Will Johns Become the New â??Fagsâ?�?

[cinelli 22184]

Quote:"You must think everyone with a dick is a dick"

 

Bill C36 and the Tory's dogma also assumes all women are susceptible to exploitation and need Uncle Peter Mckay and Grandpa Harper to look out for them.

[WriteOn 3250]

I realize the person who wrote this was gay, but I find the comparison between homosexuals and "John's" ridiculous. Do I think that people in the public will want to murder and torture "Johns" like they have done to homosexuals in the past, I really don't think so.

 

Will there be a "Mathew Sheppard" of "John's", I really don't think so. I think it's great that the writer is showing support, but to compare how society has treated homosexuals and WILL treat "John's" if this law passes is a bit over the line, IMO.

[roamingguy 300292]

I realize the person who wrote this was gay, but I find the comparison between homosexuals and "John's" ridiculous. Do I think that people in the public will want to murder and torture "Johns" like they have done to homosexuals in the past, I really don't think so.

 

Will there be a "Mathew Sheppard" of "John's", I really don't think so. I think it's great that the writer is showing support, but to compare how society has treated homosexuals and WILL treat "John's" if this law passes is a bit over the line, IMO.

 

 

You may want to re-read the article again. The author isn't talking about the public treatment of john's with the enactment of this new pending legislation. She is talking about the government's treatment of john's with the new legislation and comparing it to past treatment of gays. And the author is using the comparison of john's and gays because it pertains to government involvement and social control in the sexual preferences of society. It isn't about how society treated homosexuals and society will treat johns. It's about how the government will stigmatize and criminalize

human sexuality

 

RG

[WriteOn 3250]

You may want to re-read the article again.

 

 

I got the author was talking in legal terms, but the words "fag" and "faggot" do not conjure up legal thoughts in the minds of most people. Perhaps the author should have used homosexual instead of fag. That's just my opinion.

[roamingguy 300292]

I got the author was talking in legal terms, but the words "fag" and "faggot" do not conjure up legal thoughts in the minds of most people. Perhaps the author should have used homosexual instead of fag. That's just my opinion.

 

But by using terms like fag, and faggot allowed for a dehumanizing treatment of homosexuals. Likewise referring to men who see escorts as johns and pervs etc instead of as clients also allows for a dehumanizing stigmatizing view of men who seek the companionship of professional companions in a mutually beneficial arrangement. That was the point the author was trying to make

Using dehumanizing labels allows the government to try to sell it's world view that those of us who seek out professional companions are exploiting women, and those women are victims. It would have been very hard for MacKay to sell his legislation if he used terms like professional companion, client, mutually beneficial arrangement and so on.

 

RG

[Kyra.Graves 23779]

I find the article to be poorly thought out. I thought we were finally past the idea that sexual preference is not a choice but rather it something we are born with.

 

"...the people fed into the fear factory of career-ending public exposure and the criminal underground because of their personal sexual choices."

"Men who purchase sexual services are the spanking new category to be targeted for their sexual preferences."

 

The choice to see a sex worker is indeed a choice, that is a huge part of what the discussion surrounding the proposed legislation is, do we have the freedom of choice both as sex workers and as clients and how far should those choices extend. Though I do not believe in the proposed legislation we as a society live with a ton of legislation that is based 'on moral grounds', and when we do not agree with the morals being proposed we debate and discuss.

The sexual preferences of the LGBTTIQQ2SA* community should not be a debate of morals or ethics but one of science and recognizing that people have a right to live their life how they identify.

I not only see the comparison of the two as offensive but it cheapens the argument for sex workers and clients. Staying on topic, discussing the issues that surround it as to whether we believe the legislation is good or not is important but saying that it is comparable to the persecution that others in history faced for something that was not at all a choice is a logical fallacy.

 

 

*Thankfully it's World Pride right now, I had to Google that to be sure I had the current acronym I think I lost it at LGBTQ

[WriteOn 3250]

But by using terms like fag, and faggot allowed for a dehumanizing treatment of homosexuals.......

 

 

If you think that passing this Bill will have men who pay for sex in ANY way shape or form treated like homosexuals have been in the past and in too many cases still are treated today by society then I don't know what to say to you.

