babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Decriminalization of sex work might reduce victimization and unsafe practices.
August 17, 2015 - 8:20pm
Decriminalizing indoor prostitution could improve the bargaining position of female sex workers relative to clients, leading to lower rates of victimization. Research from the late 1990s found that indoor sex workers are victimized considerably less than outdoor street walkers. The legal quirk in Rhode Island only applied to indoor sex work, which could have resulted in some prostitutes abandoning outdoor business for its decriminalized — and safer — counterpart. http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5898187/prostitution-rhode-island-decrimina...
Its time to decriminalize prostitution.
Yes, it's long past time to take the criminal element out of it and give workers control over production and the means of production.
The debate around sex work does resemble a struggle for domination and power as Foucault outlined in "The History of Sexuality," wherein, a seemingly benevolent, concerned power is said to demand submission to its rules around sex, which themselves are derived from an historical want to control what the population may legally access that is over and above what is provided for by the main mechanism of control in all patriarchal societies, being the family structure with a husband and a wife.
When Foucault went on to say that this power is everywhere, to such an extent that instead of a top down model of monitoring and demanding compliance, it is actually said to be the norms and traditions of patriarchal societies themselves that causes the demand for control of sexual practices and exchanges to emanate directly from citizens, or from the bottom up in a sort of biopolitical feedback loop. Meanwhile, it should be understood that patriarchal societies created their own illegal avenues that provided for exceptions to the rules. If a man were discreet, he could diversify his sexual interests outside of the family. Wealthy men could retain paid mistresses, etc, so long as things were kept quiet. In that light it does seem as if it is the concerned, anti-sex worker feminist position itself that winds up assisting and complementing the age old work of the patriarchy in this respect, as it provides for itself a clandestine means to hide out and to act out.
I don't believe "Patcharcy" is the driving force behind it is those who fear it as a threat to monogomy, as well as condensing would be white knights, like a modern day "white man's burden" attidude, that sex workers need protection from they're own automy.
Cultural monogomy is derived from patriarchal structures. The Bible was quite clear about it.
Do you find that when people don't particularly care for an issue or the way it's being discussed, that they'll express all sorts of outrage and slight that has nothing to do with the substance of the issue at hand in order to sabotage the discussion? Or is it just me that this occurs to?
Not just you, sugarplum.
As a feminist, since at least I can speak as a feminist in *this* thread, my first perspective on hearing about shit I haven't lived or experienced (like migration, war, anti-Black racism, poverty, sex work, learning English as a foreign language, and more) there are two things I've learned to do.
1. Shut the fuck up.
2. Listen.
I will often not do these things, and will be shamed by my ignorance, if not in public, certainly when I reflect on "what the hell was I yammering on about?"
So, any feminist who yammers on against sex work in particular, who has no connection in particular as an ally to sex workers, loses a few notches of credibility to me. Ditto men who are trying to be allies.
Hearing from the voices of sex workers, and they are by no means unanimous, but hearing from the voices that are out there, there is a strong community of those who name choice and autonomy as reasons why they support decriminalization of their own damn jobs. 'Cause, you know, they kinda sorta should know that given that's what they fucking do for a living.
Sadly, this next part needs to be said: These voices do not conflate trafficked women with sex workers. These voices do not conflate any exploited abused children with sex workers. These voices do not even suggest that those who are in the life because of "economic reasons" and who would leave if they had different employment options are in the same position either.
Human Rights for Sex Workers: You Tube
In the OP of the other thread there was a statement to the effect of: 'legalizing sex work does nothing about the perverts,' which was part of the follow on commentary. It made me think about similar statements we have heard as justification for not extending rights in other contexts. There was the beastiality argument around same sex marriage for instance. Plenty of things continue to be said about bi-racial couples. Every struggle which aims to extend or to advance certain social conditions brings forth opposition of all kinds.
Also, it's quite understandable that the prohibitionist argument is heavily invested in denying the status of 'worker' to sex workers. Apparently sex workers don't have a job either, because it's not 'work.' Designating sex work as work, or as a job, would essentially nullify the argument in favour of blocking people's rights, due to the universal understanding that all workers deserve rights and to have their rights respected. This seems to be the goal of prohibition, which is to deny that situations of work exists where sex workers are employed, so as to be able to deny that they have any rights at all as sex workers.
In the other thread that, inevitably and expectedly went adrift, there was the typical charge that we were not reading from the same pages. Anyway:
These are all possibilities within a decriminalized framework. Of course, resources would have to be dedicated toward making the work safe, just as other forms of work gets subsidized in our society. It seems reasonable that those in favour of decriminalization would bring forward such arguments. It seems unreasonable to imply that these are of no account.
