Real Men Don't Buy Girls'

[fortunateone 156618]

I guess I just do not agree that street prostitution in and of itself causes problems.

 

I think that street drug use, street gangs, street alcoholics, street homeless beggars, and street drug selling causes more problems, and has more of a social impact on the neighbourhood than a couple of ladies standing on a corner waiting for a ride.

 

I think that, if you check the links regarding SW interviews, that the SWs receive far more problems from doing it (as in having garbage thrown at them by passing cars, along with insults, and along with the occasional bad date) than the neighbourhood suffers from them being there.

 

For the past 30 years public solicitation has been illegal and LE has had the full force of the law behind them to crack down on SWs and their clients. And yet year after year, and sting after sting, and charge after charge, they are still out there.

 

Because it doesn't work, none of those laws 'work'. None of those laws will ever work. It's time to use a harm reduction and real alternative solution to what people perceive to be the problem with SWs and their clients. Their clients are no more or less likely to be violent or problematic than an indoor workers clients, but the indoor worker has the benefit of being in a safe place when she answers the call, she has the benefit of talking to the guy prior to being in close contact with him, and she has the privileged position of just saying no. By the time most SWs are in a position of finding even half of that out about their clients, they have already driven away with them.

 

The public solicitation laws and the enforcement and push back of the SWs has increased their danger, and increased the illusion the public has that they are not worthy. One thing Swedish SWs say is that due to the criminalization of their clients that they face far more risks in the work than before. That is a hard line crack down approach: reduced the clients in great numbers. But the SWs are still there, now working under a lot more duress and stress and much more vulnerable, and that is the result of the crack down laws.

 

Before the crackdown laws the ladies had time to size up a client, they don't have that option now. And keeping in mind that a major number of SWs have other issues that drive them, like mental illness or addictions. After many years of being pushed around and charged and arrested by LE, that is the last place they go to when in trouble.

 

These ladies don't have celphones and computers, and they don't have a place to bring clients (well, there are a couple of places now set up in Vancouver that does allow that by simply not forbidding it), and car dates really are their only solution. These are not the women guys are calling up to come and do an outcall to their hotel or home, and even if they did, these women would have no means of getting there anyway. We are talking about the 20-40 dates, not 200-400 :)

[JoyfulC 132299]

I guess I just do not agree that street prostitution in and of itself causes problems.

 

I lived in two red-light districts in the 80s. Believe me, prostitution was a problem. I'll agree that the prostitutes themselves weren't the biggest problem, but the fact that street prostitution was going on was a huge problem. I don't think that anyone who has ever lived or attempted to run a business in or near a red-light district would agree that street prostitution doesn't cause problems.

 

I think that, if you check the links regarding SW interviews, that the SWs receive far more problems from doing it (as in having garbage thrown at them by passing cars, along with insults, and along with the occasional bad thedate) than the neighbourhood suffers from them being there.

 

Enforcement operations are generated by complaints from within the community. Obviously the community has problems if there are complaints.

 

For the past 30 years public solicitation has been illegal and LE has had the full force of the law behind them to crack down on SWs and their clients. And yet year after year, and sting after sting, and charge after charge, they are still out there.

 

Because it doesn't work, none of those laws 'work'. None of those laws will ever work.

 

Unfortunately, the same can be said of just about any law. Look at speeding, for example. Everybody does it. Should they just pull down the speed limit signs and let people drive whatever speed they want? Drinking and driving has been a particularly intransigent problem to solve, and to date, the laws still aren't tremendously effective (although, greater penalties have had the best impact on people's choices to date). But since people obviously want to drink and drive, do you also agree we should just abandon our DUI laws and enforcement and admit defeat? Littering is another. There are laws against it, but still people do it. Does that make it okay?

 

It's time to use a harm reduction and real alternative solution to what people perceive to be the problem with SWs and their clients.

 

Yes, but the harm here is being done to the community. They view street sweeps as being harm reduction.

 

One thing you need to understand is that society feels no obligation to make streetwalking safer nor to make it easier for them to do their business. The community has made it clear that it has little problem with prostitution, as long as it's done in private. Whatever reason someone feels they can't or don't want to do it in private, that's not society's problem. Society's problem is that they do it in public, on the streets in front of their homes and businesses.

