Thank you, Jennifer for your excellent article. Given the status of women and children world-wide, I believe that it is currently impossible for women to 'freely' choose prostitution as an occupation. When women are healthy, well educated and skilled, and equitably paid and respected for their work in society we won't have to consider prostitution as a career. It seems to me to be a continuation of childhood abuse/exploitation. We can do much better than this for our women and children.

I think one of the big benefits or legalization is that it allows us to set work place standards and for an industry to self regulate itself. Turning Pimps into regular businessmen is not the worst scenario, letting Pimps be criminals and act like criminals is much worst.

But legalization and decriminalization are two seperate things. One opens arms and the other turns a blind eye.

Decriminalization, whether it be the drug or sex trade is bad, as it keeps all the problems, but just reduces the authorities ability to act when it is needed. However legalization, regulation, and shaping rather than shunning those who are afflicted is a better approach that jailing or turning a blind eye. We still need laws against being a bad pimp, and creating an atmosphere where you slam an ******* for assault and containment when they violate human rights is much more effective. Keeping minors out of the sex trade is another huge thing, in which regulating will give you the extra means of focussing on giving the victims alternatives, while allowing those who are legitimately doing it as a profession to do so in a safe atmosphere.

Interesting theory. I was waiting for mention of how prostitution was dealt with in the Netherslands.
As many people know Amsterdam is famous for it's "Red Light District". In the 1970's I was working in the Netherlands in computers for Philips Data Systems. One of my collegues had a brother who was manager of a "Sex Theatre" in the "Red Light". We spent many a weekend in the "Walletjes" as the district was known to the Dutch.
During my time there I befriended a few of the ladies outside of their profession. My observations are as follows:
1) No sordidness. The atmosphere of the place was clean and pleaseant for males as well as females.
2) No Pimps. The ladies of the night were in business for themselves, rented their "storefronts" and were not pressured into accepting clients they felt were undesireable.
3) Safe Sex. The use of a condom was always insisted upon and was provided by the lady. Also mandatory periodical medical examinations were required by the authorities.
The problem in North America is that the polititions thrive on "Vice". These are "crimes" which can be counted on to exist because of bad laws. The great part of Vice is that it is visible, salatious, and it's victims are usually finacially disadvantaged. This gives polititions the opportunity to "get tough" on vice and pass some inane law that gives the impression that they are really doing something. The converse is usually true.
If the polititions were really serious about crime, prostitution and drug abuse they would get to the root of the problem. But I am afraid that the committment to solving these problems will take longer than a political life time so if there is no immediately percieved improvemnt why would a politition bother?
The root of the problem lies in the genuine committment to iradicate it.

Too true! Vice and crime can be counted on to divide and conquer the populace. Guilt helps to make the populace more managable. Did you ever wonder what a "john" does in his "day job", or what kind of judgements he makes that affect you and I? I would push for Sweden's approach myself.

The biggest problem associated with legalization of anthing is that it normalizes it in mainstream society and our youths preceptions are affected by the normalization.
Also because so many prostitutes are addicted to drugs, street prostitution would still be around so it wouldn't be a total success.
I don't think it would be a harmful thing to have prostitution legal for the sake of keeping prostitutes, male and female, safe but I worry about the process of legalizing drugs and prostitution and the effect it will have on society, particularily on our most vulnerable members, our children.
As for what does a john do in his day job, I think the question is what kind of person is he, someone that would use someone for their own selfish needs and at the same time cheating on their wife and family. If it was okay to do and the man didn't feel any guilt he would walk in the door from work and announce to his family that he had just had sex with a prostitute.
Prostitutes sell their soul for money, many are sick and drug addicted, what is the excuse for the person buying the prostitute? How can someone who has to buy sex feel good about themslves? The johns victimize not only the prostitute but there own family as well.
Legal or not there is nothing spiritually positive about johns and prostituion, particualarily the johns who I don't believe have any excuse for their self centered actions.

Given a sexual agreement between two consenting adults, to penalize the customer but not the prostitute is clearly discriminatory and, therefore, unconstitutional.

I could not miss the anti-male flavour to the piece.

In the leftie lexicon, isn't making any crime legal a way of eliminating it?