It doesn't prevent an entrepeneur from adding benefits to a potential compensation package. It doesn't prevent a worker from arranging their own benefits package, or in combination with others in a group plan.
Not sure if that is the primary aim. Safety is the paramount reason for decriminalization isn't it?
Currently, isn't everyone engaged in sex work excluded from regulation and licensing? If decriminalization can provide a route toward safer solutions, logically everyone in the industry might avail themselves of its provisions, instead of just the pimps.
Nor does decriminalization necessarily increase the risks to health and safety. The opposite might be true however.
People who buy cigarettes are not tested to see if they have cancer or COPD before being allowed to purchase a pack.
I don't know if that is one of the stated aims of decriminalization.
I don't see too many johns bragging about having to pay for sex, or talking about it at the office water cooler. My sense is that because of the way the issue of sexuality is treated in society, all will continue to be be stigmatized if they are in contravention of the norms. I don't see it going away for anyone, anytime soon.
Is that one of the selling points of prohibition?....that it's more dangerous and tends to act like a deterrent? And how easy is the 'drive-thru' method of obtaining services, or picking up the phone from a hotel room and putting in a custom order.
Decriminalization carries with it the potental to make for safer conditions. Prohibition does nothing but to maintain and perpetuate the levels of violence.
It's like saying the pot trafficker should be legalized, but the pot smoker should be placed behind bars...the filthy bastards.
So is coal mining without wearing a mask, in a hypothetical situation where people also sexually harass one another. One of the objectives of decriminalization, if I'm following the arguments correctly, is to regulate such practices and provide for codes of behaviour. If one is a sex worker who is given the choice between working on a street corner late at night in all sorts of weather and dangers, or working in a safe, regulated establishment with no difference in the level of pay, I doubt it would be a 50/50 shot as to which venue they would choose.
When people look for work most places ask for a criminal records check. All types of precautionary paperwork and documentation could be part of a decriminalized system. It's a matter of resources being made available.
Bare minimum standards apply in corporate rest rooms practically everywhere. You don't know what you're getting on you. It doesn't seem to be a problem for most. Eating establishments are hardly visited by health inspectors. They might if there are enough complaints about a particular establishment, which they'll simply close down until things are brought up to standard and then everything gets the green light again. Education, prevention, medicine. All better faciitated in a decriminalized atmosphere.
Buyers of unsafe practices could be relegated to the non-decriminalized stream as it currently exists, at their own risk and everyone elses like it is now. Decriminalization will not make any of that go away. What it does is to provide the sex worker with a potential range of options.
Controlled, regulated, decriminalized working atmoshperes can potentially place sex working conditions on more of a par with everywhere else in terms of available avenues for protection. This applies to unwelcomed sexual behaviour obviously. I don't think it has been substantiated that a regulated sex work industry is incapable of addressing sexual harassment or sexual assault less than anywhere else.
Anyway, the entire article is stuffed to the rafters and brimming in fact with straw like that. How indeed does any other profession where someone's body is being used to generate a living manage to get by every day in full compliance with every workplace law we could think of. I think most industrial settings would run afoul of this or that rule in the run of a week. Government of Canada workplace accident statistics and investigations alone would be enough to highlight the fact that on any given day safety regulations are not being followed. And the Public Service is rife with complaints of harassment and sexual harassment. Nobody thinks to shut government down because of it.
Do occupational safety standards apply in the same way to self-employed workers as they do to workers on a payroll?
As an example, if I work for a contractor and today I'll be driving nails into cinder block, my employer will surely be mandated to provide me with eye protection, and if I'm using a power hammer, also hearing protection.
But if I'm working for myself, am I similarly REQUIRED by law to provide these for myself and use them? I know it's a GOOD IDEA, but I'm curious whether the law would apply to me working for myself in the same way that it would apply to my employer when I'm working for him/her.
Actually, I used to be an uncritical supporter of decrim, and it was working with sex workers, seeing their degradation and exploitation first-hand, treating them for sexually-transmitted infections over and over again, that changed my mind.
Has working with alcoholics -- I'm assuming you have -- changed your views on the legality of alcohol sales?
Wel I'm sure at the very least it has demolished the myth of the happy contented drunk who loves being an alcoholic.
It has?
I think that's a bit like saying that if you work as an emergency room physician you'll quickly learn that you can't go skiiing without breaking your leg.
I guess what I was thinking, though, was that if we could meet and know someone whose whole professional, financial and personal life has been devastated by alcohol use, would we say that if legal alcohol can do this to someone then we need to prohibit the sale and consumption of alcohol? Or would we say that while this person is an extreme but tragic case, we should look for ways to help them that don't include a prohibition on the sale and consumption of alcohol?