 

Myself? I never complain about streetwalkers and their customers. But then, they're not doing it out in front of my house. Rather, I live next to a very busy intersection that people LOVE to roar through. My next-door neighbour has it even worse than me. She's right on the corner, and I swear, it sounds like cars, trucks and motorcycles are tearing right through her living room. (Which hasn't happened yet, but never say never.) Is it necessary that people be this noisy? No. Every once in a while, an OPP cruiser parks out here, and then, people drive very sensibly and QUIETLY. They don't zoom up to the corner and stand on the brakes. They don't step on it halfway over the bridge. They don't have their radios turned up so loud you can feel their bass indoors with your windows closed. You can barely hear the traffic out there when there's a cop on the corner. Isn't it too bad that people need to drive like assholes unless there are visibly potential consequences to their doing so? I imagine many communities feel the same way about the odd street sweep. They probably wish they'd happen more often.

 

Their clients are no more or less likely to be violent or problematic than an indoor workers clients, but the indoor worker has the benefit of being in a safe place when she answers the call, she has the benefit of talking to the guy prior to being in close contact with him, and she has the privileged position of just saying no. By the time most SWs are in a position of finding even half of that out about their clients, they have already driven away with them.

 

I disagree with you. Street prostitutes face more violent and problematic customers _because_ they don't have the ability to screen. As you say, by the time they even suspect something's wrong, they're already in the car. Many serial killers who preyed upon streetwalkers never even got violent until after the fact. Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer, who may have killed more than 100 women, all or almost all streetwalkers, said he killed them because he didn't want to have to pay them.

 

Streetwalking is inherently dangerous.

 

The public solicitation laws and the enforcement and push back of the SWs has increased their danger, and increased the illusion the public has that they are not worthy. One thing Swedish SWs say is that due to the criminalization of their clients that they face far more risks in the work than before. That is a hard line crack down approach: reduced the clients in great numbers. But the SWs are still there, now working under a lot more duress and stress and much more vulnerable, and that is the result of the crack down laws.

 

And yet, they still chose to do it. Are you saying that this means that we have to allow streetwalkers and their customers to do absolutely anything they want, anywhere they want to, because any attempt to crack down on them will only make things more difficult and dangerous for them? Isn't that a bit like them holding themselves hostage to get what they want?

 

Perhaps streetwalkers should be allowed to entertain their customers in libraries and public buildings, or walk their customers right into businesses and private homes, because if we don't let them do that, they won't be safe.

 

You have to draw the line somewhere, and society has drawn in. They don't want prostitutes and their customers on their streets.

 

Before the crackdown laws the ladies had time to size up a client, they don't have that option now. And keeping in mind that a major number of SWs have other issues that drive them, like mental illness or addictions. After many years of being pushed around and charged and arrested by LE, that is the last place they go to when in trouble.

 

Then perhaps, instead of being arrested and charged, they should be arrested and taken for psychiatric or substance abuse assessments. Maybe instead of turning a blind eye while they make bad choices that harm our communities and pose a danger to themselves, we should be trying to help them dry out or get onto some sort of effective treatment.

 

These ladies don't have celphones and computers, and they don't have a place to bring clients (well, there are a couple of places now set up in Vancouver that does allow that by simply not forbidding it), and car dates really are their only solution. These are not the women guys are calling up to come and do an outcall to their hotel or home, and even if they did, these women would have no means of getting there anyway. We are talking about the 20-40 dates, not 200-400 :)

 

Again, though, that's not the community's problem to solve. The community's problem is that they have all kinds of craziness going on due to street prostitution and the problems it attracts. I don't like to see the streetwalkers charged, but I think street customers should be. You can't blame communities for demanding street sweeps.

[VedaSloan 119179]

Joyful C, for some reason your posts are appearing as blank!

 

I can read them when someone quotes them, but otherwise no (this is also happening with a couple of other posters in this thread, not sure why!)

