Real Men Don't Buy Girls'

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

There are a number of things wrong with that article: speaking for sex workers, demonizing clients, wrongheaded john-shaming and rehabilitation campaigns, reinforcing the idea that sex workers are commodities to be bought and sold, etc.

 

They seem have taken as a given that "it is not OK to buy sex" and then worked from there. I wish they had given some kind of justification for that premise so there could actually be the dialogue that they purport to want.

 

It's hard to talk with someone when their starting position is "you're wrong and awful."

[Guest Ou**or**n]

Too bad as they are probably targeting real issues - underage girls, women who are coerced but by painting the whole thing with the their silly slogan they just remind of teetotalers during the prohibition era (or the stupid fundamentalist sexual abstinence movement).

 

I guess real men manipulate women into getting for free.

 

Argg, don't get me started.

[goingforawalk367 293]

There are a number of things wrong with that article: speaking for sex workers, demonizing clients, wrongheaded john-shaming and rehabilitation campaigns, reinforcing the idea that sex workers are commodities to be bought and sold, etc.

 

They seem have taken as a given that "it is not OK to buy sex" and then worked from there. I wish they had given some kind of justification for that premise so there could actually be the dialogue that they purport to want.

 

It's hard to talk with someone when their starting position is "you're wrong and awful."

 

Spot on. They start the article with by saying "absent from their discussion thus far has been any analysis of the men who engage in prostitution." (I'm paraphrasing.)

 

Trouble is, it doesn't sound like they're really doing any analyzing - they're just finding another focus for their attack.

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

The issue is in that neighbour hood is that they are going into peoples backyards through back laneways and leaving debris of sorts all over back yards and decks. Deck dates apparently were a favorite in the dark this past summer with people picking up condoms left under their deck furniture as well as syringes.

[Genevieve Marceau 68000]

Everybody loves sex, everybody loves cash. I don't see what's so wrong at mixing the two of them together. It is a "crime" with no victims. The total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution, lol!

This article targets prostitution between consentient adults...What about the human trafficking and sex slavery? That's the real issue.

"A man who moralises is usually a hypocrite, and a woman who moralises is invariably plain", Oscar Wilde

[neebleton 2940]

The issue is in that neighbour hood is that they are going into peoples backyards through back laneways and leaving debris of sorts all over back yards and decks. Deck dates apparently were a favorite in the dark this past summer with people picking up condoms left under their deck furniture as well as syringes.

 

 

That's unfortunate, and gross.

 

But there are two different issues at play here: sex work, and the crimes of trespassing and littering. I think that they needn't be intertwined.

 

I can't say for certain, but I would expect that fear of prosecution from police and an inability to work in well-lit, public areas has led street workers to take refuge in these dark, private areas. If anything, a new police crackdown on the clients of these workers (or, more likely, the workers themselves!) will force more of them away from the streets and into places that are bad for residents (due to the issues above) and bad for the workers (It seems much more dangerous to be alone in a dark alley or backyard than together with some people at an intersection).

 

That said, I do empathize with people who are having potentially dangerous materials left laying about in their yards. I just don't think a police crackdown is a way to stop the issue.

[roamingguy 300292]

Well I don't buy girls. What I as all gentlemen do is compensate women (adults) for their time, and what consenting adults do privately during that time is no one's business.

At no time, because I pay a donation, does the lady lose control. Her boundaries are completely respected...I don't own the lady, not even a little bit. We have a mutually beneficial time together

Tired of the morality squad that doesn't understand nor would ever try to understand

And we are all preaching to the choir here aren't we

RG

[Kathryn Bardot 99339]

I am not a girl.

I am not for sale; my services are. You don't buy your hairdresser, you pay for their services.

Also, what is a "real" man?

 

This whole campaign has irritated me from day one, when Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher started it. The men they used in their campaigns had an awful track record of misogyny - not very "real" men themselves.

 

If these folks in Sudbury are having issues with finding condoms and syringes in their backyards, they might want to address THAT. It may not just be sexworkers utilizing those areas but also an issue of homelessness and addiction.

