On the upside, one can applaud the fact that, for once, the law went after a profiteer and not the women he used. But then the man was exonerated with a wink and excoriation of the police officer involved. And unless this decision is successfully appealed by the McGuinty government, Canadian pimps will be breaking out the champagne.

Justice Chisvin based his ruling on President Clinton’s denial of the sexual nature of his tryst with Monica Lewinski. Will fellating men soon also be deemed “not sexual” and therefore required of massage providers?

This case echoes the 1999 Supreme Court decision against Ontario exotic dancers who organized to resist pressures by employers to force them into “lap dancing”. Dancing immediately devolved to thinly-veiled prostitution in most bars.

Another concern is whether such “not sexual” servicing of johns in massage parlours now becomes a legitimate job that no unemployed woman will be authorized to resist without losing her UI and welfare benefits.

The move towards full exoneration for pimps and johns

An Osgoode Hall law professor, Alan Young, is organizing his students to work on a constitutional challenge. He and sex industry lobby groups are trying to have Criminal Code protections against pimping, bawdy-houses and soliciting women on the street stricken off the books. One of his arguments is that since so few pimps, brothel-owners and johns are being prosecuted, these sections of the law do not deserve to stand against a principled challenge based on constitutional rights and freedoms…

This is part of a generalized move to chase women off the street using municipal bylaws and corral them into indoors organized prostitution. People who are lured into believing that this is an 'empowering' deal for women would do well to read Dr. Melissa Farley’s new well-documented exposé: "Prostitution & Trafficking in Nevada: Making the Connections” (Prostitution Research &Education, Fall 2007).

Nevada is one of the places where the male pipe dream of full decriminalization for pimps and johns is being played out.

Margaret Atwood’s visions of The Handmaiden’s Tale seem to be just around the corner.

Martin Dufresne
[email protected]

Parlour's 'manual release' ruled legal
Andrea Dworkin - "Why women must get out of men's laps"
Dr. Melissa Farley - "Prostitution & Trafficking in Nevada - Making the Connections"

[ 14 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

[ 14 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

When you claim an act is "non-sexual" then I agree that it opens the door to massage parlours requiring their employees to perform this service. I have a problem with that.

I don't, however, have a problem with declaring the act "sexual" and making it legal for massage parlours to offer the service. Professional masseuses don't have to do it if they don't want to. It should be legal.

There are lots of legit massage parlours which have registered massage therapists of both genders. They are trained professionals with a regulatory body, and sexual contact with clients is professional misconduct, for which they have zero tolerance.

So, the way I see it is, if you want a professional massage, go to a registered massage therapist. If you want to get rubbed a bit and then whacked off, go to a happy-ending massage parlour.

There's no reason why they both can't be legal, as long as it's clear what they're doing and expecting.

As for this idea that women who refuse to jerk guys off at massage parlours will lose their welfare or EI benefits - I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Stripping is legal now - have you ever heard any case EVER of a woman being denied benefits because she refused to take a "legal" and available job at a strip club? I don't think so.

[ 14 September 2007: Message edited by: Pogo ]

In 1984, a Montreal woman was pressured by her UIC agent into accepting a nude dancing job. She had to raise a big stink in the media to avoid losing her benefits.

I was told last year by Quebec City welfare rights advocates that female beneficiaries are pressured all the time by investigators into turning tricks instead of going on collecting welfare.

But maybe you'd rather not hear about that.

[ 14 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I was told last year by Quebec City welfare rights advocates that female beneficiaries are pressured all the time by investigators into turning tricks instead of going on collecting welfare.

---

I'm sure if this is such a widespread practice that welfare advocates are spreading the word about it, then we should be able to find something on the internet about Quebec City women being pressured into prostitution by welfare case workers, shouldn't we?

quote:

---

As a professional and caring welfare caseworker, I really resent the implication that provincial welfare caseworkers are acting a pimps. While I would never argue that no incidents of abuse of authority occur, I would like to see evidence of this before you make such vicious accusations against a group of unionized and professional workers.

---

While I don't support Martin's general thesis concerning the sex workers, I do think that obvious problems in the welfare system and the manner in which recipients are treated leads some women to prefer the liminted option of sex work as either a supplement their income or as an economic alternative.

The abusive nature of the system has actually been very well documented by Janet Mosher a law prof at York Walking on eggshells

quote:

---

The findings from our research project make clear that women who flee abusive relationships and turn to welfare seeking refuge and support frequently find neither. Women's experiences of welfare are often profoundly negative. Women struggle to survive with their children on little income, often going without adequate food, shelter and clothing. They encounter a system that is less than forthcoming about their entitlements, and about the multiple rules with which they must comply. Their hopes of training and employment through workfare participation are almost invariably dashed. They are often subjected to demeaning and humiliating treatment from workers within a system in which suspicion and the devaluation of recipients are structured into its very core. For many the experience of welfare is like another abusive relationship. And virtually every woman with whom we spoke was caught in one or more double binds as she struggled to be a good mother, good worker and good citizen. Disturbingly, the decision to return to an abusive relationship is often the 'best' decision for a woman, in a social context of horrendously constrained options.

---

I think the social context of horrendously constrained options describes the circumstances that many marginalized women find themselves in sex work due to barriers that prevent them accessing other resources. This is not to suggest that the women doing the work should be veiwed as helpless victims when in reality they are resilient people doing the best they can to survive. For this reason I think there needs to be changes to sex laws so that the women in the trade can determine how best to work and to protect themselves.