 

The "nuisance" to the community that so-called streetwalkers cause is so overblown it's ridiculous. You also have no proof that the problems caused are because of street-based workers. As someone else astutely pointed out, there is also the issue of homelessness and vagrancy. I recall a community meeting in Hintonburg where the leader of the association brought in a USED TAMPON in a jar (I wish I was joking) as "evidence" of all the whores dirtying up the neighbourhood sidewalk. As if that's evidence of anything other than LITTERING. Maybe there should be campaigns directed at people not to litter and leave their condoms in the street. Because that's the real issue here according to you. The "neighbourhood disturbance" issue. Because yeah, making sure there aren't some condoms in the street is SO MUCH more important than someone's life. Which is what's at stake with the laws criminalizing street based sex workers.

 

And as for street-based sex work and licensing--there is such a program in Germany, including safe spaces to conduct the actual appointment. It has its own particular issues which I won't get into here, but don't act like there aren't alternatives to just erasing street prostitution entirely. These are people we're talking about here, not garbage that you can just throw out.

 

And I'm pretty sure my street-walking friend works a full-time job which only pays minimum wage. And excuse me, but no, welfare or other government supports DO NOT pay enough to live on. I say this from experience. And who are you to judge what someone spends their money on? I love how automatically this is her fault because you think she spends too much money, etc. Do you always judge people you've never met so harshly?

 

I'm not going to discuss this with you further. Your thinly veiled personal insults are tiring.

[JoyfulC 132299]

Actually, I hadn't insulted Berlin (who obviously has me blocked) yet, but she may find what I have to say now insulting. At least at this moment. She seems to me to be an intelligent young woman. I'm thinking she may one day mature to the point of being able to separate reality from wishful thinking and histrionics. Then perhaps she'll understand what I'm trying to say.

 

It does us no service to lash out at communities that are fed up with street prostitution, shaming them and especially accusing them of being complicit in violence against streetwalkers. If you ask them how best to keep streetwalkers safe, they will tell you "get them off the streets." Don't believe me? Ask them. And I happen to agree with them. I don't see how you can make streetwalking safe.

 

As for jumping on a high horse about nuisance, it's obvious some of our fearless activist SPs (who have decided to speak for all of us) have never worked in situations where morality was the trigger for law enforcement. In our present situation in Canada, in most places, if you're out of sight, you're out of mind. Consenting adults can pretty much do as they please in private. But I've worked places where there were cops dedicated full time to ferreting out prostitutes and their customers, no matter how they worked, simply on the basis of enforcing morality. I've worked in places where the cops would bust an SP and get her to turn on her customers, and vice versa. You want to change the laws? Be careful what you wish for.

 

I find it interesting that no one has answered my points about how we should equate their arguments to things like drunk driving, speeding, littering, parking wherever one damned well pleases.

 

You can say that there's always been street prostitution. The same argument goes for community complaints and the sweeps they trigger. I do worry about streetwalkers, and I don't for a minute believe anyone who puts herself on the street is going to be safer just because she can do it with impunity. Count me among those who prays these girls get busted before they get hurt, because as awful as getting busted might be, that's not the worst thing that can happen to them out there. I'll admit, there might be a better alternative to busting them, but that alternative must involve getting them off the streets. Prostitution isn't the problem. Streetwalking is the problem.

[Guest N***he**Ont**y]

I think I have opened up a real can of worms by posting this thread. Come on people discuss this like adults.

[JoyfulC 132299]

How about an adult challenge:

 

Will any of the SPs here who are concerned about the safety of streetwalkers go so far as to HELP get people off the streets by overcoming the problems that put them out there? This help would include:

 

-- Providing cell phones for them or allowing them to advertise and take messages on your cell numbers.

 

-- Let them see customers at your incall location.

 

-- Help them place ads online or include them in your print advertising.

 

-- Provide transportation to them so they, too, can do outcalls.

 

Unless and until you're ready to do anything yourselves, you're being ridiculous to demand that the community do anything for them.

 

Put your money where your mouth is, people. Adopt a streetwalker and get her off the streets. Show us how much you care.

