any other.
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 02 September 2004 03:09 PM
quote:
I've always thought it's odd that you are allowed to pay two people to have sex and film it, but you are not allowed to pay someone to have sex with you.
Actually, as I understand it, you are -- at least, under Canadian law. What you aren't allowed to do is talk about it first -- the offence is "communicating for the purposes of prostitution." (So how you're supposed to negotiate terms, set a price, whatever, is left as an exercise for the reader). Why this isn't applied to, say, Yellow Pages ads for escort services, I've never understood, but there you are.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478
|
posted 02 September 2004 03:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Why on earth should gay bars be phased out?
No matter how far we progress as a society, people are going to want to hang out in bars that feature the kind of people they would like to go home with.
Again, I should been WAY more clear... I'd like to see the perceived social necessity for gay bars to "phase out", that is to say, for homophobia to become a passe thing, even in places like Red Deer (where yes, they do have a gay bar... rather small though). Victoria and Vancouver, T.dot etc. might be relatively tolerant places where gay bars simply serve a function of the niteclub/bar market place, and not a refuge for the persecuted... but in other places it really does signify a barrier towards full intergration of queers into mainstream society without feeling overtly victimized because of their sexual orientation. Again, it's an ideal, not some goal for social engineering policy wonks to "work out". People who like similar music/drinks/atmosphere shouldn't necessarily have to have the same sexual orientation... at least if people were honest with themselves and others.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 02 September 2004 03:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:
[QB]
What you aren't allowed to do is talk about it first -- the offence is "communicating for the purposes of prostitution." (So how you're supposed to negotiate terms, set a price, whatever, is left as an exercise for the reader).
QB]
Exercise accepted. The offence is communicating for the purposes of prostitution in a public place, the target being those who make their arrangements on the curbside. You can make arrangements all you wish over the phone, or in a motel room, etc.
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722
|
posted 02 September 2004 03:44 PM
Or the car, which has been defined as a private place by the courts. Or by phone call, so answering an ad is legal.Edited to add And you are very welcome Michelle. Please make sure the cheque is written to Bacchus and not Dionysius [ 02 September 2004: Message edited by: Bacchus ]
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 02 September 2004 04:54 PM
quote:
About 10 years ago, I believe, Toronto police did lay some soliciting charges based on written ads.
The law has been in place for many years that soliciting is a "public nuisance" kind of offence.
The core of it is that people have a right not to be importuned in public by those selling sexual services. I don't recall soliciting charges based on written ads; to me it is very clear that the inside of a newspaper is not a "public place". It may be that people who advertise could be charged with "keeping a bawdy house". As I recall, the definition of "bawdy house" requires that sex for pay occur inside, not that there be more than one occupant doing the acts.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062
|
posted 05 September 2004 07:04 PM
so why would prostitution be a "dishonourable career choice?"And: Why would paying for sex be "dishonourable" if prostitution [in general] was as well looked after as any other unionized profession? Obviously, i could type why i think that it could be 'honourable' and why paying for sex might not be shameful, but i'm lazy.
From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 05 September 2004 07:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by steffie:
am I making any sense?
To me your though makes a lot of sense, but allow me another analogy. I have a son who is a very talented composer and songwriter, but who distains the idea of doing so with the "commercial market" in mind. Hence, he remains in constant financial crisis (and drives me nuts.) It is a a personal question and choice, but on your analysis, surely "the state" should no more prosecute those who choose commercialize their sexual abilities than those who write commercial jingles. Or do I miss your your point ?
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062
|
posted 05 September 2004 07:57 PM
I think there is sense in what you are saying. if it was demanded that a prostitute is to give what a lover gives. There are people who are able to dissociate sex from love. There are people who inisist that they're different.I'm perfectly comfortable with animal (esp.mammal) analogies. What do secondary males do when denied females? Don't they tend to hump each other? It seems that sex is a life need. We have certain conditions through which it can be attained, but they're not for everyone. quote:
Originally posted by steffie:
How I feel about prostitution is the same way I feel about the guy who picked up men on the net, went out and had sex with them, then shared his experiences as some sort of performance piece - another thread, I forget where. For me, what is troublesome is the commodification of a (supposedly) wonderful sharing of yourself - putting on the market an act so intimate, so personal; marketing it seems to de-humanize it (and the seller) somehow. Preying on the dissatisfaction/disconnectedness of others. That could go for many of the predatory markets, for example, TV shows like "The Swan" - am I making any sense?