Just to add:
I am not suggesting that all welfare workers are horribly abusive, I have dealt with some that are very nice, however the system is designed not only to discourage and harrass applicants but it also often prevents workers from responding to clients in a compassionate way.

[ 14 September 2007: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

As a professional and caring welfare caseworker, I really resent the implication that provincial welfare caseworkers are acting as pimps.

I am afraid Makwa is twisting my words. I did not say that these investigators were acting as pimps, such as seeking a cut from welfare recipients selling sex. They were pressuring these women to put their "good looks" to use on the street or with escort agencies, in order to strike them from welfare rolls. No kickback to them was involved (unless you count success quotas).
The people who informed me of this strong-arm tactic among investigators (not caseworkers) work at the Association pour la défense des droits sociaux Québec Métro.
And Michelle is quite naive about the system if s/he really thinks it is easy to get such pressures documented, published and/or sanctioned.
Finally, I imagine that if the Left was more aware of the ills of forced sex - instead of buying the neo-liberal claptrap about "free agency" - there would be more chances of such pressures being aired and denounced on leftist websites.

[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Why is something OK if it happens behind closed doors for the benefit of a trafficker, parlour manager or escort agency owner, but justifies police intervention and judicial sanction if done by individuals on the street?

---

I didn't say it was "OK" it's just safer.

I wonder how many street prostitutes will "move on" only to be found later in a farmer's field decomposing before we finally come to a consensus on a magic bullet solution regarding prostitution of all stripes?

I keep track of murders of women by men in Quebec (http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=2682) and a growing number of recent such fatalities involve the killing of women indoors by johns or pimps. Indeed, a common justification of street prostitution is that women can look out for each other. Not the case with indoors prostitution, one that also involves a higher ratio of trafficked/enslaved women.

Another factor is the numbers involved. Trivializing and decriminalizing men's privileges to prostitute women leads to more of such behaviour, hence more sexual exploitation/violence against women.

Finally, contrary to the industry's promises to nervous property owners, decriminalizing indoors prostitution does not end the street prostitution of women, epecially those rejected by escort agencies and brothel owners. These women will merely be harassed and chased further from downtown/residential zones because of the agenda involved in decriminalizing less visible prostitution.

This strategy of harassing women using municipal bylaws rather than using the criminal code against pimps and johns is explicitly endorsed by the Liberals' and the NDP's representatives in the December 2006 report of the federal Justice subcomittee on solicitation laws.

List of 838 women and children killed by men (or unknown parties) in Quebec since the Montreal Polytechnique massacre

[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
As a professional and caring welfare caseworker, I really resent the implication that provincial welfare caseworkers are acting a pimps. While I would never argue that no incidents of abuse of authority occur, I would like to see evidence of this before you make such vicious accusations against a group of unionized and professional workers.

---

In British Columbia a welfare caseworker told my ex-boyfriend to lie on his resume and claim he had high school graduation when he never passed grade 12. This is a product of a penny-pinching system run by cheap bastards who wouldn't give a dime to a homeless person without making that man practically grovel in front of everybody else first.

Regarding prostitution - the fact that someone would seriously suggest telling a woman, down on her luck, to start 'turning tricks' is a product of the same mentality that debases anyone who doesn't have the good fortune to live in a stable, non-abusive, household.

[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ]

I have spent a lot of time with sex-trade workers in my life, and also people on various kinds of social assistance, and I have never once heard anyone complain about social workers preassuring women to take stripping jobs, or to start turning tricks. Quite the opposite, most people I know who were on the dole and also doing tricks were very concious of not letting their social worker in on the real story, because they would get cut off, because they were making undeclared income.

The problem is reveresed from how it is being presented. Most social workers do not want their clients working as prostitutes. Period. If on the other hand they do make undeclared income it is their job to adjust benefits to reflect this fact.

Women who are casually working doing tricks, or working as strippers under the table, and collecting benefits are usually merely supplementing their income by getting benefits -- The primary source of their income are the so called side jobs, and the benefits negligible concern overall financially.

Not many sex-trade workers would be willing to give up prostitution or stripping in order to hold onto their welfare cheque. The numbers just dont add up. So it is hardly a threat.

In fact, social workers, will often turn a blind eye to these other sources of income precisely to avoid preassuring the client. I have never heard anyone complain that a social worker even suggested that woman should become a prostitute to get off welfare.

This is just needless fearmongering and muckraking for the sake of a well intentioned cause.

[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I don't see how this is a problem with my argument. I doubt that NRK can answer that implicit question; I know I can't because there are differing demands - and differing levels of empowerment to speak out - in the various people involved in prostitution.

A telling criterion lies in the expression "sex trade workers", an essentializing label openly rejected by most of the women and youths in prostitution, most of them in passing and absolutely refusing to be identified as such.

Some women who have been and/or remain in prostitution have spoken out at length about how 'empowering' prostitution wasn't and what they wished for: e.g. financial support, decent housing, de-tox facilities, counseling, access to job training, refugee status or citizenship in the case of sex-trafficked women and an end to police harassment. (If NRK really cares, I suggest s/he read Rose Dufour's "Je vous salue...", Éditions Multimondes, 2005, or any interviews/testimonies of women critical of the industry.)

