scribbles

Fortunateone, I agree about the education. I don't have any problem with the idea that sex workers can enter the trade of their own volition. I have a sincere question as to how anyone can make an informed decision to do this kind of work, since it's not like you can study for it, go to job fairs or talk to SPs at career days to learn more about what the work is like. I'm sure that many make the decision to do this work and gain enough prior info to make that an informed decision, whatever the sources. But, I don't think it would be disrespectful or harmful to have programs in place to enable those who want to exit the profession to do so in a confident manner. Particularly when you talk about street workers, I think the absence of such programs leads to some of the trapping behaviors that make sex work so easy to criticise.

Wow, Canuckhooker, seriously? To begin with, everyone has the right to form and voice an opinion on the politics of the day. In fact, "behind the veil of anonymity" or not, if more people took the time to become interested enough to discuss the issues and share their opinions, we'd actually stand a chance at having a useful democracy in Canada and the US. Instead, and increasingly, people are so utterly lazy and apathetic about current events that they latch on to whatever soundbite is given them by whomever has the most funds to do so, and assume that it's gospel. That's how we got our current ruling government in the first place; not substance, but style and posturing. So, suggesting that people move to another country because they take the time to have an opinion, mistaken or otherwise, is arrogantly close minded and incredibly unhelpful. Suggestions such as those are precisely the kind of bully tactics the ruling party would like to use to solidify their hold on leadership and quash dissent. Don't agree? Check out the leaked memo regarding their strategy to damage Trudeau's chances. Again, all style and dirt, no substance.

RG, agreed. I was thinking more in terms of the opportunity this would present for US style sting opps. LE could disrupt agencies by posting ads and then arresting clients as they arrive. Just a thought, though. My bigger concern was the impact on spas.

Jazztrec, I guess that would depend on if you negotiated, prior, that exchange of food and time for guaranteed sex. ;) Roamingguy, I think the point is probably a good one about LE resources and time, and what direction they would go in. On the other hand, while I think you're right about indoor, independent workers, I have a feeling the attention wouldn't focus solely on street workers. I think that effort would get directed to a much lesser extent towards the agencies, and to an equal extent towards spas. Spas may be indoors, but are still extremely visible.

Pretty sure that anything that can be reasonably contrived to be currency or substantive trade would be considered payment. What's obvious is that the basis for this abolitionist's approach is founded on unsupported stereotypes. Studies have shown that indoor sex work is almost never motivated by addiction. The causal link for street sex work is questionable as well. And, to say workers choose sex work in order to survive isn't any different than saying I chose my career in order to survive. Whenever people work for money, they're doing it out of an interest in survival. Unfortunately, there's been less study on the motivations of clients (something I'm academically intetested in,) which makes it a lot easier for a picture of victimization to be painted the way Joy Smith does. Not that she seems to apply much considered thought to researching her position in the first place...

Simply, people feel a rapidly decreasing sense of agency and power in their own lives, and a sadistic and disgusting number try to take back a sense of power by exerting cruel dominance over a creature they feel is lesser than them. Also, it is against the law for them to be locked alone in a room with me for five minutes. If it wasn't, there would be fewer abusers in this world.

Ah, American smear campaigns. Gotta love US politics. Wait, what? ;)

I don't think the courts really think too much about policy, in terms of what should be done. They just worry about the current policy and whether it stands constitutional scrutiny. Their decision almost definitely had nothing to do with an intended policy outcome. And, I *do* blame the Tories for what is to come. They may not have wanted the fight, but they're going to have it anyways. Peter MacKay aside, let's not forget the Conservative position on prostitution coming out of their recent convention: selling of sex is essentially paid rape/slavery, is almost always trafficking, and will be opposed by the Conservative party with great prejudice. Contrast that with the recent young Liberal convention position that sex work should be treated the same as any other form of labour, and you start to see partisan differences that are very telling. I'm not saying the ultimate outcome will be this or that, but if the party position leans heavily in one direction...

May I be so cynical as to suggest it isn't the mileage they *want* to give so much as it's the mileage they feel they *need* to give? Honestly, I would love to think that a dancer giving me great mileage is doing so because "she's just that into me," but I have a feeling that it's more often about business. Dancers offering greater mileage most likely keep a guy back there for more songs, and possibly attract more business. I've heard the complaint from some dancers that it's tough to stay within the rules when others are breaking them and getting all the business. If clubs were to offer expanded services, I think this "mileage inflation" would continue, only the pressure would now be legitimized by legality. Either dancers would do things they wouldn't normally, to make a living, or they would get out because they aren't willing to buckle to the pressure. I doubt that it would be something as obvious or opaque as management making demands. Economics (supply and demand) would do the trick.

