Should lawmakers be outed?

[Guest Lo***si*****e]

If the lawmakers support the current proposed legislation, Bill C-36, and have visited prostitutes then they should be outed. This is no different than a sex worker reporting a violent or abusive client to the police. Bill C-36 is an attack on the safety and constitutional rights of sex workers.

It will be a long, slow process of taking the proposed laws through the court system. Outing the lawmaking 'perverts' may even alter this draconian legislation and would hopefully keep more sex workers safe.

[Midnite-Energies 110563]

There is so much controversy surrounding this topic because, as a sex worker, your business is built on confidentiality and discretion.

 

I look at the much bigger picture of C36 and that is the government trying to impose it's "moral center" on citizens of the country they are supposed to represent. Within this, they are trying to restrict the rights and liberties of those citizens. It may be sex workers today but who will it be tomorrow?

 

I'm sure every person voting on this who has partaken of a sex worker has that little voice calling them a hypocrite. Whether they choose to listen or not depends on on their own moral fiber. If someone is willing to vote to take away one persons rights while secretly protecting their own.....

 

I don't care what race, religion, sexual choices or distinctions, gender or any other "qualifier" you are, you are a person and deserve to be treated with respect and protected for your right to be who you are. Anyone looking to impose their crap on others while doing what they want, deserves what they get. Live and let live.

[LeeRichards 177238]

I don't think ANYBODY should be outed based on their profession and occupation. As long as they treated the ladies appropriately and respectfully....and no abuse of any sort took place.

 

The fact that they may be two faced lying bastard public figures.....does not constitute a reason to out them in my opinion and do irreparable damage to their family and friend. My way of thinking is we must always think of all of the other people that get hurt down the line when you take action.

 

Now if those same public figures continue to visit ladies after the bill kicks in and get caught....then I would hope that they may get what's coming to them and everything the book has to throw at them.

 

But that's just my take on it.

[roamingguy 300292]

I'm torn on this I must confess. One aspect of the SP/Client relationship is that the SP is discrete...that is in part why she is a professional.

And I believe in the adage about not lowering yourself to someone else's level and outing a politician who sees companions when at the same time he would vote for C36 does lower oneself to his level. But I also believe what goes around comes around, and maybe those politicians need to see the personal consequence of their decision. And after all, if C36 has the undertones of treating all clients as pervs, johns and criminals, shouldn't Canadians citizens know that it was pervs, johns and future criminals (maybe) that passed the legislation.

But at the same time those supporting C36 are counting on the very professionalism of the ladies they bash and malign so they won't be outed. Should those politicians who show no ethics and integrity be rewarded by ladies who do have ethics and integrity?

But no matter what one's opinion, if Harper and MacKay saw SP's, don't they deserve to be outed, just because it's Harper and MacKay. If a companion could out them, well you go girl.

Seriously, I don't have an answer, I can see both sides of the argument.

And I'm sure the CPC, well all parties have members who have seen professional companions. And maybe hypocrisy needs exposure, I don't know. But at the expense of a lady not showing discretion, again I don't know. Discretion equals trust, and all clients may feel if a SP was indiscrete with one client albeit a politician, she may be indiscrete with all her clients...is that damage to her reputation worth it, only she knows the answer to that.

So as you can see I'm offering a very confused rambling here. But short answer, and my opinion only, be discrete, don't out a politician....well unless it's MacKay and Harper LOL

 

Going for a Tylenol now

 

RG

[Meg O'Ryan 266444]

No one should ever be outed ! What happens to the trust and discretion? Bad idea on all fronts no matter the situation.

[roamingguy 300292]

No one should ever be outed ! What happens to the trust and discretion? Bad idea on all fronts no matter the situation.

 

Posts like this is why the ladies are professionals. But I can understand the emotional reaction of some ladies to want to out those politicians.

But outing is a slippery slope, where would it end?

One side effect of outing is clients would be less likely to provide screening/verification information to a lady for fear they might be outed too

Screening/verification is a tool used by ladies for their safety. C36 already places ladies at risk, but clients refusing to be screened/verified will now place ladies at further risk

Like I said in my previous post, I can understand those wanting to out a politician, but and my opinion only, politicians (well anyone) shouldn't be outed

A rambling

 

RG

[Ice4fun 78407]

What a hornets nest this issue is.... the fight by sex industry workers for their rights is very much like most major cultural change battles it relies on the courage of a few strong courageous people who stand up to authority and demand their rights. Often the activities undertaken by these trailblazers is considered to be controversial when it is undertaken. The change process is long and people get hurt along the way but we realize later that the willingness of these individuals to stand tall and challenge authority was necessary.