Extremely few of women in prostitution have supported the legalization of pimping or that of licensed brothels - the current program of the sex liberals. Most of these women - and indeed of prostitutes' organizations - reject this prospect emphatically.

One major problem is in how women in prostitution people are (literally) framed in neo-liberal discourse. Anyone can call him or herself a "sex trade worker" - it is political label, not a reality-based description. At one of Quebec's main prostitution advocacy groups, you are a "sex worker" if you have ever done lingerie modeling, erotic dancing or phone sex, etc, even once, even years ago.

Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if you could call yourself a sex worker if you claim to empathize with women who are (Who is going to dare challenge or verify your claim?). Prostitutes' very disempowerment facilitates this abuse of their agency.

How someone who has never turned a trick and who certainly isn't being forced to do so to survive can be said to speak for those who do and who are is something I can't fathom.

Personally, I have never claimed to speak for women and young men in prostitution. But I think that I - as everyone here regardless of their life conditions - can and do come at this as a responsible, justice and equity-minded citizen, angry at the current male privilege to exploit women and youths, and careful not to let the voice of the industry and its liberal flunkies drown out the voices of the people prostitution hurts and kills.

[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

"The new pornography is left-wing and pornography is the graveyard where the Left has gone to die." (Dworkin)

[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Extremely few of women in prostitution have supported the legalization of pimping or that of licensed brothels - the current program of the sex liberals. Most of these women - and indeed of prostitutes' organizations - reject this prospect emphatically.

---

Of course women are not interested in working for pimps or brothel owners. They are interested in having control over their own working conditions, having safe working conditions and not facing harrassment from the police and criminal justice system. Nothing you have said has addressed the concerns of those who do sex work. You keep going on about Nevada and pimps and brothel owners which really have nothing to do with what sex trade workers are asking for.

What seems apparent from your posts is that you argue that you are fighting patriarchy but you are only replicating forms of oppression by claiming to speak for people you have no right to speak for and for deciding what is good and necessary for them. You seem very much similar to the 19th christian social reformers that were out to save fallen women. Those who do sex work are intelligent and competent people who can decide and speak for themselves in terms of what they need.

I am not claiming to speak for them but as someone who has worked as a community worker for over ten years, I have been in contact with many women and men who did sex work and in conversations with these men and women they have unanimously expressed a desire to have control and safety in working conditions and not to be harrassed by the criminal justice system or children's aid.

It is also apparent that you are unable to differentiate between people defending the rights of those that do sex work and people defending explotation and gender inequality. If for a moment you could drop your obnoxious self-rigtheous ranting you might realize that most people here support the former and oppose the latter.

quote:

---

Personally, I have never claimed to speak for women and young men in prostitution.

---

[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Cueball is missing (or trying to obscure) my point. The information I relayed was not about strippers or prostitutes being pressured; it was about non-prostitutes and non-strippers being pressured by investigators - the activist I spoke too was adamant about this not being the practice of caseworkers - to take up such jobs in order to strike them from welfare rolls. Let him sling mud at this information if this practice doesn't sit well with his worldview, but let's be clear about it.

---

But as far as we can see you made it up. This is not the practice. There is no evidence that this is endemic. No one here who has experience in these matters agrees. You are hypothesizing at the far extreme based on tendetious logic.

Now, I am not going to argue that prostitution and stripping is empowering, for in the majority of cases, as far as I could see most sex trade workers I know were very ambivalent about the whole thing, including the pimps.

The question simply becomes does one further marginalize prostitutes by making their activities illegal by forcing them into the legal grey zones of society where they are both vulnerable to criminals and the police, or do you simply legalize it?

Most prostitutes I know favour it being legalized. In fact I have never heard a prostitute argue for it being illegal.

You may think that de-criminalizing the sex trade, merely legalizes exploitation, and that women who argue for decriminalization are merely duped patsies of an injust system, and I can not disagree on some of these points, at least in theory, but then we are talking about what is to be done, I can't help but argue the case that it is the victim who has the primary right to determine what is best for them, and so let them speak for themselves, and in most cases prostitutes, wether they are self-deluding patsies to patriarchy or not, argue that first and foremost they would like to see prostitution legalized.

If in the case that prostitution becomes a legally exploitable commodity, which then becomes the domain of private interests exploiting the product for their own personal profit, in the form of legalized brothels, how does that differ really from waitressing, or truck driving? The whole economic system is defined around exactly that kind of exploitation, and one can not simply attack that one job description at a time.

At least in a legal form, it could be regulated.

Exploitation is the principle upon which the social order is based. It is its primary motivating factor. It is not called capitalism for nothing. Challenging patriarchy is just one piece of the puzzle. Dworkin really only sees one part of the equation, unfortunately.

Anyway, get off your charger, your ass must be getting sore.

[ 16 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
it was about non-prostitutes and non-strippers being pressured by investigators - the activist I spoke too was adamant about this not being the practice of caseworkers - to take up such jobs in order to strike them from welfare rolls.

---

Notice that "the government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars." So in other words the job center can not prejudice a referal by saying, btw, that is a whore house.

Then, there is this and that systemic problem. It would be easy enough to make exceptions, and there is no way that this policy would be acceptable.