[julie88xxx 1537]

How ridiculous is that billboard. I didnt know whether to laugh at ther stupidity or be enraged by their ignorance. Do they really think they can shame men into not seeing call girls? It is not a shameful thing what we do. I believe we are healers. We heal men with our hands, mouth, body, words. People have needs and desires, we fill them, by giveing a little bit of us. And as a giver and a caretaker I am cool with that. It is nice to be needed and desired, in a mutually benefiting situation. I say, "Leave the girls alone. Let them raise their families, save for college, enjoy their youth, or just get by in this dog eat dog world". Do they think they are helping girls by cutting them off at the knees, possibly detering what good clients we have, by useing scare tactics. Then when we dont make money , and business is slow, we make riskier decisions because we feel backed into a corner and desperate. What kills me the most is that at the bottom of the billboard it states that the organization response for said billboard is a coalition for viloence against women. The only time this business is violent is when we have a bad client, or work the streets, or if children or young teens are being forced against their will. If they are going to put a damn sign up why not put up one that says, " Treat your escort good, resect the working woman, stop violence against call girls, stop forced prostitution, stop underage prostitution.". But please let a girl make her living the best way we know how. I dont need no protection a billboard is going to offer. And you wont save my soul that way either. I think that the women that pushed this billboard are just pissed off wives whose husbands have cheated with a working girl.

[VedaSloan 119179]

I am not a girl.

I am not for sale; my services are. You don't buy your hairdresser, you pay for their services.

Also, what is a "real" man?

 

This whole campaign has irritated me from day one, when Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher started it. The men they used in their campaigns had an awful track record of misogyny - not very "real" men themselves.

 

If these folks in Sudbury are having issues with finding condoms and syringes in their backyards, they might want to address THAT. It may not just be sexworkers utilizing those areas but also an issue of homelessness and addiction.

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they had Charlie Sheen holding up one of those signs before. Ironic considering he locked a sex worker in a closet.

 

There's also a conflation of issues here; implicit in the slogan "real men don't buy girls" is the notion that men are purchasing services from underage sex workers, and child/underage prostitution is not the same as adult consensual sex work. And as much as I don't condone underage sex work, there is a serious lack of actual conversation with the underage people in question. No one ever asks them what they need; people just assume and go from there.

[fortunateone 156618]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they had Charlie Sheen holding up one of those signs before. Ironic considering he locked a sex worker in a closet.

 

There's also a conflation of issues here; implicit in the slogan "real men don't buy girls" is the notion that men are purchasing services from underage sex workers, and child/underage prostitution is not the same as adult consensual sex work. And as much as I don't condone underage sex work, there is a serious lack of actual conversation with the underage people in question. No one ever asks them what they need; people just assume and go from there.

 

 

Very good points. And I find that they don't just not ask the underage worker, they assume the underage worker is working in exploitive conditions and/or coerced. We can't always make those assumptions, because I have spoken to a few sps who did work when under 18, and they had their own individual reasons to do that. Including just getting spending money for shopping and not really knowing what the heck they were doing. Another due to drug use, but the drugs came first, the sex work was to pay for the addiction. And there are few options outside of streetwork for the underage worker, too.

[Guest a**4*]

The ones holding these signs are the ones that go to S.P. if not in Sudbury other cities it is easy for them to make judgement on others when they should judge themselves if they have nothing better to do i suggest they find something to do (two faced people) they need a education the media need to watch them the police are no better get a life don't worry about what others are doing .My two cents(W.T.F.)

[mrrnice2 157005]

I generally find it rare to come across something that causes me frustration to the point that I am angry, but this article is very close to bringing me to that point. The frustration is there, with certainty!

 

Where do I start?

 

1. "Real men don't buy girls." Never once in my foray into the world of Cerb have I felt that I was buying a person. The idea of buying a person is abhorrent to me. What I have done is enter into very unique transactions that probably two years ago I would have questioned, but now, after having met so many incredible people on here, I find my participation to be one side of a mutually beneficial agreement. So what did I purchase? I know I did not purchase a woman. I purchased the opportunity to meet someone that intrigued me. I purchased the opportunity to communicate with someone in a way that I never would be able to do otherwise. I purchased the opportunity to engage in an intimate physical encounter, but each and every time should that not happen because either of us were uncomfortable, then that activity was not taken by me as a guarantee.