 

Currently one of these trailblazers, who has fought the battle publicly for years is proposing to name names and highlight the hypocrisy of the proposed new law. Is she serious or is she trying to continue to influence the debate i really don't know..... what I do know is i appreciate her frustration. While I am not a sex worker i appreciate how hard it is to carry out their work when they not only are looked down on by society but when the government goes out of its way to make their working environment unsafe ...unprofitable but amazingly legal... wtf????

 

So if I was a sex worker who was aware of individuals who have taken on roles in their public life where they have an active role in influencing the public debate on sex workers rights yet their private actions are not in alignment I think i would conclude it was ok to call that person out publicly on this incongruous in their approach to the topic...

 

ahhh but here's the rub... just because it might be justifiable... is it the right thing to do... what are the impacts both short and long terms... personally and for the industry and other sex workers .... will it have any impact on the outcome of the debate? Tough tough calls in my opinion.

 

Now as a client where do I stand... hmmm well let's see i partake in this hobby in secrecy... lie to my wife and rely on the discretion of the wonderful ladies i meet to keep my secret.... so it would be a little disingenuous for me to suggest that I would not be concerned if the premise of confidentiality was being challenged. But you know the more I think about it the more I realize that if it was my son or daughter in this industry i would expect the government to support their right and ensure that their legal business enjoyed the same right to safety as every other business. I'm thinking i would probably be way more willing to support their challenging authority and calling out hypocrite politicians who speak one way but act another.... but i would also worry about them and the effects such an approach might have.

 

Well i don't have any children in the industry (that i know of) but yet I do have a number of very wonderful friends in the industry who i worry about as we move forward so i guess my stand would be that i trust them to make appropriate decisions that are right for them and i appreciate that if they do choose to make public figures accountable it will not be indiscriminately and that the overall discretion on which the industry is built will remain.

 

Like i said a hornets nest.

 

Just my opinion.

[Midnite-Energies 110563]

My point was lost in translation....

[waterat 20911]

I hear what you're saying Lee and I agree/sympathize with what you're saying to a certain extent.

 

I don't think ANYBODY should be outed based on their profession and occupation.

 

Agreed

 

As long as they treated the ladies appropriately and respectfully....and no abuse of any sort took place.

 

C-36 is abusive. I don't believe C-36 treats people, ladies or other sex workers, appropriately nor respectfully.

 

The fact that they may be two faced lying bastard public figures.....does not constitute a reason to out them in my opinion and do irreparable damage to their family and friend. My way of thinking is we must always think of all of the other people that get hurt down the line when you take action.

 

Although, clearly, the lawmaker has little or no regard for their family and friends and even less for the people working in the sex trade

 

Now if those same public figures continue to visit ladies after the bill kicks in and get caught....then I would hope that they may get what's coming to them and everything the book has to throw at them.

 

I'm not sure that it will work out this way (and who knows if Terry Jean Bedford can deliver on her suggested actions...... but I view anything that damages/alters C-36 to be beneficial and I have no love nor time for cruel hypocrites.

 

Additional Comments:

Please re-read Lee's post as my quote 'comments' are indistinguishable from his original post.... not sure how to fix that....

 

waterat

[mrrnice2 157005]

 

I'm trying, I really am, and then I read this.

 

 

This discussion has two very opposite views with logic and wisdom on both sides.

[Guest P*rry]

My sentiments mirror those of Meg. Part of my enjoyment or willingness of being a hobbyist is based on confidence in the discretion and trust of individuals in this profession.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

No! They should not be "outed".

 

We're good at rationalizing anything we've already made our mind up to do but remember, two wrongs don't make a right.

[LeeRichards 177238]

I hear what you're saying Lee and I agree/sympathize with what you're saying to a certain extent.

 

waterat

 

I realize what you said about bill C36. My reference was to how ladies have been treated prior to the Demon. Possibly going back years who knows. I hear ya on bill C36 and all of your comments for that matter.....no worries Waterat.

 

One of the biggest things that I wanted to put forward as well in my post .....I forgot to fucking type.