[Andee 220524]

How about an adult challenge:

 

Will any of the SPs here who are concerned about the safety of streetwalkers go so far as to HELP get people off the streets by overcoming the problems that put them out there? This help would include:

 

-- Providing cell phones for them or allowing them to advertise and take messages on your cell numbers.

 

-- Let them see customers at your incall location.

 

-- Help them place ads online or include them in your print advertising.

 

-- Provide transportation to them so they, too, can do outcalls.

 

Unless and until you're ready to do anything yourselves, you're being ridiculous to demand that the community do anything for them.

 

Put your money where your mouth is, people. Adopt a streetwalker and get her off the streets. Show us how much you care.

 

I have been criticized for doing this and admit sometimes have had to distant myself from this person depending on what they have going on in their life which is sometimes hard to determine because I have limited contact with her because of her lifestyle issues. But having had very short stint (2 months) on the street back in 1997, I can tell you, I know first hand what it's like to be "out there".

 

I sometimes post ads on CL a lady who has no Internet who works from her apartment but used to be on the street. Initially she was going to give me some money for my trouble, but after 6 years, I've only received $40 from her and have pretty well resigned myself to the fact that it's not going to happen. When she gets $, it gets spent right away. I know what she uses the money for, and perhaps I should not be enabling her but she is a good soul who does not rob clients and will buy food for her dog before she eats. So I figure perhaps I am helping her avoid wandering out onto Merivale Road and getting beat up or robbed by the Fentalyn patch addicts who are epidemic in that area of town.

 

I don't expect a pat on the back for doing this, but if I were in her position, I would hope I had one person I could call who might put my ad up.

 

When I lived in Vanier, I used to always carry condoms on me because when I got off the bus to walk home, I would always get asked by one of the girls if I had a cigarette. I would say no, I don't smoke, but if I had change, I'd give them 50 cents so they could buy a couple from the guy at the corner store and I'd always ask them if they needed a condom, and they'd say yes.

 

That's it for me.

[JoyfulC 132299]

Angela, you make a good case in point. It hasn't happened in a very long time, but back in the 70s, I had a roommate who was the original bleeding heart. She'd see some poor beat up streetwalker, and drag her home where we'd feed her, help her heal, try to give her advice and a head start on making better money, being independent , and getting off the streets to safer working conditions. But without fail, every single time, once they were able to work again, their old pimps came around and off they went, back to the streets. And most of the time, our home was broken into shortly after that.

 

I'm not saying that streetwalkers are bad people. Some that I knew were beautiful people. But they were highly self-destructive and consistently made bad choices for themselves. One thing became immediately obvious: if a person makes bad choices for themselves, they're not going to make better choices with respect to others.

 

And that's why I wouldn't take my own challenge from above. And why I also understand why people don't want streetwalkers in their neighbourhoods.

 

Also, I wish people who are so critical here would understand that I know a LOT of what it's like not to have resources to work. I come from a time when you either worked for an agency or a massage parlour, or you were on the street. Except some of us found a third alternative back in the day. We used to do something we called "freelancing," which was sort of an upscale alternative to streetwalking. It involved going into lounges in business class hotels to pick up business. It differed from streetwalking in a number of ways. You were on private property, so you could be thrown out and even banned if the establishment didn't like you. There were strict codes for dress, and even stricter (although unwritten, unspoken) codes for behaviour. Basically, you had to be an asset to the establishment, and never cause it any trouble. The hotels weren't stupid. They knew their customers were looking for these services, and they knew there were a lot of women willing to provide them. They had no use for any woman who was going to make their lounge look seedy, nor any SP whose business with their guests was going to result in problems or calls to hotel security. In short, they knew whores were a fact of life, but they only wanted the best on their premises. If you wanted to be welcome, you had to meet or exceed expectations.

 

I did very well by freelancing. I saw other women getting run off, night after night, but I was always welcome. And when I was away for a while, when I'd walk back into a lounge I hadn't been in for weeks or months, everybody was thrilled to see me. In more than a decade of freelancing, I rarely paid for a drink. Once they got to know me, they were always on the house. (But they were also always virgins. One rule was, you weren't there to get loaded.)