 

Most of the women that I have met would never consider selling themselves, the person who is an SP.

 

2. "People recognize that absent in all our work around prostitution is an analysis of men who buy sex under exploited conditions." This quote alone sends me into debate mode. First there is the presumption that the women involved are being exploited. I am not naive enough to think that there are not women in this industry who are being exploited. The women that I see here on Cerb do not give me that opinion. An independent service provider is her own boss and she makes her own decisions. She can choose to work, or not. She can choose to meet any particular client, or not. She can choose to meet many clients, or few. She can choose to work seven days a week, or none. That sounds to me more like a successful business plan opportunity.

 

Who are these men who buy sex? I am one and I have met several others through Cerb. None of us are the stereotypical John. Some are married, some are single, some are widowed. We each have our own personal and unique reason to be involved here. For many of us it is not solely sex that we seek but personal companionship, fantasy or otherwise.

 

3. "Crime stoppers runs a local program to reform men ......" Reform men????? Reform according to one dictionary is defined as "to cause (a person) to abandon wrong or evil ways of life or conduct." To be reformed therefore I must be doing something that is wrong or evil. It may turn out that for me on a personal level that this is wrong, never evil, and time will tell, but on a societal level from what I have seen there is nothing wrong or evil about it.

 

As with any story there are two sides to it. If the issue is street level prostitution, hanging out on corners, unwarranted street traffic in suburbia, noise, the leaving behind of debris, refuse, condoms and the like then there is something to be said.

 

Study and raising discussion about prostitution is ultimately a good thing, but to open a dialogue with the basic premise and conclusion that prostitution is wrong and evil is not a discussion at all.

[roamingguy 300292]

I know, again preaching to the choir here, the "moral majority" isn't even here, and even if they were, they wouldn't listen to any opinions but those that agree with them.

That said, does the "moral majority" have jobs lined up for the ladies who are escorts. Yes, that is right, while a escape for the gentlemen, this is for the ladies their livelihood. It pays their bills, car payment, rent, puts food on the table, in some cases helps them raise their children etc. In short, it is their job, and if taken from them, they would be for all intent purposes unemployed.

As for the risk, well not to sound glib, but there is risk in everything. A firefighter going into a burning building runs a risk. A kid working the midnight shift at a corner store is likely at very high risk to be robbed. A police officer runs a risk of being assaulted or shot. In my job I run the risk (and have been) of being assaulted. What about Alaskan crab fisherman, considered one of the highest risk jobs, all so people can eat crabs...imagine, a high risk to your life so someone else can have a nice dinner...these just a few examples of risky jobs

And what about "normal" conventional relationships...example being marriage. How many women wind up trapped in an abusive relationship. Any signs up banning marriage?

Point to all of this, most of the ladies I've met require some sort of verification before meeting. It may not eliminate risk, but it certainly can help the lady reduce the risk.

Some convoluted ramblings to the choir

RG

[cat 262460]

Perhaps adding the very well thought out posts from this thread to the comments on the article is a good idea. Simply edit out the references to CERB first. It would help clarify the difference between sex workers in and survival workers. It certainly would add a much needed view and provide a different insight to the readers...

cat

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

I want to put a local perspective on this article. The locals are fed up because of the intrusion into their family life that this activity has brought upon them through no fault of their own. Some of these local moms are hit upon on this section of street just walking to the store or their daughters doing errands or waiting to catch transit. Some of these local "Johns" are very unsavory and will approach the your ladies just walking down the street minding their own business. "Car Dates" are a problem in that area and its going to get a lot more attention now! During a recent newscast that I saw they actualy arrested a "John" as they were doing a piece on the area. Two under covers were watching the communication and arrested the woman and then chased after the 'John" to arrest him too.By the way the arrest happened beside that sign.