 

But our very own wonderful Meg took care of that for us Pronto !!!

 

"Discretion !!!"

I am not a debater and won't comment again. Just put my 2 cents out there. We all have our take on things. I totally respect that !!!! Just sayin that one single person's decision to go Awoll on discretion can hurt many many innocent unsuspecting peeps.

Over AND out good buddy,

[Meg O'Ryan 266444]

Someone mentioned violence etc... Even then, go to the law don't take matters into your own hands...revenge serves no purpose EVER! Outing someone may make you feel justified but it's never appropriate nor does it solve the initial problem! (Sorry, I tend to read really quickly so if I am off base, let me know!)

[mrgreen760 37785]

Outing or the threat of outing clients would be a nail in the coffin of this industry. It's a very slippery slope and once trust is lost for most it's over.

 

Peace

MG

[Nicolette Vaughn 294340]

No outing the Cons is not justified even though they are CONS. I have met people in a position of power and/or affluence and would never dream of outing them.

 

I've also come into contact with regular people who have a position of power in Ottawa within the careers that they hold and the same applies as well. Your secrets are safe with me! I would expect the same in return. Treat others as you would want to be treated.

 

Outing someone would just set a precedent for other unsavory sex workers to use this as an excuse to blackmail their clients once these new laws come into effect. This is definitely not the way to go about it even though I can't stand Harper, Mackay et al.

 

This industry has already been pushed underground enough. Condoning blackmail and threats, etc to expose someone isn't going to help anything. Exposing a Con or someone else on Parliament Hill may feel good in the moment but think about the consequences these actions will have in the long run.

 

If a person is going to expose someone in the government, what is stopping a sex worker from threatening and/or blackmailing and/or expose a regular Joe Blow or John Doe later on feeling they have the right to do so because it was done to someone in the Conservative party or another party? Absolutely nothing!

 

Once these new laws come into effect, I will have a booking process that will ensure safety and complete discretion for my clients. As they say, "Discretion is the better part of valor."

[cat 262460]

Outing is not an answer or should it even be considered an option. The problem is the damage done to the already tarnished image of our industry. I fight tooth and nail to prove to every guest that I am an ethical professional; the blow back will touch every provider where it hurts the most, in the wallet. The PC's will not back down and we will continue to fight. We already carry the reputation of being diseased, lying, stealing manipulators. Now lets add to the greatest fear clients have besides STD/STI's; being outed. Every SP will spend countless hours explaining that she can be trusted with a clients personal information simply to try and maintain her safety. For what? So a couple of men can walk around embarrassed for a month or two then try to rebuild their lives? We are a community, we should be protecting each other. The minute "they" make us enemies, we are screwed.

 

Disclosing names will not fix the issue, it will simply destroy innocent lives of the families involved. No good will come of it except to make juicy newspaper porn for people who aren't even on the fringes of our struggles. The wives, children, parents and friends will bear the brunt of the disclosure. To me, the collateral damage is unacceptable when we know the bomb will not take out the target. There would be no end to justify the means...

 

cat

[kerrixoxo 33719]

"Discretion !!!"

I am not a debater

Over AND out good buddy,

 

You may not be a debater but you are a master-debater ;)

 

Sorry had to bring some humour to this thread.

 

I don't agree with outing anyone. Ever.

 

The way the abolitionists are treating Terri Jean right now (check out the twitter @PassBillC36) is horrid. They are saying that is how the sex workers who testified are treating the "victims" who testified. But at the same time they are saying they agree with her and that the "johns" should be outed. They really don't understand the harms in outing either a sex worker or a john which is clear with their support of Bill C-36. These are people's lives they are messing with.

 

Now where is my wine! lol

[Phaedrus 209521]

An interesting contribution to the debate: https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/change-of-heart/

 

My gut feeling on this is that, entertaining though it would be in the short term and much as I'd love to see it happen to the deserving, it'd turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.

[roamingguy 300292]

You don't think police would love to find a companion who would out a client of hers...even if only a yucky conservative LOL. That would be a lady they could pressure to release her client list, knowing if she had already released the names of some clients (politicians) she'd likely find it easier to release other names if expedient for her...and police pressure could make releasing of a client list expedient

Companions are discrete. Even bad clients don't get outed as such (short of criminal behaviour) They may get put on a bad date list which is something shared by companions to protect one another , but not posted for public/media consumption. And a bad date list is something clients know about (or should know about) and only happens if they are a bad date

An early morning rambling while waiting for the caffeine jolt to kick in

 

RG

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

An interesting contribution to the debate: https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/change-of-heart/

 

My gut feeling on this is that, entertaining though it would be in the short term and much as I'd love to see it happen to the deserving, it'd turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.

