Should the prostitution law debate hear from johns?

[roamingguy 300291]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/should-the-prostitution-law-debate-hear-from-johns-1.2675048

[cinelli 22184]

Best comment:"If exchanging money for favours is perversion, then all politicians are perverts".

 

Worst "No matter how you spin it prostitution is rape".

 

Too much polarisation and not much reasoned debate.

[Midnite-Energies 110563]

This is my favorite

 

"[Prostitutes'] lived experiences tell us that most men buy sex because it is about power. And sometimes that's violent power, sometimes that's aggressive power, but sometimes it's just the sense that for this time period, I have the social, economic and sexual power over this other person," says the policy analyst from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, an umbrella group of evangelical Christians in Canada"

 

At least they stopped using "always" or "for the majority".

 

Focus on why this is for those people and stop blanketing everyone.

[jafo105 39057]

Well, I posted my two cents. It is subject to moderator review before being posted. I used my real name, Jeff O.", for what it is worth.

[fortunateone 156618]

I'd like to see them knock off the use of 'johns' to refer to clients of sps. For one thing, it diminishes the real business relationship to put a stimatizing label on what is a financial transaction. In any other situation, you would be called what you really are: customers, clients, etc.

 

Plus, to me, it is the fact of the money that levels the field in the sexual services transaction. Some men are able to coerce sex out of an employee they work with, who works under them. They are trying to equate sp/client transactions in the same way, that the fact of it being sex is what makes the imbalance. The start with a false premise, that there is imbalance like there would be in a sexual harrassment situation, but that is false because this is a situation where the services are already being offered, for a fee. Failure to pay the full fee or any fee, for services provided, is imbalance, but anything under the terms and conditions required by the sp is not.

 

it is interesting the article was posted today, and now has over 600 replies lol.

 

Why did they ask everyone except sex worker rights organizations?

 

I think, Lowman and Atchison both need to be heard at the committee meeting. They have relevant info, the church lady groups do not. Nor do any abolition organization, because they are not on the front lines. A few years ago, the Real Women organization was one of 16 organizations invited to speak to a senate committee on prostitution. That group has absolutely no connection to sex work, not even in the realm of 'rescue'.

[roamingguy 300291]

I'd like to see them knock off the use of 'johns' to refer to clients of sps. For one thing, it diminishes the real business relationship to put a stimatizing label on what is a financial transaction. In any other situation, you would be called what you really are: customers, clients, etc.

 

Plus, to me, it is the fact of the money that levels the field in the sexual services transaction. Some men are able to coerce sex out of an employee they work with, who works under them. They are trying to equate sp/client transactions in the same way, that the fact of it being sex is what makes the imbalance. The start with a false premise, that there is imbalance like there would be in a sexual harrassment situation, but that is false because this is a situation where the services are already being offered, for a fee. Failure to pay the full fee or any fee, for services provided, is imbalance, but anything under the terms and conditions required by the sp is not.

 

it is interesting the article was posted today, and now has over 600 replies lol.

 

Why did they ask everyone except sex worker rights organizations?

 

I think, Lowman and Atchison both need to be heard at the committee meeting. They have relevant info, the church lady groups do not. Nor do any abolition organization, because they are not on the front lines. A few years ago, the Real Women organization was one of 16 organizations invited to speak to a senate committee on prostitution. That group has absolutely no connection to sex work, not even in the realm of 'rescue'.

 

A post by Cat in a thread a while back. Seems pertinent for this thread

 

http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=59279&highlight=john

 

RG