The Wiki article:

quote:

---

Early in 2005, English media reported that a woman refusing to take a job as a prostitute might have her unemployment benefits reduced or removed altogether.[12] A similar story appeared in mid-2003; a woman received a job offer through a private employment agency. In this case however, the agency apologized for the mistake, stating that a request for a prostitute would normally have been rejected, but the client mislead them, describing the position as "a female barkeeper". To date, there have been no reported cases of women actually losing benefits in such a case, and the employment agencies have stated that women would not be made to work in prostitution.

---

Prostitution in Germany

[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Snopes

quote:

---

This was another story where, like a game of "telephone", a story was sensationalized for political purposes, and passed from one news source to the next, and somewhere in the rewriting and translating process what was originally discussed as a mere hypothetical possibility has now been reported as a factual occurence.

---

I must say the intenet has become a dangerous tool of mad misinformation spread by the reaming right and their endless stream of broken blog-a-phone hype and disinformation. Check out this racist crapola over here, posted just the other night: Middle of the page post by Fat-sow.

[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

So, the way I see it is, if you want a professional massage, go to a registered massage therapist. If you want to get rubbed a bit and then whacked off, go to a happy-ending massage parlour.

---

[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

American Apparel's prostitution-type pics challenged

[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Knowmore.org Exposé of American Apparel

[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

More crudely this thesis sometimes appears in discourse as a means of silencing women who dissent from her world view by merely dismissing them as chumps of patriarchy, who do not know what is good for them.

That said, the logical conudrum which appears is of course how Dworkin herself has freed herself from the all pervasive mechanisms of the overweaning aspects of patriarchal indoctrination, so as to be able to clearly critique, while other women can't? Also fair enough, given the initial premise.

Does this conundrum subvert the entirety of her thesis?

I say no.

Dworkin for all that is good and necessary in her life work is not exempt from the influence of the reigning ideology, and for all that she did explain and see, she failed to identify in herself one aspect of patriarchal opression that is latent in her work.

Dworkin was ultimately a feminist who was also a judeo-christian conservative, in matters of sex and sexuality.

[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

If you choose to contest it feel free, otherwise you can go fuck yourself.

[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I'm NOT a Dworkin fan for a number of reasons. But I have been exposed to the situation in Amsterdam and Hamburg, where a majority of prostitutes are trafficked sex-slaves from Eastern Europe and the Third World. Legalisation has not solved the problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
One could just as soon say that the pro-prostitution crowd has not liberated itself from the tyranny of the market.

---

Of course. And this is in fact another problem with Dworkin, because she reduces all issues of opression to issue of patriarchy. This is why Bell Hooks is right when she talks about the "white-supremist, capitalist patriarchy."

The fatal flaw here is clearly seen in the way the issue is reduced to an issue of legalizing or not legalizing prostitution, and issue of patriarchal relations. The problem elucidated by the OP is that when sex becomes a legal commodity, it then becomes legally exploitable within capitalist norms.

So the analysis fails because it does not critique the capitalist relations themselves, only the patriarchal ones.

[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Legalisation has not solved the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
The question is not whether prostitution should be legalized(it should be) but how it is legalized. New South Wales has done a much better job of decriminalizing prostitution then Holland has.

---

Practically speaking yes. I don't think that one can confront the systemic exploitation inherent in capitalist relations in this issue alone. So really, in an everyday sense, beyond abstract theory, I think it has to be confronted on the level of how one best one can deal with the situation within the context of capitalist relations.

Criminalizing prostitution only makes it even more exploitable. The reality is that even now, there are full scale brothels and massage parlours operating, without any kind of legal control now. Brothels are not something new that will come into existance, because some judge or other does not rule that touching someones weenie is sexual. These brothels exist now.

The only difference legalization would make, if it was done properly, would be to make them regulatable. It might be possible to ban them, but make prostitution itself legal, but it is hard to tell what effect this would have.

[ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

according to the judge's ruling, female patrons of massage parlours should also receive the hand job, by the female masseuses, if they so desire and have paid for it.

By the same token, straight male masseurs should be able to get jobs there, and also be able to give the "release" to straight male customers since none of this is "sexual", right?

[ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

This is fearmongering.

[ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
In jas' consumer-driven ethos, one should be able to require "not sexual" masturbation support from home care personnel, hospital staff, therapists of all kind, employees...
Soon to be added to your job description, folks.

---

Your focus on ascribing morality to sex, and a person's natural sexual drive, is doing you a disservice.

quote:

---

Decriminalization views prostitution as a legitimate and necessary business. Its implementation entails removing prostitution related offences from the Canadian Criminal Code, for adults involved in this profession. In places that have decriminalization, such as the state of New South Wales, Australia, sex pros may operate freely, without the threat of criminal charges and/or the state seizing their assets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
for all that she did explain and see, she failed to identify in herself one aspect of patriarchal oppression that is latent in her work.

Dworkin was ultimately a feminist who was also a judeo-christian conservative, in matters of sex and sexuality.

---

I don't know, I would tend to listen to someone who has actually been in that world over someone who is merely theorizing.

The article cited above is certainly not her best, but I like Dworkin. I think it's still valid to raise the question of the need for prostitution and pornography. Why do so many men need to buy (or take) sex from others? It's not about sexual "release", that's for sure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

There is already "non-sexual" masturbation support occuring in the health care profession, or at least in certain segments of it. And frankly it could be improved upon and further accessed to meet individual needs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marzo:
What's 'non-sexual masturbation'?