 

I'm sure there are streetwalkers who are obnoxious and who cause problems, but I've never seen this with my own eyes. That's not to say I haven't seen huge problems caused by the streetwalking business. Most of it, in my opinion, is caused by the obnoxious behaviour of the customers. They're the ones milling around and around, acting like a neighbourhood exists for no other purpose than their interests. They're the ones who accost, often rudely, women who obviously aren't working. If there are used condoms on the ground, well, guess whose possession those condoms were in before they got tossed.

 

This is why, and I'll say it again (although I'm sure people like Berlin don't want to hear it because she's too busy assigning opinions to me that she'd rather argue with), I'd rather see enforcement target street customers and target them hard. As we've seen with drinking and driving laws, even the harshest penalties are sometimes not enough to spur people to modify their behaviour. But at the very least, I think enforcement policies should be, what they call in government, "revenue generating." They should look to recover the highest possible percentage of enforcement costs from fines and property seizures from the customers who are charged. Charge more of them and drive penalties to the max. Don't worry about charging streetwalkers. As the business dries up, they'll go away on their own.

 

I don't know if I knew anyone with a DUI charge before I moved out of town. Out here in the boonies, it seems that a large number of men in the community I live in have them. One thing that surprises me about DUI is that there is an automatic 3-month license suspension upon being charged. I'm still trying to figure out how that can even be legal. How can one be penalized before being tried? But somehow or other, that's the rule. Maybe we need something similar for street customers. I think John School is a joke.

[Kathryn Bardot 99339]

This is why, and I'll say it again (although I'm sure people like Berlin don't want to hear it because she's too busy assigning opinions to me that she'd rather argue with), I'd rather see enforcement target street customers and target them hard.

Targeting customers is a sure-fire way to make things worse for street-based workers. If clients know they are at risk of being arrested/charged, they are going to be less likely to allow time for workers to size them up curb-side. They are going to want the worker to jump in the car right away so that they do not draw attention, and this means that in order to get a call the worker is not going to be able to properly assess the client.

 

I would much rather see supportive housing for street-based workers and increased access to social support programs (see: http://www.pivotlegal.org/pivot-points/blog/housing-committed-to-sex-worker-safety-is-a-critical-part-of-the-solution)

[JoyfulC 132299]

Targeting customers is a sure-fire way to make things worse for street-based workers. If clients know they are at risk of being arrested/charged, they are going to be less likely to allow time for workers to size them up curb-side. They are going to want the worker to jump in the car right away so that they do not draw attention, and this means that in order to get a call the worker is not going to be able to properly assess the client.

 

I would much rather see supportive housing for street-based workers and increased access to social support programs (see: http://www.pivotlegal.org/pivot-points/blog/housing-committed-to-sex-worker-safety-is-a-critical-part-of-the-solution)

 

That may be true, but please remember that the community does not have an obligation to make streetwalking safer, easier (or more lucrative, for that matter).

 

People say there will always be streetwalking because some men just prefer to be able to hop in their car, drive around, see the "goods," pick someone up, and have it all over and done with, quickly and conveniently. And because they've made it clear that there will always be a demand for this, everyone else should be cowed into accommodating them.

 

These are the same men who can't be bothered properly disposing of their used condoms. They have consistently made it clear that they'd prefer to just whip them off and throw them on the ground for someone else to deal with. That's their preference, and since they have consistently made it clear that this is their preference and will always be their preference (and since, after all, they are MEN), then I suppose the community must accommodate them by finding someone else to pick up their jizz-filled condoms. Right?

[backrubman 64800]

That's their preference, and since they have consistently made it clear that this is their preference and will always be their preference (and since, after all, they are MEN), then I suppose the community must accommodate them by finding someone else to pick up their jizz-filled condoms. Right?

 

Oddly I own a piece of property in a small town that is surely hundreds of miles or more from the nearest street worker (or even inside escort) yet I end up having to clean up used condoms and needles all the time. To me it's just a more icky form of littering.

[Kathryn Bardot 99339]

That may be true, but please remember that the community does not have an obligation to make streetwalking safer, easier (or more lucrative, for that matter).

We have an obligation not to put anyone at increased risk of harm, which is what targeting these clients would do. This is why the solicitation charge was challenged.

