Unintended consequences: strip clubs?

[whiteman 14028]

But there is a problem here: If they define it precisely, then everything outside that definition becomes legal, which is not what they want.

Exactly, and I don't think the Conservatives are one bit worried if the legislation sweeps in stripclubs into the equation. They can get rid of that too. Unlike what the article's author thinks, even strip clubs aren't widely accepted in Canada, especially in small towns. For a small town escorts and massage parlours may not be much of a problem, but strip clubs are a big flashing public problem, and now they will have the leeway to get rid of them.

[nerdnerd 449]

Exactly, and I don't think the Conservatives are one bit worried if the legislation sweeps in stripclubs into the equation.

 

I have read the legislation briefly; I want to read it again.

One thing I want to do is search/replace "prostitute" for "lawyer" or "politician"

and see how it reads.

 

But, let's take a capital-C christian couple full of family values. She doesn't work outside the home. He brings home the money, and gives her some, and she has sex with him. How is this different?

[2bigalow2 2936]

I have read the legislation briefly; I want to read it again.

One thing I want to do is search/replace "prostitute" for "lawyer" or "politician"

and see how it reads.

 

But, let's take a capital-C christian couple full of family values. She doesn't work outside the home. He brings home the money, and gives her some, and she has sex with him. How is this different?

 

getting married is more expensive than spending $300 a week on an Sp. Imagine to live a middle class life style u need 3.5 million over 20 years that's buying clothes for a family of 4 house a car every 7 years and expense if u were to remain single and rent and spend $300 week on an Sp you would need about 1.25 million.

[scribbles 6031]

I find arguments like that utterly ridiculous. Comparing a once a week SP "hobby" with daily companionship, let alone getting into the differences between a romantic relationship and a commercial, largely physical transaction, is like comparing apples with plutonium. Yes, relationships entail a financial cost. Yes, they can be expensive. But, this neither invalidates them when positioned as a cost-to-benefit analysis, nor does it address the fact that this bill could involve more than SP transactions.

Seriously!

[canuckhooker 19202]

It is not unintended. It is all-encompassing. How can you say a prostitute is being forced to sell her body, and not say the same about a dancer in a contact club, or an MA. They have kept it like this to avoid loopholes. Can you imagine how they would try and define a sexual service, and decide where to draw the line?

 

It is still going to the SCC and the outlawing of things like SC's that have been around forever is one more reason this will not last.

[Royalfun 55448]

Strip clubs, massage parlors, and so many other kind of businesses may be targeted by C36.

 

But C36 is suppose to target the customer, the one that will buy some services considered as sexual services. In a way, it focuses not only on the act of paying for something, but on the intention of the buyer with his purchase.

 

The issue is what are the "sexual services" that will be considered as illegal. And it seems that it will not rely on the one who offer the services, but on the one that buy, What does that means ?

 

In many ways, something may be obvious: getting a FS, or BJ, and paying for it. Some may be less obvious: getting a massage, from a MA or a RMT: the customer will be nude, he will receive a body treatment and probably some satisfaction. For some people, only to be touched has a sexual dimension, even if the provider has no intentional sexual provision. So who will decide if the customer bought "sexual services" ? Some people go to see a porn movie, and they consider that for themselves as a sexual service; is it?

 

What about the Internet, one-on-one webcam services, dating services, and so on. What is a sexual service bought by a "John" that will be considered as an illegal act ?

 

My understanding of C36 is that it is not illegal to offer sexual services, but it is illegal to buy them So the offer has, in a way, no incidence on the illegality of the criminal act. Everything, except advertisement, will be to prove that a person has bought a service with the intention to receive a sexual service. How to prove that ?

 

I'm sure that the providers will never say that they offer sexual services; why they would? They will say that they offer companionship, pleasure, cuddling, understanding... and it will be true.

 

That's my thoughts for now. C36 remains a non-sense, brought by a political party blinded by an ideology that not rely on the people. They do that for C36, but they do that for the pipeline, for the election process, the social services...

[fortunateone 156618]

But there is a problem here: If they define it precisely, then everything outside that definition becomes legal, which is not what they want.

 

Exactly, but I was looking forward for them to define it lol. Ask anyone on the street, and sps only do one thing. The concept of hj or bj only (well maybe they get the bj only kind of session) but as far as a lot of outsiders are concerned, sps are there for one thing only: penetration that results in client orgasm. And that is so they can call it paid rape.

 

As I have questioned on places like rabble for example, do they then, those abolitionists, have any change of mind about sex work when they are told that many, especially say in TO or where there is a distinction of the MP (massage provider) who is not touched, does not get nude, and provides only a hj at the end. If she isn't being touched, then how can they decide it is violating her in any way? The hypocrisy of course is right there.

 

If the govt defines it, then they have to admit to the fact of all sex work, and that many never do FS, and many who do provide that, see a lot of people who still don't want that, and in addition there are the clients (maybe a small percentage, but still there) who don't even want any sort of happy ending, they are just happy to be there.

 

And BDSM, well, yet another category to be defined :)

 

Additional Comments:

It is not unintended. It is all-encompassing. How can you say a prostitute is being forced to sell her body, and not say the same about a dancer in a contact club, or an MA. They have kept it like this to avoid loopholes. Can you imagine how they would try and define a sexual service, and decide where to draw the line?

 

It is still going to the SCC and the outlawing of things like SC's that have been around forever is one more reason this will not last.