I think this is definately an issue which needs to be addressed. We can not have crazies killing the prostitutes. Male or female.

They provide an essential service and they need to be protected from nutbars, abusive pimps and blood sucking bureaucrats as well.

Many women hate whores and prostitution because it puts a real price on sex and these women feel that undermines traditional marriage.

But like it or not whores are people and deserve the equal protection of the law.

Many men have been completely victimized by these same women and their lawyers and the corrupt gov't. legal system which thrives on destroying men and stealing their homes and children.

These venerable practices are now being extended to encompass those who wished to escape into common law relationships as well.

Thanks to this avarice it is no longer safe for a man, to be sexually involved with a woman.

As a direct consequence many men have decided they would rather pay up front.
Many don't want to give up their house, or subject themselves to the quote unquote, RELATIONSHIP, for a little sex. Some even go gay.

These men have committed no crime. Everyone needs sex.

Maybe we should approach the subject from a different tac.

Perhaps we should insist that the police do their jobs and protect the whores, this would undermine the pimps.

Perhaps we should reinstate the death penalty and return to exterminating some of the animals who prey on women instead of allowing the gov't to coddle them in aids infested jails and early release programs.

I do think we should investigate safe houses for hookers in appropriate areas. If it saves one from a grisly end it won't have been a complete loss.

Putting an end to prostitution as the writer seems to be advocating is just more university feminism.

Cash or "freebies", the more it's criminalized,
the greater temptation for those on the take.

What's in the "rightie" lexicon on that?

I think Bob Rogers' comment identifies the falsity of Moreau's entire thesis. He found that in Amsterdam there were NO PIMPS; women were in business for themselves. Jennifer, look in the back pages of the Georgia Straight, for Pete's sake. All of these body rub parlours and escort agencies are run by PIMPS. The Georgia Straight, perhaps the world's premier ad whore, is itself pimping by collecting all of their usual ad whore fees. We have not legalized prostitution HERE, and all of the degradation you mention in your article positively flourish under our system of fake criminalization. Jeez, is your brain not working, Jennifer? Please do some background work on the concept of empirical logic. You can't have it syllogistically both says: Suggesting that our system fails miserably, yet it's the best that we continue it.

I am at a loss as to why the author repreatedly insists that legalizing prositution means pimping become legal.

She make some good arguments, but then spoils it all with those silly statements.

In fact, I would suggest she repeated that concern because she realize the impact of her words.

Like Skeptikool, I too think the bias was a bit over the top.

At least part of the problem is the language of the "stamp out prostitution" industry, which paints every woman as a victim and any customer as a dangerous criminal.

Sorry, but the reality is so far removed from this institutional view that all credibility is lost when you do the blame divide.

One poster goes as far as to accuse every male customer of hurting the prostitute, hurting his family and hurting society without even acknowledging that perhaps a lot of the johns are single men.

But then the righteuos moral indignation has to be tempered at least until another fault can be dredged up to fit that category of johns.

I too think the targeting of johns is discrimination and is little more than a moralistic cop out.

Go after the pimps, all the pimps including those so-called legitimate ones who sell ads, rent rooms and otherwise live off the avails.

You might even find a few real criminals in that lot.

It's a lot like the old drug reduction industry in which teenagers caught with a nickle-bag of weed were sent to jail with a criminal record.

It filled the jails, boosted police budgets and ruined a lot of lives but did didley-squat to reduce, slow or even understand the dynamics of large scale social drug use.

Statistics show that most johns are middle aged married men. Some customers are single I will agree, but married or not participation as a john does nothing to help the prostitute, most of who are addicted to something, especially those on the low track down on Powell Sreet and the DTES. All it does is confirm and re-inforce their belief that men use women. And I might add, in a lot of cases these women have been feeling used and abused by men ever since they were children.

That may well be, but then I sometimes get a similar sense when read articles like this.

All it does in confirm and re-inforce my belief that most of this anti-john crusading is nothing more than moralizing under the guise of crime prevention.

As a former druggie, you ought to appreciate that there are all forms of addiction. In fact, if you talk to some specialists they'll tell you sex can be an addiction as well, for both genders.

As for abuse, I would hazard to guess a great many males who may or may not rely on prostitutes are also up to their necks in the troubles that visit them from their own experiences of child abuse.