---

You forgot the addition of the word "support".

And really is masturbation sex?

quote:

---

Does Ontario Health Insurance pay for it?

---

Do not know about Ontario.

quote:

---

Are there 'professional masturbation specialists'?

---

yes

quote:

---

Are these masturbators medical school graduates?

---

They are trained yes.

quote:

---

How can massaging someone's genitals be 'non-sexual'?

---

quote:

---

It's not about sexual "release", that's for sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:

I don't know, I would tend to listen to someone who has actually been in that world over someone who is merely theorizing.

The article cited above is certainly not her best, but I like Dworkin. I think it's still valid to raise the question of the need for prostitution and pornography. Why do so many men need to buy (or take) sex from others? It's not about sexual "release", that's for sure.

Anyway, without resorting to the inaccurate and often reactionary "anti-pornography=anti-sex" equation, what about her did you find is conservative?

---

The idea that male gay sex is the "feminization" of men, and therefore, qualatively fits within the realm sexist roll modelling, and therefore sexist. Its overtly homophobic. And that is just a prominent example of her re-writing judeao-christian phobias as feminist critique.

I personally have been at dyke nights where young dykes were exploring their sexuality by producing amateur lesbian SM porn movies, made for and by lesbians.

[Some of these people were also working in various aspects of the sex trade.]

It is just to simple to dismiss these kind of expressions as being false expressions of female sexuality within a patriarchal paradigm. If I wanted to spend time psychologizing other people, I could come up with numerous neo-freudian analysis to explain this behaviour. But really it is none of my buisiness, whether butch dyke roll playing is "play therapy," or "repressed patriarchal stereotypes" or merely sex as parody of the ruling sexual ethos, or even, just fun?

What I saw was people apparently having a good time playing with sex rolls and film and photography for themesleves, volunutarily, and for free, basicly.

Dworkins analysis excludes these possibilities and aligns itself with the far right conservative mainstream view of sex and sexuality, simply lumping all this behaviour as yet more misguided women trapped in a patriarchal relations, and firmly rejects them as healthy activities, since, of course, by her defintion, all porn is fundamentally patriarchal, even when voluntarliy engaged in by women, as either an expression of repressed patriarchal emotions latently embodied in Butch/Fem stereotypes, or as porn production for the pleasure of men.

Again, and again, Dworkins analyis finds a way of regurgitating societal attitudes towards "abberant" sexual behaviour as feminist critique.

[ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

"Stripping is legal now - have you ever heard any case EVER of a woman being denied benefits because she refused to take a "legal" and available job at a strip club? I don't think so."

In 1984, a Montreal woman was pressured by her UIC agent into accepting a nude dancing job. She had to raise a big stink in the media to avoid losing her benefits.

---

How is this dealt with in regards to other types of work which some people wouldn't want to do for religious or cultural reasons?

Like could a Jewish person on welfare be forced to work in a pork processing plant? Or could anyone on welfare be pressured to do jobs which violate their beliefs?

i believe that the current laws against prostitution result in increased victimization of the men and women who work in the sex trade, but i wouldn't want the state to force anyone to work in the sex trade either.

That's not the issue. The issue is to what extent is it harder for them to have/keep welfare or UI benefits given that alleged legitimate work awaits them in sexploitation jobs. And can they resist prostitution in the jobs they do have.

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

ALL such laws? Such a fundamentalist-liberal position is no gift to people pressured into prostitution. Part of the silencing of women happens because prostitution legislation or decriminalization is too often presented as an all-or-nothing proposition. "Support the pimp if you want to support the people he prostitutes..."

On the contrary, groups such as the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres* and the Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle are fighting to end BOTH the police/judicial harassment of prostituted people AND their exploitation by pimps, traffickers, brothel-keepers and johns. Abolishing the legislation that curtails these low-life is no step forward. I don't believe that the victimization of prostituted people would cease or wind down if laws against sexual exploiters were taken off the books and their being given free rein. Neither do most prostituted people, most of their organizations, or most of the front-line workers who support them day in day out in our inner cities.
Please go read the federal sub-committee hearings transcripts referenced above if you disbelieve this.
* CASAC - Prostitution is Violence Against Women
More information on these issues

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Dana wrote:
In Holland and Germany, which both have legal prostitution, women are not forced into sex-trade work in order to get welfare.

---

quote:

---

That's not the issue. The issue is to what extent is it harder for them to have/keep welfare or UI benefits given that alleged legitimate work awaits them in sexploitation jobs. And can they resist prostitution in the jobs they do have.

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

---

All stories supporting the thesis that in Germany it is harder for women "to have/keep welfare or UI benefits" have been completely discredited. This is not going on. Job Centers do not post jobs for people in the sex trade. Nor are they required to.

If said organizations wanted to advertize through job centers, they would have to do so by lying, so that the job center was unaware of what they really were. Therefore the job centers do not officially particiapte in recruiting prostitutes, and can therefore not cut off government benefits, because they are not at all involved in the hiring process.

Please read the above posts which show that rumours to this effect are hypothetical case scenarios,(much the same as the ones you are posing in this thread) that were posed by German journals as "what if" stories that have then been picked up by the English press (Telegraph) and told as if they were real events.

In other words your case scenario is not valid. It is based on media distortion.

Fearmongering.