 

Do you think there will be a wiki page like this for "John's" if the Law is passed?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people

[roamingguy 300292]

If you think that passing this Bill will have men who pay for sex in ANY way shape or form treated like homosexuals have been in the past and in too many cases still are treated today by society then I don't know what to say to you.

 

Do you think there will be a wiki page like this for "John's" if the Law is passed?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people

 

You still miss the point, it isn't how society will treat johns, frankly society as a whole likely doesn't even care. It's how the government will treat clients of professional companions

Just listen to the words Peter MacKay, The Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada uses words like pervert and johns to describe clients. With that being the government's attitude, just how do you think the justice system will treat clients

And that I believe is the author's point

 

RG

[Kathryn Bardot 99339]

If you think that passing this Bill will have men who pay for sex in ANY way shape or form treated like homosexuals have been in the past and in too many cases still are treated today by society then I don't know what to say to you.

 

Do you think there will be a wiki page like this for "John's" if the Law is passed?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people

The only reason there is a page like that now is because society's views on homosexuality have changed. Were it fifty years ago, when homosexuality was still in psychiatry's DSM and laws still portrayed homosexual men as sex offenders, then no, there wouldn't be a wiki page like that.

Which is what we are facing if Bill C-36 passes.

 

Yes, I agree that it is clumsy to compare what is not a choice with what is a choice, but there are valid comparisons in the government's reaction to both.

[fortunateone 156618]

Well, it isn't just society that changed, but the laws. Recently, the age of consent was raised from 14 to 16 in Canada, with it being criminal for anyone more than 5 years older to have even consensual sex with anyone 16 or under.

 

But it is in fact still against the law for anyone under 18 to have anal sex, as LGBT activists point out is essentially the same as saying gay teens who have consensual sex have a higher minimum age of consent than heterosexual teens, including the fact that 14 and 15 year olds can consent to have sex with other 14 or 15 year olds.

 

Plus it was criminally illegal for same sex sexual activity prior to 1969. So that is where the comparison to criminalization of sex worker clients to gays in the past comes from.

[Frank7 3939]

I find the article to be poorly thought out. I thought we were finally past the idea that sexual preference is not a choice but rather it something we are born with.

 

The choice to see a sex worker is indeed a choice, that is a huge part of what the discussion surrounding the proposed legislation is, do we have the freedom of choice both as sex workers and as clients and how far should those choices extend. Though I do not believe in the proposed legislation we as a society live with a ton of legislation that is based 'on moral grounds', and when we do not agree with the morals being proposed we debate and discuss.

The sexual preferences of the LGBTTIQQ2SA* community should not be a debate of morals or ethics but one of science and recognizing that people have a right to live their life how they identify.

I not only see the comparison of the two as offensive but it cheapens the argument for sex workers and clients. Staying on topic, discussing the issues that surround it as to whether we believe the legislation is good or not is important but saying that it is comparable to the persecution that others in history faced for something that was not at all a choice is a logical fallacy.

 

For some people, the "choice" of seeing a sex worker is the choice between physical intimity and nothing. Just like the LGBTTIQQ2SA have the "choice" between being with someone they want to be with, being in a "straight relation" or being alone.

People don't choose what attracts them, weither it's the gender, the race, physical attributes or mental attributes. Aside from past history of persecution, I don't see the difference.

 

The ONLY reason that page exists is because of all the violent, hateful, mean spirited acts done toward "fags".

 

There will NEVER be a page like that for men who pay women for sex.

 

I get the legal connection but like in many situations it's not what you say but how you say it.

Maybe not now, but it could happen. If the it becomes the law and the next generations are raised to believe "johns" are pervert, sadistic exploitive men, they will grow to hate them. You really think in that kind of world, in 20-30 years, there won't be people that will do vigilante's act against johns? Even in States were homosexuality is/was illegal, some people prefered to beat or kill gay people instead of calling the cops on them.

[cinelli 22184]

That wiki page is disturbing.

I can think of a couple of murders here in Winnipeg that should be added to it.

It is shocking that some a-hole can murder someone and serve four years. Guys get more than that for growing pot FFS!