[VedaSloan 119179]

I want to put a local perspective on this article. The locals are fed up because of the intrusion into their family life that this activity has brought upon them through no fault of their own. Some of these local moms are hit upon on this section of street just walking to the store or their daughters doing errands or waiting to catch transit. Some of these local "Johns" are very unsavory and will approach the your ladies just walking down the street minding their own business. "Car Dates" are a problem in that area and its going to get a lot more attention now! During a recent newscast that I saw they actualy arrested a "John" as they were doing a piece on the area. Two under covers were watching the communication and arrested the woman and then chased after the 'John" to arrest him too.By the way the arrest happened beside that sign.

 

I understand the concern, but at the same time, there are laws on the books already to deal with trespassing, loitering, etc. Criminal enforcement is not the answer, as (to repeat what has already been said) it will only push the women further underground into less populated areas where they are more vulnerable to violence.

 

Second, there is a moral aspect to this that doesn't cross over into other street solicitation. For example, how many of us have been accosted by the Red Cross, Amnesty International, or Green Peace while walking down Elgin? Apparently, since they solicit money for NGO's and charities, that's okay!

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

You know the area then and know what I am talking about. They moved them from downtown to another area and the problem still persists!

[JoyfulC 132299]

I dunno. To be honest, I always wondered why some guys would take their business to the street when there are safer and more legal options. Is it cheaper (as long as you don't get busted)? Is it the "walk on the wild side" aspect? Are they unaware of other options? Or is it that there's something desirable about using the services of someone you know is far below you in social status. People often note that many streetwalkers feel like they have to be out there, like they don't have other options. Okay. But what's the street john's excuse?

 

Most independent SPs I know enjoy a status similar to that of most of their customers. They're well-educated, have credit, are members of their communities. Incidences of things like substance abuse or domestic abuse are probably lower amongst the SPs I know than in the general population. I haven't known all that many streetwalkers (don't know any right now), but all that I ever knew could be described as living on the margins of society. Most had substance abuse problems, housing security and domestic violence issues. Maybe somewhere there's some savvy bunch of streetwalking soccer moms, but I've never seen it.

 

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that purchasing sexual services is something private. What does it say when a man flaunts his choice, putting his desires as a priority over others legitimately trying to use the same space (businesses dealing with their customers, families using public space)? I believe that hanging criminal charges around the neck of a streetwalker is only going to drive her (or him) further into the margins.

 

But streetwalking is a huge problem in communities, and the purpose of law enforcement is to reduce problems. I wouldn't mind seeing tougher penalties for street johns. Obviously they view what we have now as a joke, and it doesn't deter them at all. As we've seen with drinking and driving, there are some people you simply can't reason with.

[fortunateone 156618]

I dunno. To be honest, I always wondered why some guys would take their business to the street when there are safer and more legal options. Is it cheaper (as long as you don't get busted)? Is it the "walk on the wild side" aspect? Are they unaware of other options? Or is it that there's something desirable about using the services of someone you know is far below you in social status. People often note that many streetwalkers feel like they have to be out there, like they don't have other options. Okay. But what's the street john's excuse?

 

Most independent SPs I know enjoy a status similar to that of most of their customers. They're well-educated, have credit, are members of their communities. Incidences of things like substance abuse or domestic abuse are probably lower amongst the SPs I know than in the general population. I haven't known all that many streetwalkers (don't know any right now), but all that I ever knew could be described as living on the margins of society. Most had substance abuse problems, housing security and domestic violence issues. Maybe somewhere there's some savvy bunch of streetwalking soccer moms, but I've never seen it.

 

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that purchasing sexual services is something private. What does it say when a man flaunts his choice, putting his desires as a priority over others legitimately trying to use the same space (businesses dealing with their customers, families using public space)? I believe that hanging criminal charges around the neck of a streetwalker is only going to drive her (or him) further into the margins.

 

But streetwalking is a huge problem in communities, and the purpose of law enforcement is to reduce problems. I wouldn't mind seeing tougher penalties for street johns. Obviously they view what we have now as a joke, and it doesn't deter them at all. As we've seen with drinking and driving, there are some people you simply can't reason with.

 

 

 

I might be wrong, but I think one of the main reasons is they believe that if they go to an sp incall, they will be assaulted and robbed by someone in the closet.