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Your response was a direct response to Dana who was talking about Germany.

All stories about Germany turned out to be fearmongering and cheap sensationalist journalism. Therefore, if anything what had been shown is that it perfectly possible for governments to costruct laws in such a way that the events you are saying have transpired (without proof) here in Canada, have not happened in places where prostitution has been legalized.

Germany proves that what you describe as a necessary outcome, is not in fact a necessary outcome. That in fact the legalization process did not result in women being forced into the prostitution of stripping by threat of losing their benefits, (though some people had a strange fascination with the idea) because they simply have a policy against it.

Simple enough.

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Let's forget the wayward orthography and syntax: Exactly where has Dworkin written or said what you claim is her analysis?

In Pornography: Men Possessing Women, she shows how patriarchy builds this lie in so-called gay porn; she has never, to my knowledge, identified this feminization construct with all gay male sex.

But I am sure you have a substantive quote to justify your pathetic smear job, having been "raised on this stuff".

Christopher N. Kendall's explanation of how gay pornography hurts gay men in Dworkin's and Stoltenberg's analysis

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
I didn't find Dufresne's speculation offensive. Nor would I go so far as to call it fear-mongering. I think he's taken a real life example of judicially bizarre logic and applied it to two examples that he knows about, and then speculates about what kind of precedent this may set in other arenas. He may be jumping a bit too far ahead, but it doesn't hurt to sound an early alarm about trends in society that are now perceptible.

Anyway, thanks for your response to my above query, Cueball. Great answer.

---

Since Dufresne has introduced no independent evidence to support his allegations of this happening, and we can show how certain "what if" stories circulated from the German press to the British press where they were purported as fact, and Dufresne has made no statement that he has personal knowledge of the events he believes have happened, (only being able to allude to some "grass roots" activists as his source) , I am very inclined to believe that his recounting of these events are actually another version of these other stories regurgitated as urban legends and set in Canada, especially since he offers not a single sourceable journalistic accounting of the events in Canada, or anywhere.

Not one.

Further, I am not necessarily suggesting the Dufresne is fearmongering, but am saying, as much as anything, he is a victim of fearmongering.

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Cueball" writes, to explain why Dworkin (a lesbian) is homophobic in his opinion:

---

Homophobia is a systamatic prejudice. Everyone in this society has a curnal of anti gay sentiment within them, just like we're all a little bit sexist and a little bit racist. Given the state of North American culture, it is all too possible that a radical, leftwing lesbian femminist who was a native of this chronically repressed continant could be a homophobe.

[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

Has anyone actually read the decision they are criticizing?

If not, perhaps you could use your no doubt excelent legal research skills to look for the ruling yourself?

If I were a suspicious person I might think that the entire purpose of your post was to name drop, assert you status, and infer a lack of legal expertise on behalf of the other entrants to this thread. But, curiously you then ask others to find links for legal material which one would think you would easily have located yourself, if you had any legal expertise.

So which is it? Are you asserting your social authority as an expert, or exposing your inabilities?

[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Constable Cole said “yes”. Then “she put more oil on her hands and then brought her hot hand back onto my penis ...

---

"Her hot hand"? Cue the music: Chicka-chicka wah wah...

"Dear Penthouse Letters, I never thought this would happen to me, but..."

Thanks for the detail, Constable Winky!

Okay, so kidding aside, it looks to me like the reason the judge found that nothing sexual had happened wasn't because masturbation isn't sexual, but because the officer couldn't prove that she actually negotiated sex for money. His decision was not, as Martin told us, based on his belief that masturbation is not sexual. This is what the judge said:

quote:

---

I am not satisfied that the Crown has shown the activity, using the community standard test, constitutes acts of sexual gratification in return for the payment of money.

[29] The payment of money as I have found it was for a full body massage. The act of masturbation was optional, at no additional fee.

---

Now, of course, he went on to say that he wonders whether masturbation in all cases could be considered sexual, which is weird. But it's clear that his finding in this case did not hinge on whether masturbation is sexual, but whether or not the masseuse actually asked for money for it.

It's not clear at all that she did. She charged $40 for the massage. She charged an extra $20 to do it naked. After that negotiation, she then asked him whether he wanted her to masturbate him, but she did not charge him extra for that. And there wasn't a lower charge for a massage without masturbation.

That's pretty clearly what his ruling hinges on. Yeah, his comments about Clinton were stupid, but that's not really what he was relying on to make his ruling, the way I read it.

[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

The job was described to her as providing a full body massage, which included providing “release”. Ms. Almaniyazova was clear that release meant masturbating the customer as part of the full body massage. Ms. Almaniyaova indicated that this activity was part of the job as described to her by Mr. Ponomarev in the course of the interview. She was fully aware that this activity was part of the full body massage she was to provide to clients. Mr. Ponomarev explained both in the language he used, and by means of hand gestures the nature of the conduct that was to be part of the massage. (...)

[13] Ms. Almaniyaova in the course of her evidence did concede that she signed the documents, which stated that she was not to provide any sexual services, nor have any sexual contact with any of the customers. Ms. Almaniyaova indicated that notwithstanding the date on the document itself, she actually signed it after she was charged with the offences and after Mr. Ponomarev was charged with the offences. This was done at Mr. Ponomarev’s request or at the request of a person Ms. Almaniyaova believed to be a lawyer for Mr. Ponomarev and herself.