Happy B Day Claire!!!

Just a side thought, but my understanding of how omnibus bills work is that tweaks to existing legislation can be made, but wholesale changes (ie new criminal law) aren't within the scope of an omnibus bill. If I'm not wrong, that means that we aren't likely to see criminalization if the transaction from either direction slipped unobtrusively into an omnibus bill. What we're more likely to see is a change in the wording of whatever existing trafficking laws we have to try and include non-trafficking sex work.

Just to clarify, especially for Nikki, my comments were not meant to suggest that the harms caused by the outgoing legislation weren't worth challenging. Without contextualizing it within a greater political issue, Robert Picton was a horror of enormous proportions on its own, and I don't think anyone here, especially myself, would suggest those murders were in any way justifiable or excusable. Don't assume that I was suggesting the status quo is best. I was merely noting that many who were begging for decriminalization before are worried that the victory before the SCC will be worse that the status quo was to begin with. Let's hope it isn't. It would be a waste of the progress made for human rights.

Having read most of this thread, and certainly Nikki's post, what strikes me as most odd is that the SCC ruling was exactly what people were hoping for, yet there seems to be a very negative tone to most of what is written about the ruling now that the decision has been made. If everyone is so worried about what the gov't will do with new laws or legislation, I have to ask if any thought was given to that before the case was first brought before the courts. If decriminalization will truly bring a legislative backlash that makes things worse, or, as Nikki wrote, perpetuate a cycle of marginalization and struggle, why was it invited at the expense of a very flawed but clearly (from many comments) preferable status quo?

I was supposed to be there, and am sorry to have missed it. Next time around...

Better yet, 10-15 applications a month nets 9 actual new businesses in 2 years? That means the refusal rate for business applications is around 97%. This is the problem with statistical information being provided by third parties with absolutely no communication of methodology shared. I would also question the reported number of such businesses identified. Researchers have traditionally had a very difficult time estimating sex worker population because it is generally a hidden population. More often, estimated are assumed based on the little quantifiable knowledge that can be verified. Those estimates can vary greatly, and taken out of context (like in a news article without citation of sources) can be incredibly sensationalistic. Throw in a mention of trafficking, and you've got some pretty epic fear mongering.

I agree with Kathryn that there are other ways in which he could be "medicating" with marijuana, but disagree with the assumption that we wouldn't have an issue with it if he was taking some other form of medication. The manner in which the drug is taken cannot be divorced from the perception of being medicated in this situation because it is, in fact, the manner that has become the central issue. If THC intoxication truly is the only way he can medicate effectively for his PTSD, then the RCMP is well within their rights to say that smoking pot while in uniform is forbidden. They aren't restricting him from using marijuana, they are restricting the method he uses to take his "medicine." This wouldn't be an issue with any other medication because the manner of taking any other drug would not be the same as in this case. I'm also glad he isn't carrying a firearm or driving. There still isn't enough known about marijuana intoxication, and what *is* known indicates that it can impair judgment in a very similar way to many other drugs. It is also technically classified as a hallucinogen. The fact that doctors prescribe it to treat ailments is fairly irrelevant. It isn't hard for anyone to get a prescription for medical marijuana, which is one of the biggest impediments (along with lack of research into true benefits) to it being considered a credible medical treatment.

I think the article is only terrible if it is taken in the context of impartiality. This article is about how difficult it can be for some women to leave the sex industry. And, it can be. Maybe some don't have as difficult a time, and certainly some choose not to leave the industry. But, that isn't the point at issue in this article, which is why I mostly don't have an issue with it. *Mostly* The title implies homogeneity. There is an implication that these few women represent the opinion of all women in porn. That is misleading, which isn't territory that is exclusive to Fox News, unfortunately. Having done a fair bit of recent study of scholarly articles written about the sex industry, I'm discovering that pretty universally the experiences of a few are used to describe the reality of a far greater and more diverse number.