 

 

And no one has yet brought up the possibility that dancers could be pimped out, and/or forced to work. And yet isn't that what the big scandal about bringing in EE women who thought they were going to be domestics and ended up having to be dancers, with a side line of sex work? Isn't that the reason to block migrant work visas in SCs? (memory hazy on all those things, but why is the focus on sex workers getting paid for things that 'nice women' apparently would never do unless they are desperate, and therefore they are said to be doing it without choice, but no one says that about a dancer, a porn actor or nude picture model (I don't think they know about webcamming as sex work lol).

 

But in any case, some of those things to an sp would be very desperate, like getting or being naked in front of complete strangers in public, and hoping they throw some money your way so you can pay the bills (exaggeration as to what abolitionists should be saying about it, but they are completely silent on this topic).

 

 

oh, i forgot, i watched a video interview with a Swedish sex worker (Pye jacobsen i think) and she was saying the same things, well the Swedish govt then had to define sexual services, and they had such a hard time, and then they settled on something like 'touching of genitals by the other person'.

 

So if C-36 defines it as sexual touching by another person, dancers are out of C-36 concerns, but so are BDSM most activities, and webcamming/nude model/porn. actually i think that if you look at city licenses for body rub parlours and/or attendants something similar is used regarding genitals :)

[nerdnerd 449]

My point is: how is being married to someone who does not work outside the home different than having a live-in prostitute... for the purpose of this law?

[Ice4fun 78396]

My point is: how is being married to someone who does not work outside the home different than having a live-in prostitute... for the purpose of this law?

 

That is a really terrible comparison.... I agree that the government should stay the hell out of the bedrooms and sex lives of adult Canadians but comparing a loving committed relationship with a sexual business arrangements is not relevant to the discussion in my opinion.

 

Just my opinion

[nerdnerd 449]

That is a really terrible comparison.... I agree that the government should stay the hell out of the bedrooms and sex lives of adult Canadians but comparing a loving committed relationship with a sexual business arrangements is not relevant to the discussion in my opinion.

 

Just my opinion

@Ice4fun, the question is, how can a police officer and jury, objectively tell the difference?

What constitutes payment? If I provide for food, shelter, clothing, and a BMW for my favorite prostitute, but no actual cash, is there a sexual business arrangement?

[scribbles 6031]

Really, nerdnerd?

It's not that hard to tell the difference. For one thing, there's a legal marriage. For another thing, particularly in a marriage, the amount of time spent in company of your partner having sex, as a ratio to the time spent otherwise together, is far less than in an encounter with an SP. Besides, the whole premise to your question is ridiculous: comparing a live in spouse to a live in sex worker? How many SP arrangements are there where the SP lives in your home monogamously on a constant basis.

 

This isn't helping the discussion.

[whiteman 14028]

Really, nerdnerd?

It's not that hard to tell the difference. For one thing, there's a legal marriage.

Although I agree that nerdnerd is stretching pretty far for a comparison, however it's not always the case that there is a legal marriage, sometimes there is a common-law marriage (i.e. living together). Common law marriages have as much weight as legal marriages in the eyes of the law, in most cases. What if you have a common-law partner, who you provide money to?

[scribbles 6031]

I am having a difficult time negotiating the dissociative abstraction that debating this requires.

 

Can bill C-36 make illegal activities that occur in a strip club. Yes. If sexual activity is defined in broad enough a manner, the exchange if currency for the principle purpose of obtaining sexual services could extend the reach of C-36 to strip clubs, web cams, or even phone sex.

Can bill C-36 make a marriage or relationship illegal because a) you have sex in a relationship, and b) money and goods are exchanged, gifted or provided in a relationship. No. Sexual activity isn't the principle and/or sole purpose of a relationship, nor are the parameters that characterize this relationship even remotely comparable to a transactional relationship with a sex worker.

 

When clients start having perpetual live-in sex workers, maybe this bizarre comparison would have more merit. Until then, I'm pretty sure characterizing a fiance, wife or girlfriend as a live-in sex worker will result in you having all the time and freedom you need to explore bachelorhood and the ladies of CERB. :)

[2bigalow2 2936]

What about a mistress on the side where the apartment is paid for and all utilities and food. And is usually called the other woman. It is a long term relationship with no commitment, because you know he's not going to leave his wife.

Question is she selling her body for sex, because if she doesn't put out she's going to lose the apartment.

Question of the day?

This would effect a small percentage of politicians also.

they could be charged under this bill.

[whiteman 14028]

What about a mistress on the side where the apartment is paid for and all utilities and food. And is usually called the other woman. It is a long term relationship with no commitment, because you know he's not going to leave his wife.

Question is she selling her body for sex, because if she doesn't put out she's going to lose the apartment.

Question of the day?

This would effect a small percentage of politicians also.

they could be charged under this bill.

Only in France, where politicians limit themselves to only two women. In the rest of the world, they go with multiple girlfriends or sex workers.

[nerdnerd 449]

Although I agree that nerdnerd is stretching pretty far for a comparison, however it's not always the case that there is a legal marriage, sometimes there is a common-law marriage (i.e. living together). Common law marriages have as much weight as legal marriages in the eyes of the law, in most cases. What if you have a common-law partner, who you provide money to?

 

so what I've heard so far:

 

1) "legal marriage" makes it okay to pay for sex. (Government is the pimp, and determines through the marriage act when and how the partners can get out of the arrangement, assuming it turns out to be a bad trick).

2) common-law is treat the same as marriage.

3) unclear where I one night stand, where one person buys dinner is.

[Ice4fun 78396]

@Ice4fun, the question is, how can a police officer and jury, objectively tell the difference?

What constitutes payment? If I provide for food, shelter, clothing, and a BMW for my favorite prostitute, but no actual cash, is there a sexual business arrangement?

 

I think I can tell the difference...