(emphasis added)

[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

It strikes me that Constable Cole’s actions were not only unnecessary but outside a protocol of investigative techniques of offences of this nature and bordered on no more then attending for self gratification. His actions were completely unnecessary for the investigation and caused me great concerns with respect to these proceedings.

---

The ruling reads that the judge was left wondering "as to whether or not the community might consider the act of masturbation in all situations to be sexual." He did not say that it was not sexual. He said that it was possible that it might not be based on community standards.

The key word is "might".

It turns out that Dufresne is yet again subjecting us to more of his fairy tales, bad research, hyperbolic hysteria, and is pandering to peoples fears for the purpose of asserting the dominance of his own moral agenda.

Perhaps Dufresne will do us the service of changing the thread title to reflect a more truthful reading of the judgement, as opposed to allowing the libel to stand?

[ 20 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[QB]Dana writes:
"I believe that the current laws against prostitution result in increased victimization of the men and women who work in the sex trade..."

ALL such laws? Such a fundamentalist-liberal position is no gift to people pressured into prostitution. Part of the silencing of women happens because prostitution legislation or decriminalization is too often presented as an all-or-nothing proposition. "Support the pimp if you want to support the people he prostitutes..."

---

The current laws prevent sex-workers from unionizing, they stop them from working co-operatively in a house together, and makes their job much more dangerous.

The current laws push sex-workers out from the umbrella of police protection and into a situation where they are very vulnerable.

Legal prostitution would also greatly reduce the number of accessible victims for psycho killers like Pickton.

[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

You have openly distorted what is clearly said in the court record. You entered this discussion with a patently false statement. You said that a judge in Ontario has ruled the mastrubating a client is "not sexual."

The judge did not say anything of the kind. It is a lie. He said that the "community" might see it as "not sexual". The thread title is libel, I think you should change it.

I am merely pointing out the falsehood. If you dont want people to point out when you are purpounding falsehoods, then don't make them. If you make them by accident, appologize and correct them.

[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

The ruling says: "Indeed, I wonder, and am left in a doubt as to whether or not the community might consider the act of masturbation in all situations to be sexual."

---

Or perhaps you are confused by the fact that the ruling asserts that no money was paid for the masturbation, but only for a massage, the hand job being "optional"? And are conflating the two points?

He seems to be saying that the payment and negotiation must be for a sexual act specifically.

At no point did the judge say that "servicing" of a hand job was "not sexual", so therefore there was no prostitution, as you alledged.

What he did say was that he found that no money had been paid for the masturbation.

Then he then went on to say that he was in doubt about wether or not "the community might consider the act of masturbation in all situations to be sexual."

[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
On the upside, one can applaud the fact that, for once, the law went after a profiteer and not the women he used. But then the man was exonerated with a wink and excoriation of the police officer involved. And unless this decision is successfully appealed by the McGuinty government, Canadian pimps will be breaking out the champagne.

---

So, it seems you are a little upset that Justice Chisvin excoriated the police office involved?

Can you explain why it was necessary for Cole to attend the massage parlour twice? Why he needed to have the attendants strip for him? And why he is allowing them to repeatedly touch his dick?

[ 22 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Forcées de masturber leurs clients ?

Milaine Alarie et Geneviève Lafleur*

Pour la Collective des luttes pour l'abolition de la prostitution (CLAP)**

La CLAP (Collective des luttes pour l'abolition de la prostitution) désire s'opposer à la décision du juge Howard Chisvin de la Cour de l'Ontario qui déclara non-coupable M. Valeri Ponomarev, un gérant de salon de massage exigeant de ses employées qu'elles masturbent leurs clients, sous prétexte que la masturbation d'autrui ne serait pas un acte sexuel, donc que les lois relatives à la prostitution ne s'appliqueraient pas à ce genre de pratique.
Cette décision s'avère être très néfaste en ce qui concerne le droit des femmes et la lutte contre l'exploitation sexuelle.

Conditions de travail des massothérapeutes en danger

Le jugement rendu crée maintenant un précédent sur le plan de l'interprétation des lois en matière de prostitution. Affirmer que la masturbation d'autrui n'est pas un acte sexuel banalise la pratique, ce qui pourrait influencer les patrons des salons de massage à exiger de leurs employées qu'elles offrent ce «service» à leurs clients. De plus, nier la valeur sexuelle de la masturbation d'autrui offre aux clients le droit d'exiger ce genre de pratique en toute impunité, minant ainsi le recours des femmes à dénoncer le harcèlement sexuel au travail.

Un pas en arrière pour la lutte des femmes contre l'exploitation sexuelle

En plus d'avoir un impact négatif sur les conditions de travail des femmes dans les salons de massage, cette décision attaque directement les droits des femmes en banalisant l'exploitation sexuelle de ces dernières. Les répercussions de ce jugement pourraient être immenses. Les femmes prestataires de l'assurance-emploi pourraient être obligées d'accepter un emploi de massothérapeute, et ainsi, être forcées à masturber les clients, sous menace de perdre l'accès à l'aide financière gouvernementale.