 

People say there will always be streetwalking because some men just prefer to be able to hop in their car, drive around, see the "goods," pick someone up, and have it all over and done with, quickly and conveniently. And because they've made it clear that there will always be a demand for this, everyone else should be cowed into accommodating them.

 

These are the same men who can't be bothered properly disposing of their used condoms. They have consistently made it clear that they'd prefer to just whip them off and throw them on the ground for someone else to deal with. That's their preference, and since they have consistently made it clear that this is their preference and will always be their preference (and since, after all, they are MEN), then I suppose the community must accommodate them by finding someone else to pick up their jizz-filled condoms. Right?

Then go after THAT. I'm sure there are clients of street-based workers who don't do these things. Why should they be targeted because of the actions of others? When outdoor parks were "known" to be used by gay men for sex because used condoms were found around, would it then make sense for police to go after all gay men? Homelessness and addiction issues also contribute to the problem of used condoms and drugs paraphernalia being found outdoors. Should we round up all the homeless persons and throw them in jail?

Again: target what is actually the problem, not what you think is the cause of the problem.

[fortunateone 156618]

How about an adult challenge:

 

Will any of the SPs here who are concerned about the safety of streetwalkers go so far as to HELP get people off the streets by overcoming the problems that put them out there? This help would include:

 

-- Providing cell phones for them or allowing them to advertise and take messages on your cell numbers.

 

-- Let them see customers at your incall location.

 

-- Help them place ads online or include them in your print advertising.

 

-- Provide transportation to them so they, too, can do outcalls.

 

Unless and until you're ready to do anything yourselves, you're being ridiculous to demand that the community do anything for them.

 

Put your money where your mouth is, people. Adopt a streetwalker and get her off the streets. Show us how much you care.

 

 

 

 

All of these alternatives are not only available but being used by groups who do work with SWs, and are used by SWs, but you seem to think that that is the only thing that puts them working on the street rather than sit at home waiting for a phone call.

 

They won't do what people want them to do, so they want LE to force them to do it.

 

I deal with reality. LE has been forcing them to do what the NIMBY's want for the past 30 years, and at the end of every day, the SWs are always still out there.

 

What exactly do you want them to do? It isn't illegal for them to stand outside of a building. It isn't illegal for them to exchange $ for sexual services. LE are already enforcing the existing laws. And in places where there are no such laws, the SWs are still out there. In places where everything is done to make sure that no one has to go to the street, the SWs are still out there.

 

And people who are actively stalking them and pulling them inside, and trying to force them to work the way they want them to work are failing daily and miserably. Because just like you can't force people to drive the speed limit or not get behind the wheel of their car after 3 drinks, you can't force the SWs to work the way that works for you.

 

 

I don't want to live in a society that thinks that some people should be harnessed, corralled, and shoved around simply because a small percentage of their customers are idiots. A small percentage of indoor worker's clients are also idiots. And again, I don't appreciate having what I said reworked: the SW used to have enough time to size up a client, to reduce her risk. The indoor worker does have this opportunity before the client even gets to the door. I would like the SW to have the same opportunity to be able to work safer. I don't think that includes harrassing her good customers, which will only leave her with the bad ones.

[Guest Ro****]

The language being used in this campaign I think is actually counter-productive to the cause it is trying to address. What is a "real" man anyway? What I understand here is that these people are suggesting that the only "REAL" men and women are involved in monogomous and sacred matrimony? That the rest of society isn't real...? Or is it just that Johns aren't actually men, and instead are aliens...? And how can you put a price tag on a woman? Does having an intimate relationship with a women somehow attach her to you before conception? Really? Suggesting a woman can be bought in the first place is what contributes to the idea of a depreciating "value" of a woman based on her sexuality. That is actually where the violence that these people are trying to stop originates from, if you ask me.

[JoyfulC 132299]

All of these alternatives are not only available but being used by groups who do work with SWs, and are used by SWs, but you seem to think that that is the only thing that puts them working on the street rather than sit at home waiting for a phone call.

 

Wait, if anyone points out that they don't have to be out there and can work indoors, then we're told, no, they can't, they don't have the resources to do so. But when someone suggests that they be offered the resources, then it switches up and becomes about what they want.