 

Staying outdoors, only allowing a single SW into their vehicle, in spite of all of the things mentioned, they actually feel safer. Beyond that time and convenience and 'seeing what you get' factors in, along with an assumption the price will be lower and/or they do not go online and have no idea that sps advertise in any other way than to stand on the corner.

[VedaSloan 119179]

I dunno. To be honest, I always wondered why some guys would take their business to the street when there are safer and more legal options. Is it cheaper (as long as you don't get busted)? Is it the "walk on the wild side" aspect? Are they unaware of other options? Or is it that there's something desirable about using the services of someone you know is far below you in social status. People often note that many streetwalkers feel like they have to be out there, like they don't have other options. Okay. But what's the street john's excuse?

 

Most independent SPs I know enjoy a status similar to that of most of their customers. They're well-educated, have credit, are members of their communities. Incidences of things like substance abuse or domestic abuse are probably lower amongst the SPs I know than in the general population. I haven't known all that many streetwalkers (don't know any right now), but all that I ever knew could be described as living on the margins of society. Most had substance abuse problems, housing security and domestic violence issues. Maybe somewhere there's some savvy bunch of streetwalking soccer moms, but I've never seen it.

 

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that purchasing sexual services is something private. What does it say when a man flaunts his choice, putting his desires as a priority over others legitimately trying to use the same space (businesses dealing with their customers, families using public space)? I believe that hanging criminal charges around the neck of a streetwalker is only going to drive her (or him) further into the margins.

 

But streetwalking is a huge problem in communities, and the purpose of law enforcement is to reduce problems. I wouldn't mind seeing tougher penalties for street johns. Obviously they view what we have now as a joke, and it doesn't deter them at all. As we've seen with drinking and driving, there are some people you simply can't reason with.

 

 

I do happen to know a woman who works the streets and on the margins of society is not how I would describe her. Young single mother with limited income and no incall space to work from is more accurate. I also don't think it's helpful to separate "street Johns" from regular clients. Or indoor sex workers from street workers. We're all whores and/or clients and right now, effectively, the only workers being criminalized are street-based sex workers. It's rights for all, not rights for some. I also don't think a guy should be punished because he chose to buy his hamburger from a street vendor vs McDonalds. Bad analogy, sex worker's aren't hamburgers, but you get what I mean (I hope!).

[JoyfulC 132299]

I do happen to know a woman who works the streets and on the margins of society is not how I would describe her. Young single mother with limited income and no incall space to work from is more accurate. I also don't think it's helpful to separate "street Johns" from regular clients. Or indoor sex workers from street workers. We're all whores and/or clients and right now, effectively, the only workers being criminalized are street-based sex workers. It's rights for all, not rights for some. I also don't think a guy should be punished because he chose to buy his hamburger from a street vendor vs McDonalds. Bad analogy, sex worker's aren't hamburgers, but you get what I mean (I hope!).

 

Why do you think it is that street work is criminalized while indoor work is almost completely ignored by law enforcement? Do you think it could be because street work is visible and it creates visible problems for the community? While indoor work is usually done very discreetly, and so quietly that often no one knows we're here, let alone has any problems with us. I don't know why street advocates cannot get this: street work causes problems for the community, and that's why it draws complaints and enforcement. There's no big conspiracy here.

 

As for your single mother, she is being very short-sighted. Her chances of getting busted, assaulted or worse are far, far greater than if she did what it took to find an indoor situation. Then where will her kids be? There has to be more to this story than you're telling, Berlin, because in Canada, we provide support to families like hers. Thousands of other single mothers are getting by on family support. What expenses does your streetwalking single mother have that merit her taking the outsized risks of working the streets, and exposing her children to the consequences. Something sniffs wrong with this story.

 

I sometimes think street advocates are so bullheaded, they won't rest until we get complete equality, even though that's far more likely to result in all prostitutes and all customers being treated the same way that streetworkers and their customers are. Only then will you be happy.

 

BTW, street vendors are highly regulated, and it can be very expensive in some places to get one of the few precious licenses given out to sell food on the streets. You think that would work for streetwalkers?

