Alexandra-Sky 12606 Report post Posted March 11, 2011 This is a rant about this article. Basically, it talks about how the government of Canada is planning on arguing that the government has no obligation to protect "prostitutes" (thank you media for your oh so glorious language) and that people who choose to work in this industry are essentially consenting to violence (as clearly, this is included in our job description *sarcasm*). So a few things I want to point out in this whole situation. 1. No one is asking the government to protect us. (Never mind that this whole discourse is quite paternalistic to begin with). What we are asking is for the state to not ACTIVELY PUT US IN DANGER which is exactly what is happening with the current law situation. There is a difference between protecting us (which is not what we're asking), endangering us (which is what is happening) and leaving us alone (which is what we want). Essentially, removing these laws from the criminal code will give us access to more services that are available to virtually everyone that can aid us in protecting ourselves. 2. Uhm, I'm pretty sure none of us here have chosen to be violated. This is just another variation of the "she wore a short skirt and therefore was inviting men to rape her" argument. So I won't validate this point any longer. Sexism at its finest. 3. Both of these arguments are premised on the notion of the "creepy rapist client" image that people who know nothing about this industry get. Not to mention the fact that those who are violating sex workers at the highest rates are POLICE OFFICERS and therefore we do not need their protection, but merely for them to stop harassing us. I can probably go on for a lot longer but I will save you all the agony of reading a 10 page rant and save it to respond to some of your comments. xoxox Sky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