From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
steffie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3826
|
posted 05 September 2004 08:23 PM
quote:
but on your analysis, surely "the state" should no more prosecute those who choose commercialize their sexual abilities than those who write commercial jingles. Or do I miss your your point ?
Maybe. I don't see how you can compare making music (creating something out of nothing, where the creator is in control of the result) and "making love" ... or whatever prostitutes do... "servicing" a customer... like servicing a car that needs its annual lube. As far as separating sex from love, I used to be one of those people who thought they were separate. But I was just deluding myself, trying to mask my shame at my misguided promiscuity. Today, I don't try to pretend that they are separate, but I make sure I am aware of my expectations when entering a sexual relationship.
From: What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow / Out of this stony rubbish? | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 05 September 2004 08:29 PM
I am in 100 % agreement with the last paragraph. All that I am saying is that it is a personal distiction; one that you have made, as have I.But I can't see any place for either the "state" or "society" to persecute those who think differently.
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 05 September 2004 08:31 PM
And besides, when it comes to sex, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing anyhow, does it? We talk about how some people think sex can be "completely separated" from love, and others who can't...why are we thinking in binaries about emotional states anyhow?Has anyone ever had sex with someone they feel affection for but not love? Someone they like? Someone whose company they enjoy, but that they're not madly in love with, or want to spend forever with? Who says we want prostitutes to emulate "soulmate" relationships? If I have sex with Mr. Right Now instead of Mr. Right, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily completely soulless, animal, gutter sex devoid of any emotion. So why would we assume that a night with a prostitute would have to be that way?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
steffie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3826
|
posted 05 September 2004 08:35 PM
Perhaps hooking could be made safer; that is, bringing the girls in from the streets, away from pimps and drugs. Although many need the drugs to bear what they have become. What if, there were legitimate brothels, like in the southern US.. what state is that? Women could be kept safe and overseen by a "Madam", or whatever, a doctor could be on staff, and a counsellor too. Men would have to be accountable for their participation in the "service", their names would be kept on record, etc. I agree that it could be made better than it exists today. But I still feel sad for any woman who must/chooses to sell herself to make money.
From: What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow / Out of this stony rubbish? | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 05 September 2004 08:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Has anyone ever had sex with someone they feel affection for but not love? Someone they like? Someone whose company they enjoy, ....
Can we declare an "immunity", so that nothing said in this thread can be used by the BWAGA Membership Committee?
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 05 September 2004 08:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by steffie:
Hey: I'm with you on the Mr Right Now... A girl has to do what a girl has to do! Of course sex is a human need. We all have that need. To me, the difference comes down to the financial transaction. Putting a monetary value on a human being. Not unlike slavery.
How do you figure? If you were to buy sex from me (hey, I can use the money!), you're not buying ME. You're buying my services. Are you buying a masseuse when you buy her or his massage services? It's not slavery in the least. And in fact, if you pay me $50 for a 10 or 20 minute sexual act, I'll feel a hell of a lot less like a "slave" with that financial transaction than I will if you pay me the same amount for an 8 hour shift at McSlop's.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117
|
posted 05 September 2004 08:42 PM
I don't see that sex and love necessarily have anything to do with one another.Sure it's great to finally consumate a relationship with someone you feel deeply for. BUT, it can be just can also be wonderful to have loveless yet passionate sex with someone you lust after. Maybe I'm weird but I see different levels of sexual experience and nothing wrong with any of them. (disclaimer:unless they involve someone unwilling or not of age or mental ability to be a willing participant)
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062
|
posted 05 September 2004 08:49 PM
I agree. Sex with someone you love can be different than mere good sex.