Simplicity only finds simple solutions, which simply don't work.

Go ahead and champion the prostitutes. It's a noble cause that no one should criticize in itself, but when one group is acting out its needs and gets the sob shoulder why is it the other group, that also has acting out problems is written off as the great scourge?

Sorry, but this politically correct self-imposed blindness is way too much.

Jettison the morals and start having open and honest discussions rather than going for the cheap law enforcement model that does little but continue to ruin more lives.

I agree with Allan.

I never once said johns were bad people, I may have inferred that their morals are lacking because they use women for a fee for sexual gratification.

It is supposedly the oldest profession, it will be here forever and we all have our opinions, I simply think that if a guy or girl is so deperate he has to hire and use another human being to satisfy their needs it is self centered at best. Truth is a lot of female prostitutes don't even like men because of the way they have been treated by them but they need the money, it's just a sad situation all around.

What is the cheap law enforcement model you speak of. Prostitution is going on all over on our streets and the police mostly turn a blind eye unless people that live in the area get upset by the activity. As well, there are massage parlours all over the city that offer sexual services and they offer a safe place to work and they are constantly hiring but a lot of girls prefer to be independent and work the streets.

The irony of this whole piece by Jennifer and subsequent dialouge on legalizing prostitution or not is mute, prostitution isn't illegal in Canada in the fisrt place, hasn't been for years.

This piece is logically extremely muddled, has at best a questionable relationship to the facts, and is unfortunately overwrought with moralizing. It's no mystery why it directly contradicts the positions of every major prostitutes-rights group in the country.

The author seems to think all prostitution is by definition bad, violent and wrong, and should be illegal. From that assumption, the rest of the article logically (and sometimes illogically) proceeds. So are we to conclude that women should be required by law to give men sex for free? For that is the upshot of such a position.

Its focus on street prostitution and child prostitution belie its bias. Off-street prostitution conducted between consenting adults in homes and escort agencies is vastly more common than both in Canada, and is the area that induces (and requires) more sophisticated analysis and discussion than sensationalist pictures of addicted sex slaves etc. This piece is really just another fearmongering, moralizing news article more expected in mainstream newspapers than in the Tyee.

The author misunderstands the differences between decriminalization and prostitution. Legalization is a process whereby governments and large businesses seize control of the industry and create red-light districts. This often becomes another way to victimize women, as any big-money capitalist venture can. Decriminalization treats prostitution like any small business, and will free prostitutes to start their own businesses without fear of whimsical applications of contradictory laws by NIMBY-driven police, and free them from the restrictions caused by the unjustly exhorbitant licensing fees currently charged in places like Vancouver, and free them from having to therefore rely on pimps and profitmongering entrepreneurs to employ them.

Yes, absolutely, we need to provide many more options for people who aren't in the industry by choice to get out of the industry. But many adults ARE in the industry by choice--at least insofar as any of us can be said to have truly 'chosen' our jobs or current positions in life. Furthermore, prostitution will always exist in many forms, as it always has, and so it's ludicrous and dangerous to make elimination of it your goal in law. We need to make it safer, and that means providing options and empowering prostitutes to make their own choices--not paternalistically painting them all out as little more than pathetic victims of abuse and trying to tell them how to live their lives.

Most prostitutes I know were abused sedually when they were younger and statistics also show that to be true so why would it be wrong to say most are abuse victims.
Anyways prostitution isn't illegal in this country and is carried out on the streets and in massage parlours already.

This is a very important discussion.

We all agree that women (and men) should be protected from the violence and exploitation that is bound up with illegal prostitution. Walking the streets and going for a ride in a stranger's car is just not safe.

And as the 'oldest profession', we know that this is not something that we can eliminate by policy or force. Whether we like it or not, prostitution will continue to take place. The only question is how, where, under what conditions, and whether the sex trade worker is there of her/his own accord. So how is it 'safer for women' if they are going into strangers cars rather than using a clean, safe, place where they can call for help if they need to? How is it safer to force sex trade workers to work in places where they cannot be seen, cannot call for help, and disappear into the night in the car of a violent misogynist?