 

Backrubman tells us that he knew a streetwalker who had a great apartment she could have had people over to (she obviously had him over) and saved up for her retirement. So why was it necessary for her to be on the street again? I think that sort of story only makes people more angry. It's like, it's one thing to be annoyed with street beggars, but when you read an article in the paper about professional street beggars living in some swanky house in the suburbs and driving a nice car, that only hardens people's hearts against all street beggars all the more.

 

They won't do what people want them to do, so they want LE to force them to do it.

 

I don't think the people in these communities really care what else these streetwalkers and their customers do, as long as it isn't street prostitution in their neighbourhood. It is against the law, and they expect LE to enforce the law. What's so evil about that?

 

I deal with reality. LE has been forcing them to do what the NIMBY's want for the past 30 years, and at the end of every day, the SWs are always still out there.

 

And that brings us back to the drunk drivers, the speeders, the litterers. Hell, you can even use this argument about kiddy diddlers. No matter how much law enforcement there is, we still have perverts who want to mess sexually with children. So? How is that an argument for abandoning the laws or enforcement efforts?

 

I'm guessing that street enforcement is a lot like RIDE program enforcement in my area. People are drinking and driving, being crazy, then the OPP busts somebody one weekend, and it sobers everyone else up. For a while. At first, it puts a complete stop to things. Then people drink and drive, but don't get too outrageous about it. But when the OPP aren't back for a month, next thing you know, they're reeling drunk behind the wheel, swerving all over, driving home at 15 kph with their lights off at 1 am because they're so drunk they think they're being careful. No, the enforcement doesn't completely eradicate drunk driving, but when there is periodic enforcement, it at least quiets things down for a while and keeps the overall average level of drunk driving down a bit. If there weren't periodic RIDE enforcement operations, people would just be hog wild drunk driving all the time.

 

What exactly do you want them to do? It isn't illegal for them to stand outside of a building. It isn't illegal for them to exchange $ for sexual services. LE are already enforcing the existing laws.

 

But it is illegal to communicate in a public place or a place open to public view for the purposes of prostitution. I imagine when streetwalkers and their customers are busted, that's the nature of the charge. Am I wrong?

 

I don't know how to explain this to you. It's legal for me to hold a pillow. But it's not legal for me to hold a pillow over my husband's face in his sleep for the purposes of suffocating him. I doubt that a viable murder defense would be that I was legally holding a pillow.

 

In places where everything is done to make sure that no one has to go to the street, the SWs are still out there.

 

And in places where everything is done to ensure that there is shelter for everyone, you still find homeless sleeping on the streets. Someone mentioned something about mental illness/substance abuse a while back, and frankly, I wonder if that isn't part of the problem that puts people on the street (at least the streetwalkers, anyway--not so sure about the street customers).

 

And people who are actively stalking them and pulling them inside, and trying to force them to work the way they want them to work are failing daily and miserably. Because just like you can't force people to drive the speed limit or not get behind the wheel of their car after 3 drinks, you can't force the SWs to work the way that works for you.

 

So because you can't force people means you must abandon any law you can't enforce 100%? You're saying you think we should have no speeding laws or enforcement? No drinking and driving laws or enforcement?

 

Exactly what laws do you figure we have a right to have and enforce? Only those that no one would break anyway?

 

I don't want to live in a society that thinks that some people should be harnessed, corralled, and shoved around simply because a small percentage of their customers are idiots.

 

Well, get over it, because you do live in a society which has the right to demand a certain level of responsible behaviour from people in public. And society gets to decide where to draw the line.

 

And again, I don't appreciate having what I said reworked: the SW used to have enough time to size up a client, to reduce her risk. The indoor worker does have this opportunity before the client even gets to the door.

 

I'm just not buying it. If someone is self-destructive enough and makes such poor choices as to put herself out on the street, I don't for a minute believe she's going to magically develop this great intuition about people, given a few extra minutes to size someone up. You and I both know that desperation drives them to the streets, and it will drive them to take a risk rather than lose a chance for some cash in hand too.