[fortunateone 156618]

Why do you think it is that street work is criminalized while indoor work is almost completely ignored by law enforcement? Do you think it could be because street work is visible and it creates visible problems for the community? While indoor work is usually done very discreetly, and so quietly that often no one knows we're here, let alone has any problems with us. I don't know why street advocates cannot get this: street work causes problems for the community, and that's why it draws complaints and enforcement. There's no big conspiracy here.

 

As for your single mother, she is being very short-sighted. Her chances of getting busted, assaulted or worse are far, far greater than if she did what it took to find an indoor situation. Then where will her kids be? There has to be more to this story than you're telling, Berlin, because in Canada, we provide support to families like hers. Thousands of other single mothers are getting by on family support. What expenses does your streetwalking single mother have that merit her taking the outsized risks of working the streets, and exposing her children to the consequences. Something sniffs wrong with this story.

 

I sometimes think street advocates are so bullheaded, they won't rest until we get complete equality, even though that's far more likely to result in all prostitutes and all customers being treated the same way that streetworkers and their customers are. Only then will you be happy.

 

BTW, street vendors are highly regulated, and it can be very expensive in some places to get one of the few precious licenses given out to sell food on the streets. You think that would work for streetwalkers?

 

 

 

We have to go back to the main reasons why the laws were created in the first place (in the 80"s, remember, the majority of services were either street or agency (with some massage parlours of course). There weren't other venues for working. Just because someone is now or continues to do street work doesn't change the fact that that is the number one way it used to be done. For some of them, that is the only way they know how to work, and for them now they are 20-30 years older as well from when they started and it used to be easier.

 

So the law is 100% about reducing the nuisance and NIMBY, because the laws were 100% about getting the street workers out of sight, off the downtown intersections, away from the front of the fancy hotels, and the best way to do that was with the no public solicitation laws brought in.

 

So the indoor workers are rarely targeted because the laws were never intended to target them. They always wanted to get rid of the 'problem' which was and is whatever they can see. They could have just have easily dealt with street workers with anti loitering laws, and no stopping anytime signs, in the high traffic areas, but they wanted to be able to arrest them for what they were actually doing. Or at least move them on. They could care less about what that single mother can't afford for her kids.

 

In Vancouver http://bccec.wordpress.com/tag/safe-sex-work-space/

 

http://bccec.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/final-report-violence_and_domestic_trafficking_bccew.pdf

 

 

But I don't understand is while there is a definite stigma against street work, why so many people think it will go away. In a complete decriminalized, and where prostitution is covered by all kinds of regulations including licensing and health regulations of New Zealand, which also has similar history, culture and laws as in Canada, the street work continues at the same level as it did before decriminalization. Some people think complete decrim and making it easier to work legally is the solution and cannot figure out why it doesn't.

 

It doesn't because like the 15 minute quickie appt, sps provide the services that their clients are looking for. And some clients want 15 minute appts, but other clients want to drive down the street, have an SW jump in their car, negotiate, complete the date, and drop her off within 20 minutes of first seeing her there. We may not understand it, like we don't understand a client wanting to go to the trouble of making a 15 minute appt, or some clients don't understand the guys who would pay an sp to spend the night with them or go for dinner, but they do, all the time.

[JoyfulC 132299]

So the law is 100% about reducing the nuisance and NIMBY, because the laws were 100% about getting the street workers out of sight, off the downtown intersections, away from the front of the fancy hotels, and the best way to do that was with the no public solicitation laws brought in.

 

Yes. Of course. Don't you think the public has a reasonable right to decide what's a nuisance and to have it dealt with?

 

So the indoor workers are rarely targeted because the laws were never intended to target them. They always wanted to get rid of the 'problem' which was and is whatever they can see. They could have just have easily dealt with street workers with anti loitering laws, and no stopping anytime signs, in the high traffic areas, but they wanted to be able to arrest them for what they were actually doing. Or at least move them on. They could care less about what that single mother can't afford for her kids.

 

That's unfair. I think Canadians do care about what a single mother without resources can afford, and that's why we have a reasonable social net and family assistance. The problem wasn't with all loiterers or all stoppers, it was with prostitutes and their customers, and the laws target that. Why do you think that's wrong?