Jennifer, your argument that legalizing prostitution would lead to impovershed women being forced, by welfare-to-work policies, into prostitution is a good point. But legalization and decriminalization are completely different. Do you also believe that safe injection sites will lead to full blown government sanctioned selling of heroin to kids?

Castilleja wtites "do you believe safe injection sites will lead to full blown government sanctioned selling of heroin to kids".
The government would never condone selling drugs to minors but safe injection sites are the first step in a process to government sanctioned selling of heroin to addicts.
hundreds of addicts use the sis every day and most of them don'e have money for drugs so they have to commit crimes and the next step is to give them governemnt supplied heroin. They are, in fact, already doing it with the NAOMI project on the DTES.

So barryjo, if prostitution isn't illegal, as you state, why are they harassing and discriminating against supposed johns?

Is this anti-john thing a moral bridge or a leap at logic?

The johns are a lot sicker than most of the prostitutes, morally speaking.
This type of moral depravation is charcterized and gauged by the amount of denial involved in the illness. Most prostitutes and former prostitutes I know, know they are messed up, they have told me how dirty they feel after turning a trick. They tell me how disgusting the men are but they need the money.
These men are statistically, middle aged, white married males that don't see the damage they are doing, can't see beyond their own self centered needs and, in most cases, are too lazy to do the work to maintain a loving relationship with their partner or wife who they are cheating on. Whether single or married, using people like a piece of meat for sexual purposes in exchange for money shouldn't be acceptable in any society.
Allan, you put a lot of emphasis and effort into trying to put the johns role in this whole thing in a less negative light. Don't think the whole process is damaging to the human spirit?
If a busted john had to wear a shirt everywhere that said "I buy prostitutes" for a year after his conviction, I'm sure he would think twice about picking up a prostitute.
Why is that? Because he knows in his heart it is wrong and it is a shameful act. Denial will only do so much to cover these negative feelings and they come out in relationships with those around us whether it be at home or work.
I, in no way stand on any moral high ground, we all have faults and things to work on, I have just witnessed the damage not only to the prostitute but to the families of the johns.
To answer your question, why are they harassing johns? Because the johns are the vultures, supply and demand, no sick men lurking for girls would mean no prostitution. Society in general takes a really dim view of this behaviour thats why.

barryjo, you keep stepping deeper and deeper into your own mess here.

"I, in no way, stand on any moral high ground," you assure us, just a paragraph or two after telling us "the johns are a lot more sick than most of the prostitutes, morally speaking."

So, let me ask you, are the johns engaged in criminal activity when they get together with the prostitutes, whom you say are not involved in crime?

Can it be a crime only for one participant and not the other, just to clarify?

So I'm back asking "why are they harassing the johns" once again if they aren't involved in illegal activities?

Now, I read that you think johns are the "vultures" even though they are participating in a market place activity.

Society takes a very dim view of an awful lot of things and lets an awful lot of things just slide some times.

Our charter of rights was put in place partly to offset the mob mentality you speak off so that people can actually do a lot of things people might not favour.

Whether you like it or not johns, prostitutes and everyone else has the right to be free from harassment, and that's whether it's from police or self-impossed molarists such as yourself.

That you even talk of forcing johns to wear special clothing to make them suffer for their moral sins says a lot about your understanding of human rights.

Perhaps we should arm police with smite sticks to herd these sinners into the main square where you and other goodly people can brand them, beat the shit out of them, (in front of their family, of course) and then force them to bow down to the power of good and righteous people.

Yes, I would say many johns are sick as are many prostitutes, but your twists in morals and logic suggest you have a problem or two to deal with yourself.

barryjo thinks:

Not such a bad idea, Barryjo. I have to think that the government could buy heroin (and any other drugs) at huge discounts and also ensure that it meets all sorts of quality stipulations. The government could then simply hand it out free to whoever agrees to inject at a SIS. Thus, hygienic injection is ensured.

Meanwhile, citizens who have no interest in this sordid drug drama would no longer fear venturing into downtown Vancouver. Regular citizens would no longer fear assaults, car break-ins and home burglaries.

Barryjo, I think you're on to a very fine idea. In fact, I'll bet if you asked most people, who have had to endure assaults and home robberies, if they'd support such a scheme if it meant less property crime, the answer would be "yes".