 

Thanks for posting that link, Phaedrus. I spent 3/4 of an hour just absorbed in her writings. She is so articulate and could almost convince you that black is white, not that she'd try.

 

I have a better understanding now of the thinking behind outing. If we were to have a face to face conversation I suspect she might cause me to rethink my position of not outing politicians/lawmakers/judges but I notice she also mentions actors or others who negatively portray prostitution yet still using their services. Seems like a broad swath of people. Should "outing" work with bill c-36(I don't believe it will)... well, it becomes a nice tool to haul out for another time not to mention it gets easier to use with repetition. The slippery slope.

 

In the end you either abide by your code, even when things get tough, or you risk losing who you are and what you stand for. Her lesser evil argument has been one used many times before but in this situation it seems more a rationalization... a defense mechanism where controversial behavior(outing) gets justified because it suits your cause. You get in the mud, you also get dirty.

 

Life and it's choices can be very complex and what helps me decide is to follow my inner consciousness.

 

Apologies for getting so philosophical but what this boils down to is... what's your philosophy? Straddling the fence is not a philosophy.

 

Thanks again for the link and this post is not directed at you. I just copied your post in case anyone else wanted to click on the link as it's very good.

[fortunateone 156618]

You don't think police would love to find a companion who would out a client of hers...even if only a yucky conservative LOL. That would be a lady they could pressure to release her client list, knowing if she had already released the names of some clients (politicians) she'd likely find it easier to release other names if expedient for her...and police pressure could make releasing of a client list expedient

Companions are discrete. Even bad clients don't get outed as such (short of criminal behaviour) They may get put on a bad date list which is something shared by companions to protect one another , but not posted for public/media consumption. And a bad date list is something clients know about (or should know about) and only happens if they are a bad date

An early morning rambling while waiting for the caffeine jolt to kick in

 

RG

 

 

The question there would be what leverage does LE have over sps? They have worded the laws specifically to ensure there is no chance of pressing any charges against sps for any reason (other than street work in school zones).

 

The chances of pressuring sps under this legislation is zip.

 

That's why i dislike all this fear mongering speculation. It is a presumption of US style lawmaking, and C36 is not imposing US style laws. US style laws meaning pressuring sps to cooperate in order to reduce or eliminate charges against themselves, to avoid arrest. Even then, they don't necessarily get a client list, they just reuse the sp's location and advertising (and reviews) in order to lure clients over for a sting. They aren't contacting anyone on lists kept by the sp.

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

We need a Bad Politician List!

[Two Thirty 1422]

I can understand how and why providers might be torn over whether a client should be outed, especially the people who make or enforce the law. It's been said many times and many different ways: A provider's business is built in large part on being absolutely trustworthy and discrete, no matter what.

 

But is there never an exception? As people nevermind as a provider, ask yourself this: Generally speaking, if you were being made to submit to something - anything - without your consent (or you witnessed someone being subordinated without their expressed consent), would you at least try to stand up for yourself, or would you just let it happen?

 

Maybe your answer might fall along the lines of, "It depends... on the gravity of the situation" or something similar.

 

Well, my take on C-36 is that not only does it continue to endanger a provider's constitutional right to health and safety of the person, it goes even further by perpetuating that danger. In my book, that's an attack by any definition.

 

As a provider you might think that you yourself will be fine if C-36 became law... but for sure others won't, providers and clients alike.

 

If you can't bring yourself to supporting the outing of those clients who as politicians support bringing C-36 into force, perhaps you might consider another form of protest, including refusing to see them, and outing them amongst yourselves. But to do nothing except just stand by and let this attack happen?

[Gabriella Laurence 301887]

But is there never an exception? As people nevermind as a provider, ask yourself this: Generally speaking, if you were being made to submit to something - anything - without your consent (or you witnessed someone being subordinated without their expressed consent), would you at least try to stand up for yourself, or would you just let it happen?

Hello Two Thirty :)

 

Can you explain what you mean in what I quoted above? Maybe rephrase it. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking :icon_redface:

 

Thanks!