Oh, and could somebody tell me what ROTFLMAO means?
I've got the "laughed my ass off" part, but the beginning isn't "Right On" is it? and what the hell do people think "Thwap" means?
From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838
|
posted 05 September 2004 08:57 PM
Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off.As to the meaning of "thwap", I don't know, and as a member of BWAGA (well, this week at least), I probably shouldn't know. quote:
Has anyone ever had sex with someone they feel affection for but not love? Someone they like? Someone whose company they enjoy, ....
I believe the technical term for people like that is "fuckbuddies". And yes, they do exist. Trust me. Nothing tests BWAGA oaths more than "fuckbuddies". 
From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062
|
posted 05 September 2004 09:09 PM
and nothing being wrong with animal sex without yer frikken soul is one of my points.but now, .. tis late, babbling stopping ... thanks for translating rotflmao for me.
From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 05 September 2004 09:14 PM
O.K.; and invoking section 13 of the Charter...And here I probably become certifiably bi-polar (as oppsosed to that other condition that I can't spell) I tend to agree with Michelle; sexual interaction is not an absolute, any more than conversational interaction is, though it is to me at least on a somewhat higher plain. I have engaged in commercial sex (as a purchaser; damn), sex with casual friends, sex with very close friends, sex with (so I thought) soulmates; sex with a spouse, sex for the sole purpose of procreation. I regret none of them. I am also the first to say that it each context it is an entirely differrent experience. I also agree with Steffie. The sexual experience; at its best, is akin to a sacrament. I don't like to see that denigrated or diluted. I am conflicted on that. But, having been forced to think about it, I realize that there are occassions when I enjoy drinking wine and eating bread. In only a very few of those occassions am I taking communion.
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 05 September 2004 09:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I love this.
In view of the wide context of this thread, that maybe that statement should be clarified, but anyway... Having made that analogy, I have to avert to a difference. Even though as a (now and then) anglican I feel no obligation to "do confession" for eating bread and drinking wine in some other context. But in a "one and only" relationship, I could not in good conscious do the casual or feel-good sex thing. So, Steffie's point is also true.
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
DonnyBGood
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4850
|
posted 05 September 2004 10:53 PM
Here's the thing that I find a little odd. Has anyone actually availed themselves of the services?It is all well and good to talk about the nobility of the sex trade but has anyone either a) sample it or b) provided the service?
Until then it is almost impossible to speak with any kind of meaningful authority about "whoring".
Any anecdotes? I'm all voyeuristic ears...  
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 05 September 2004 11:02 PM
as far as a) ... yesb); no, but I have defended them and unless there is something specific that wiyld ointribute to the conversation, I have nothing to add for the purposes of "voyeurism".
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crimson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6788
|
posted 06 September 2004 01:35 AM
This thread was not about long term relationships vs. prostitution...at least, I certainly didn't see it that way. Comparing the two diminishes both.Anyway, I am an advocate of legalizing prostitution. However, I'm also an advocate of seriously revamping the sex trade in general, and I'm opposed to pornography in it's current, oppressive and demeaning context. That being said, I was once employed as an "exotic dancer" many years ago. I worked in a strip club, and though some of the "gals" also worked on-the-side, I wasn't one of them. Not because I took issue with the legality/morality, but because I just didn't feel I had whatever it took to engage in actual sexual activity beyond the dance floor or the little velvet rope. During that time, I watched one dancer get herself through med school and another die of a drug overdose. I watched another dancer's addiction to plastic surgery cause her to cease dancing altogether due to complications, and I, myself had my own personal stalker (part of why I quite).
From: The bug sky | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
canadianpatriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4556
|
posted 06 September 2004 03:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by DonnyBGood:
Here's the thing that I find a little odd. Has anyone actually availed themselves of the services?It is all well and good to talk about the nobility of the sex trade but has anyone either a) sample it or b) provided the service?
Until then it is almost impossible to speak with any kind of meaningful authority about "whoring".
Any anecdotes? I'm all voyeuristic ears...
No and No
From: National Capital | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Email this thread to someone!