For starters, at a minimum, send me a tax bill for $100 to be used in such a scheme.

barryjo suggests:

LOL!

I thought about your idea... how about expanding it.... 'If a bypass surgery survivor had to wear a shirt everywhere that said "I bought BigMacs" for a year after his operations, I'm sure he would think twice about picking up those extra fries and the milkshake.'

Barryjo, are you sure you're not in the T-Shirt business?

Ya right, we should leave the johns alone to prey on these girls who were once innocent little children until God knows what happened to them. I don'e think so.
My whole point about the T-shirt thing is society wouold have a very different view of heart attacks and preedators that prey on vulnerable women. There is a lot more shame in the disgusting act of being a john than being an overeater, in societies eyes anyways, sure makes me wonder why you guys are defending the johns, like its a right or something.
I'd sure hate to be the spouse of one of the middle aged, married men who are the majority of those seeking prostitutes. Adultry over and over, really add some spice to the marriage....huh.

barryjo says:

I wouldn't know. I've never been the former (and can't see myself going down that road), but I have been (am?) one of the latter. Perhaps if there were more societal shame associated with over-eating (or over-consuming in general), we'd have a much healthier society.

Since I know very little about this "business", I ought to bow out of the discussion. However, I would have thought that adultery were just as (more?) shameful. Ought we not to also require T-Shirts for those fooling around with the neighbor's spouse. Perhaps a T-Shirt with a "scarlet A". What think ye?

Overeating is probably the hardest addiction to break of them all because you can't remain abstinent from food, we always need it. Kind of like telling an alcoholic to become a social drinker.
As for T-shirts to announce our sinful nature and exploits, perhaps it is a little radical.
My conscience is my T-shirt, people close to me can tell when I'm being secretive about something I'm trying to hide, I may as well be wearing one.

barryjo, your language is off the wall.

". .leave these johns alone to prey on these girls who were once innocent little children."

Just what are you saying here?

I'd say that if you are in any position of power over people, you ought to be watched carefully.

I don't think anyone is defending johns specifically, but you certainly appear quite ready to convict them of ?

Perhaps you can complete that last line for us because you haven't described any criminal action pertaining to prostitutes and johns so far.

Barryjo, are you suggesting we should return to an era in which people are dragged to court on morals charges, sentenced to jail because others don't like how they behaved?

Perhaps you'd like to see morals crimes handed over to religious authorities to punish. You know, a few whippings and say stonings for the big stuff like murder or having sex with another consenting adult.

I'm quite interested in this concept of shame you keep throwing out. Where does that come from because there is no room in the criminal code for such a punishment, nor is there for harassment, the likes of which you wish to conduct on people.

As much as you may feel a spiritual or religious sense of shame for something you did, why do you suppose others see a sin as you clearly do in a deed, when, in fact, the deed might represent a quite positive experience.

barryjo, I'd urge to you stop projecting your own viewpoint into the actions, goals and objectives of others.

You'd be surprised how freeing it is when you are not forced to judge everyone by you own standards.

I said about a day ago:

And so Stephen Harper marches into town and proclames he is going to get tough on crime.
I REST MY CASE

Allan,
It is obvious to me that this issue really hits close to home for you. When their is emotional or personal involvment in an issue such as this it is useless to argue.
It's okay Allan.
Take ccare,
Barry

barryjo, I haven't accused you of any underhanded unethical actions so why do you imply some ulterior motive to my concerns expressed about this story.

If you took the time and read through past Tyee stories you might notice that often I and others will take issue with an aspect of a story we think is getting underplayed or overplayed.

There is no "emotional or personal involvement", and perhaps you'll be honest enough to clarify specifically what you mean by those remarks.

If anyone has wrapped himself up in knots over this article, I would suggest it is you.

Barryjo, you have been unable to discuss this article without stepping back into the same sexist double talk the author of the story above employed so forcefully.

There is no doubt you have a strong position on this issue, but you lose sight completely of the fact that there are all kinds of other aspects to life.

Rights, for one appear to be something you feel you can just step on if it means getting what you want.

Scary!

I really do have to wonder what style of leadership you would offer anyone when you revert to a myopic "blame the johns" game as soon as you are challenged.