 

Again, I'd remind you that Gary Ridgeway, who may have killed more than 100 streetwalkers, had no problem getting women to hop in his car and let him take them somewhere to do business. I'm guessing most of them were quite surprised when he killed them instead of paying them, because up until then, he probably wasn't too much different than most men they worked for. So let's not bullshit each other that streetwalkers have any tremendous safety advantage if given a couple extra minutes to size someone up.

 

And frankly, while I have intuition, of course, I don't even rely on it and I've been in this business all my adult life and then some. Sure, I like to talk to someone, get a bead on his attitude, but I also like to have something on him, just in case my instincts were off. These days, you can't just phone up and order a pizza delivered without some sort of ID. That's the world we live in. So to jump in someone's car and let them drive you off without even leaving anything behind with your back up person to ensure you get back safely, or that person gets a follow-up visit from the cops, is just insane.

 

I would like the SW to have the same opportunity to be able to work safer. I don't think that includes harrassing her good customers, which will only leave her with the bad ones.

 

As long as she's working the streets, she will not be safer. She may be safer from being busted, if you could somehow convince communities that they have an obligation to put up with the problems her choices make, but she won't be physically safer. Again, the problem isn't prostitution; it's streetwalking.

 

The thing that is never mentioned here is how many people get off the streets. I imagine there are people who started out on the streets in desperation, but quickly realized the risks were too much, the rewards too meager, and who took their earnings from the street and used it to set themselves up in safer, more comfortable and more socially responsible circumstances.

 

I know a number of customers who initially went to the streets when they first started hobbying. A couple were busted, and it was a hard lesson learned. But if they'd done their homework _before_ going to the streets, they might have sidestepped that tragedy. Most smartened up along the way, and came to realize that going to the streets was dangerous for them, both legally and physically.

 

Just as with drinking and driving, some people do smarten up and decide to behave more responsibly and make better decisions for themselves. The fact that some don't, and continue creating problems all the while exposing themselves to unnecessary risks, is a lousy argument for abandoning the laws or the street enforcement policies.

[JoyfulC 132299]

Actually, no, Backrubman. Working the streets wasn't necessary 15-20 years ago in the Toronto area. I came to Toronto in 1982, and at that time, you could advertise in the Globe & Mail. The following year, The Buy & Sell Bargain Hunter picked up our ads, and it wasn't much longer after that NOW Magazine was carrying them. So yes, you could be an independent in Toronto at that time without having to resort to the streets.

 

I wonder if the real difference wasn't what one could make on the street. Obviously overhead is pretty low, and whether it's true or not, I don't know, but the police insisted that many streetwalkers were making $700-$1500 a day on the streets. That was more than anyone I knew advertising was making. It's probably the same deal as the professional panhandlers who prey upon people's sympathies but are probably living better than most of the people they hit up.

 

As for drunk driving laws in the DR, could it be that it's not actually that people drive so much better drunk there but that things like insurance and litigation and accident/crime reporting are different there? I think many of these "island paradises" that seek to lure Canadians and others with money go to any lengths to keep official crime rates and such low. How? They look the other way and pretend it doesn't happen. A couple years back, my daughter's iPhone was stolen from her room in a resort in Jamaica where she was on assignment. The person who ended up with it phoned me and a number of other people in her contact list trying to defraud us. From Canada and the US, we provided hotel security with everything they needed to take to the police to track down the criminals. But no. No police report was made. The hotel promptly cut my daughter a cheque for the amount of a brand new phone, and that was the end of it. Screw justice. It was a small price to pay to pretend such crimes simply don't happen there. I suspect the same is true for drinking and driving. I'm sure there's just as much tragedy there as a result of it, but it's covered up to maintain the pristine image as a paradise for those who can afford to pay.

[O'Cahla 4352]

what was the original thought of this thread?

[CristyCurves 169032]

Ridiculous-I've heard this before, alot of men and women have this attitude. My rebuttal- Real women don't screw assholes!!Peoples attitudes have to change and realize the people in this profession and the profession itself are deserving of respect, safety, laws that protect it/us, and the stopping of the condescending attitudes it's place in society. It's/we are here to stay!