A DJ for the Bear posted a comment about the white poppy trend yesterday, calling people who wear them "naive" and "hippy dippy." I saw people post things in support of his comment such as "people wearing a white poppy should have their asses kicked." This is honour? My great grandfather served in the Russian military just after 1900. My grandfather served in WW2. My grandmother is dutch, and lived through the occupation of Arnhem, hiding jewish families from the SS. I've had friends who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. I plan on being at the ceremony downtown Monday as a standin for my grandfather, who passed away several years ago. No one symbol owns the rights to remembrance. Remembrance is something we do inside, and represent on the outside. It is represented in how we act and how we treat others. Those soldiers who fought and died did so to give us the freedoms we enjoy, so we could choose for ourselves how we want to dress and act toward each other. True remembrance shouldn't be one day a year. In my opinion, the greatest honour we can show our veterans and soldiers is to be involved in the daily dialogue of our nation's governance and how we are represented in the world. A big part of that is making sure that *if* war needs to be fought, that the cause is just and the sacrifice a worthy one. War should *never* be the solution. And I'll gladly debate with anyone the relative merit of the reasons to sacrifice our soldiers recently compared to the Great Wars of the past. There's nothing wrong with the white poppy. It's just as respectful as the red. I'd wear both, although I haven't seen a white one yet, so I'm wearing the red. People shouldn't start dragging deeper meaning into the colour of the poppy (on either side.) White represents peace as well as remembrance. Sorry for the long, rambling post. Every year I write a blog about Nov 11 and what it means to me. I always end it with a quote from Eisenhower: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in thr final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborors, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron"

I'd be curious how they go about it if the decriminalization is due to a human rights or constitutional judgment. The easiest way to avoid trouble would be to pack it into an omnibus bill of some sort, but one would think it's too big a piece of legislation to do that. Well, more to the point, I don't know that the Cons will have the political clout to follow through. They'll most likely lose their majority, if not their rule.

It's one thing to frame a resolution during a party convention, and quite another to actually create and enact legislation. My thinking is that nothing will happen until the court proceedings are over with, and even then I am not sure this will be a major policy priority. With all the other scandals and fires burning, I can't see this being front-and-centre for the Cons. I've been known to be wrong, though.

Sure, could be fun.

Can I ask why we believe there to be a serial killer? If it's because sex workers have been killed in this area for the last 20 years, I'd suggest that just proves the alarming and unfortunate fact that this is an industry frequently victimized by violence. Is there more reason than that? As for this officer, clearly his methods were poorly thought out. His intentions don't seem to be all that heinous, though. As some here have said, isn't it a good thing when the authorities actually look to be interested in helping, when they are interested at all?

If just the raw age differential is the unforgivable part, I dare say there are a lot of unforgivable gents on CERB (judging from what I've seen and had related to me.) What are we saying about our community as a whole, then, or "hobbying" (I hate that term) in general?

Once more into the breach, and all that... So, far be it for me to come to the defence of someone who likely would deem themselves perfectly capable of defending themselves (well or not, I refuse to judge.) So, let's just call this my own opinion on the latest squabble. There is a biological imperative to sexual attraction, and there is a whole lot of psychological baggage as well. Biologically, men are generally more attracted to younger women because they are more likely to exhibit good health and more likely to be able to successfully breed. Attraction has to do with an internal impulse driven by preferences shaped by a ton of personal and socially instructed factors. Sum it up, it means the difference between finding the taught ass of an underage girl as appealing as the taught ass of a 23 year old usually has more to do with what cultural mores have taught us to feel is "right" and "wrong." And that's good. A well functioning society needs that structure. Now, we enshrine these morals in law by determining the reason for this judgment to be about maturity and ability to make fairly rational choices. So, we have to put a number to it. The bar has to be set. We say (for sake of argument) 18 is the age when a person is mature enough (based on a whole lot of studies and educated debate) to be adequately rational. This doesnt mean that all 20 year olds are that mature, or that no 14 year old is. It just means this is the line of "majority" (which is why 18 is given that label.) So, saying 18 doesn't fully make any more sense than saying 14. It is, educated or not, still somewhat arbitrary. There is no way to assess maturity on a case by case basis that would better withstand scrutiny. This is the best method of social-sexual governance we have. But let's not forget we're just intelligent mammals. Pillorying someone for suggesting that a 15 year old can be hot is a conditioned knee-jerk reaction to a subject that is clearly very touchy. It doesn't mean that person is advocating bedding a truckload of underage girls. Oh, and neither am I. I still believe 18 is the bar, and even that is sometimes too low.

Age and attraction are two different concepts. Attraction is an emotional and psychological process. Determining whether it is right or wrong based on age is a cognitive process built by culture, media, social learning, etc. I've never been with a woman older than myself, but have felt that several of them were older in the way they acted. Often, but not usually, you can't place the personality with the age. Scrb. Sent from my HTC EVO 3D X515a using Tapatalk 2