Cette inquiétude peut sembler farfelue, mais pourtant, un cas semblable est survenu en 1984 lorsqu'une chômeuse montréalaise a refusé, malgré les pressions de la Commission d'assurance-chômage, un «emploi» de danseuse nue.
Elle a dû alerter les médias pour gagner sa cause et ne pas avoir à accepter ce «travail». Il importe de se questionner aussi quant aux répercussions d'une telle décision sur la notion d'agression sexuelle. Par exemple, une femme ayant été forcée à masturber un homme pourra-t-elle encore l'accuser d'agression sexuelle ?

Bref, il est primordial de comprendre que les conséquences de définir la masturbation d'autrui comme un acte non-sexuel vont au-delà des conditions de travail des masseuses. En ignorant la valeur sexuelle de cette pratique, la Cour de l'Ontario mine le droit de toutes les femmes à vivre dans un monde où elles ne seraient pas contraintes à la prostitution, où elles ne seraient pas victimes d'oppression sexuelle, où elles pourraient être considérées comme des êtres humains à part entière, et non simplement comme des objets au service du plaisir sexuel des hommes.

*Étudiantes à l'Université d'Ottawa

**CLAP - http://sisyphe.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=90

[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

He wondred if the community might think that it might be "not sexual," in all cases.

This actually had nothing to do with the ruling. What he ruled was that in this case money was exchanged for a massage, not the sexual act. It was quite clear that if he had found out that money was exchanged for the hand job he would have found the defendant guilty.

All kinds of factors contributed to this decision, not the least of which, I think was that the officer, never actually negotiated for a hand job, and never got one. He assumed that he was going to get one.

Though he did frequent the bawdy house, and get strip shows and mananaged to get one of the women working there to repeatedly touch his dick.

--------------

Also, Martin, the phrase "Happy Endings" does not actually appear in the text of the Judgement, and only in the Toronto Star article. Perhaps one of these days you will get around to reading it, as opposed to making up what the it says.

[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Go check, if you don't believe me.

[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

You will see that he says that he is "wondering" if the community (not himself btw) "might" view that masturbating someone is "not sexual."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
You will see that he says that he is "wondering" if the community (not himself btw) "might" view that masturbating someone is "not sexual."

---

Well, instead of pretending to dissect such deliberately obtuse phrasing, why don't you just take it for its intended meaning: he is asking - although if it has nothing to do with the ruling itself, as you say, we kind of have to wonder why - can masturbation in all cases be considered sexual?

In other words, in what situations would masturbation not be sexual?

I know there are some types of massage in which the genitals would receive as much attention as any other part of the body, and the touch is not intended to be sexual, or sexually arousing. In the case of massage parlours, however, the true purposes of which most of us are fully aware, and which employ non-registered massage "people" (I don't think we could call them therapists) who have had no formal massage training or certification, it's a pretty disingenuous question to ask, and I support Dufresne in bringing that to our attention.

I think that he is raising this hair raising possibility here, because he is specifically pissed off with the cop in question for repeatedly visiting the massage parlour, (when only one visit could be deemed possibly necessary for trial purposes) for getting the women there to strip (even though that is completely unecessary for the massage process) and for letting them touch his dicky more than once.

And this is the more subtle point, if the cop feels that having his dicky touched is not a "sexual act" then is it really the case that having someone putting there hand on your dick constitutes a "sexual act" at all. At what point is dicky touching sexual?

Its a fine line here, yes? What actually constitutes masturbation?

In other words, if any hand touching of the dick is sexual then in fact the cop had the woman involved massage him and then strip for him before he engaged in "sexual acts" with her.

[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

So do I. Even without following "Cueball" down the road of his specific meanderings, I think this is an indication of the wasteland where too many men's sexual intelligence and ethics could be.

As a man, I suspect that many of us primarily want sex-as-we-know it to remain available to us on demand, well protected from women's possible, suspected, eventual disinterest. Money, pornography would be a kind of political Viagra - conduits to the rehashing of an "identity" predicated on ejaculation.

This could go some way to explain why some can trounce the most elementary equity principles if suitable rhetoric allows brothels to remain open and thrive, as the well-oiled machinery of virility consolidation...

[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

But, since this theory about "sex-on-demand" extends to "many" men, apparently, and since officer Cole is a man perhaps you can explain why officer Cole needed to visit the massage parlour more than once in the pursuit of his investigation when he had already deposed (interogated) two males who explained to him what was going on inside the massage parlour.

Because the way it seems to me is that you are attacking this judge for protecting women in the sex-trade from police officer who are getting free jollies while supposedly performing their sworn duties.

Is the judge "wondering" if the community feels that being masturbated is "not sexual" in the case where the person being masturbated is a law enforcement officer, for instance?

[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

As a man, I suspect that many of us primarily want sex-as-we-know it to remain available to us on demand, well protected from women's possible, suspected, eventual disinterest. Money, pornography would be a kind of political Viagra - conduits to the rehashing of an "identity" predicated on ejaculation.

---

Do you really think that all Johns go to sex workers in order to expeirence "sex as they know it"? Surely there are many men who go to prostitutes in order to have a more sensual sexual expierence with a sexual partner who is skilled in many sexual techniques. Now, those men could probably benifit from some couples counciling if they are married, but that is beside the point.

[ 24 September 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Do you really think that all Johns go to sex workers in order to expeirence "sex as they know it"? Surely there are many men who go to prostitutes in order to have a more sensual sexual expierence with a sexual partner who is skilled in many sexual techniques. Now, those men could probably benifit from some couples counciling if they are married, but that is beside the point.

---