 

When I first came to Canada, the standard was "pressing and persistent" and street prostitution in Toronto was a circus because of that lax standard. That's probably the laxest I've seen street standards in Canada since I've been here, but the fault for tightening up the laws lies with street prostitutes and johns who, given an inch, demanded a mile. They proved that, whatever the limit was, they'd push it.

 

But I don't understand is while there is a definite stigma against street work, why so many people think it will go away. In a complete decriminalized, and where prostitution is covered by all kinds of regulations including licensing and health regulations of New Zealand, which also has similar history, culture and laws as in Canada, the street work continues at the same level as it did before decriminalization. Some people think complete decrim and making it easier to work legally is the solution and cannot figure out why it doesn't.

 

I agree. And too, even if streetwalking was completely decriminalized, it would not make it any safer. People are still out there working under extremely unsafe conditions ripe for predators. Overwhelmingly, the majority of assaults and murders of sex workers happen to streetwalkers. I don't believe that hanging criminal convictions around the necks of streetwalkers will solve much, but it's another thing entirely for street customers. The key to drying up the streetwalking problem is to hit the customers so hard that most won't even try it. No business, no streetwalkers.

 

It doesn't because like the 15 minute quickie appt, sps provide the services that their clients are looking for. And some clients want 15 minute appts, but other clients want to drive down the street, have an SW jump in their car, negotiate, complete the date, and drop her off within 20 minutes of first seeing her there. We may not understand it, like we don't understand a client wanting to go to the trouble of making a 15 minute appt, or some clients don't understand the guys who would pay an sp to spend the night with them or go for dinner, but they do, all the time.

 

If this were simply about preferences, that would be a great argument. But this is not just about preferences! It's about community standards, and the community's rights to combat nuisance. There comes a point beyond which an individual's rights must cede to those of the community. Some people (a lot of people in my area) want to be able to jump in their trucks, pop open a beer, and drive around. Since that's their desire, should we simply let them? Some people, when their backseat gets full of fast food bags and other garbage, want to just throw it out the window. Are we obliged to let them do this? Some people might find it convenient to park in front of our driveways or in front of fire hydrants and walk off and leave their cars. Are we obliged to put our needs and safety second to their preferences?

 

The elephant in the room here is that if street prostitution weren't causing problems, there'd be little interest in enforcing street prostitution laws. As long as street prostitution is done in a way that irritates the local community, there's going to be enforcement. I, personally, would prefer to see the emphasis be on the street johns, with outreach and assistance given to street sex workers.

[bcguy42 38594]

We have to go back to the main reasons why the laws were created in the first place ... So the law is 100% about reducing the nuisance and NIMBY, because the laws were 100% about getting the street workers out of sight, off the downtown intersections, away from the front of the fancy hotels, and the best way to do that was with the no public solicitation laws brought in.

 

I remember when Ottawa made a big push to "clean up" Murray and St. Patrick, in theory, by ridding the city of prostitution. We know how well that worked. They simply moved the workers to other neighborhoods who, in turn, complained and the workers were moved on. It became - and is - a big game of "Where's Waldo" if you are looking for that type of thing.

 

If you drive Murray and St. Patrick, you'll see a lot of new construction and renovation - the gentrification of the neighborhood. The Developers are making money. The "young urban" have fancy places to live. I'm trying to figure out where the low income people who used to live there found housing. I'm pretty sure the people behind "cleaning up" and gentrifying the place have no idea.

 

In a strange coincidence, at 1:00 am on weekend nights, there are a lot of young women wandering around dressed quite similarly to the street workers that were moved on. Only now they are "good girls", I guess.

 

But I don't understand is while there is a definite stigma against street work, why so many people think it will go away. In a complete decriminalized, and where prostitution is covered by all kinds of regulations including licensing and health regulations of New Zealand, which also has similar history, culture and laws as in Canada, the street work continues at the same level as it did before decriminalization.

 

I was surprised to encounter street workers in Amsterdam, even in the Red Light district.

 

For pretty much every good or service on the market, there is a price point for everyone.