I guess I'm thinking that if another "prohibition" were being seriously considered, lots of babblers would find it in themselves to "think outside the box" no matter how horrifying liver failure might be to see.
when it comes to accepting risks, what about abortion? having an abortion seems to carry its own risks, why do feminists argue that its a woman's choice to have an abortion and take the risks, or have plastic surgeries, but using her bvody parts to have sex or sexual activities should be a criminal offense? according to the law, a woman can have as many sexual partners as she want and have as many abortion as she wants, why do we allow unlimited abortions just because a woman choose to have alot of unprotected sex?
If we ban abortion except when the mother's life is at risk for giving birth, than we would be able to protect more women, right?
Actually, my rhetorical point was that it hasn't - at least in the case of happy sex worker myths, like one sees in hollywood movies.
And that's not to say that there aren't some people who manage to treat it like a job, but the reality is that those tragic cases aren't actually the extreme, but rather the norm. That would be the difference between alcohol consumption and prostitution.
New Zealand is typically seen as the standard-bearer for decriminalized sex work. Here is from New Zealand's Prostitution Reform Act:
So, to your original question, see s. 10 above. There are other protections as well in the Act under sections 16, 17, and 18.
Iif i had to do sex work in the future, that is i assume none of you would provide me with a regular income and job training opportunties, I rather have those safety standards than not.
all these talk about safety and standards ..
my mother had to work on a second job on the weekend as a self employed househould cleaner, do you know how many hours she had to work everyday of the week to support my deadbeat brother ? or how she cant afford to take any time off and barely have time to eat lunches in between her jobs? wheres the safety standards to make sure workers are not overworked to death from working two, three or four jobs ? How do we protect workers to make sure they dont overstrain themselves and who are afraid to take any days off jbecasue they might found themselves terminated without cause?
someone who needs money is always at risks of being exploited, i suggest adding more protections that workers demand instead of pretending that they shouldn't be allowed to work altogether. Unless you are ready to give every exploited worker money and support for the rest of their life.
Okay. But it sounds like the only requirement for a self-employed sex worker (as opposed to a brothel owner, a.k.a. "operator of a business of prostitution") is a requirement for the use of condoms or similar. No face masks, no rubber gloves and no haz-mat suits. Would that be to everyone's satisfaction? With the understanding, of course, that workers would be free to wear all of the above if they choose?
well maybe there could be a fine if the client ejeculates on the worker's face without premission
Mr. Magoo, the entire Health and Safety in Employment Act applies to sex workers, if you see s. 10. Nothing in the Prostitution Reform Act limits it. So, the same health and safety rules that apply to all workers also apply to sex workers in New Zealand, along with the additional stipulations in the Prostitution Reform Act.
Got it.
But is there anything in s. 10, or any other s., that seems to call for anything other than the use of a condom?
I don't support making condoms mandatory, LA tried that with the adult industry and they just took they're business elsewhere, it failed. Of course Prostitution and Porn or different, porn actors have a much narrower group.of potential partners, its a more islotaed population, and I do believe in encouraging condom use at least until better technology is availible, but mandating condom use is too intrusive and could drive some underground.
I would also encourage vaccinations and medications that protect from the transmission of HIV, but you can't force people to do that either.
If consent is not given then it would be a criminal act, in Canada or New Zealand. New Zealand's PRA makes it explicitly clear (see below).
From s. 17(2) of New Zealand's Prostitution Reform Act,
That sounds like a municipal law, which folk can usually circumvent by working outside that municipality. I hadn't heard that this failed.
If Canada made condom use a condition of sex work, the similar strategy would be to only do sex work in another country.
"OK, but if that's what you want, you'll need to meet me in Iceland or New Mexico."
*sigh* It's getting hard to follow this thread.
Anyway, I think Brachina was referring to LA's porno movies industry, rather than full service sex work, when stating that "LA tried that with the adult industry and they just took they're business elsewhere, it failed." I've never heard of such a thing happening with full service sex workers.
I used to work in first stage transitional housing (a shelter that people lived in), where some sex workers lived (and worked). Anecdotally, I was told by them and others that they insisted upon condom use. The shelter provided free condoms, and often the sex workers would ask me for some so they could conduct business. It was considered quite normal, and this is without regulation of the matter. Regardless, to decriminalize and set up regulations similar to New Zealand would certainly be helpful. Always best to firmly establish safety stuff, be it wearing seatbelts and being sober while driving a car, or using condoms when engaged in sex work.
Grant it, this is a new twist in the anti-decrim 'logic' that basically says the dangerous status quo for sex workers must remain as is, because of the health risks involved, and because there are no circumstances whereby the workplace can be made safe. They can order soldiers to charge into machine gun fire on behalf of corporations, but don't get anything else on you in a decriminalized sex worker framework is what the prohibitionists are trying to sell.