And then when the questions mount up based on your rhetoric you deliver a "I'm not playing with you any more" approach laced with cheap innuendo.

If you are typical of the mindset Conservative leader Stephen Harper is attracting with his attacks on the SIS and pot smokers ec., then I say no thank you.

I merely meant perhaps someone you know personally was either participating as a prostitute or a john as you are very impassioned about the subject.
My passion comes from knowing many working women who ahve shared their very sad, life stories with me.
They are not thew hunters they are the hunted and for many of them it started as children.

I agree with Allan & Skeptikool on this one. I don't think law enforcement will stop prostitution (especially since it is currently not a crime), so we should look at harm reduction, instead.

The author of this piece claims that prostitution creates a model where women are commodified. Two problems with this view:

1) it is capitalism, not prostitution, that commodifies labour. (The questionable argument of whether all labourers metaphorically prostitute themselves under a capitalist regime is beyond the scope of this comment)

2) The author fails to distinguish between two very different scenarios: a) where a woman is outright bought and sold as a slave; and b) where a woman sells sexual services. Conflating these two points makes all sales of services seem like sales of persons, which is a gross misrepresentation. Yes, many prostitutes get into the lifestyle due to certain compulsions (paying for drugs, etc.). But this is a different issue than outright slavery, which is a real and pressing issue.

I also have an issue with the women-only focus of this piece. Why always "violence against women", rather than "violence against prostitutes"? Are male prostitutes less vulnerable or less deserving of state protection? This is a sincere empirical question.

Yes, many prostitutes have tragic biographies, but this doesn't justify you calling someone you disagree with a john because you disagree with them -- especially when on earlier posts you suggest that all johns are sick, morally depraved child molesters.

This is just an oblique way of slamming Allan's character -- unfairly, I believe. If you want to be taken seriously here I suggest you drop the ad hominem attacks & give us some real arguments.

Excuse me -- when I wrote the earlier post I interpreted "perhaps someone you know personally" to be a way of suggesting than Allan was talking about himself.

Prostitution is essentially male violence against women. I'm with Barry on this, and of course, Jennifer. i don't understand why there are so many commentators who want to preserve the right of men to buy and sell women. Sex is nice, you bet. But prostitution and pornography are not about sex, they are about the subjugation of women. They are dehumanizing activites and exchanges for the women, certainly, but also for the men. Why are some of you defending men's rights to buy and use women in this way? And if women do it, too, that doesn't make it any more palatable or humane. I don't know one woman who has not at least considered making money in the sex industry. And I don't know one man who was not exposed to pornographic images of women from an early age. This is not an accident, these are upholding the divisions between us, and shoring up patriarchy. some of you, I am sure, will scoff at me for using the word "patriarchy", but really, this society is patriarchal, and pornography and prostitution helps to maintain the power of men over women which is the foundation of patriarchy.

as for harm reduction, providing people with a safe clean space to shoot up is not providing them with the means to full inclusion and equality in society, it merely herds them out of the way of the tourists as they come for the olympics...Like legalizing prostitution, providing safe fix sites ultimately entrenches inequality and provides a resource for the human services industry. Saving lives, sure, but for what?

I absolutely agree with Peasantwoman. Now in my opinion, the idea that prostitution is the oldest profession in the world does not reflect that society has failed in its effort to criminalize the act, it only reflects the fact that for the most part of human existence, civilization has been mainly patriarachal. Only since this the start of this century have we as a society have begun to fight for gender equality, so the argument that "criminalizing prostitution doens't work" is false because we have just started trying. If we would have remained with the status quo, then women would still not be able to vote, they would not be recognized as having "souls" by the catholic church - and this entire prostitution topic would be a non-issue. It is only because we are begining to recognize their rights that this issue is on the table. (I recognize that I have correlated women with the existence of this industry, but that's because they are the main victims.)
Legalizing prostitution, will solidify society's acceptance that women can use their bodies as commodities. And the example of the battered housewife with no skills who is told by the social worker she should sell herself to make money will be a very real reality for some women. So how can we POSSIBLY justify supporting an industry that may very well further marginalize the already marginalized? That'd be like a social worker telling a midget with no skills to join the circus. It's just not right and they deserve more than to be treated like objects.

Peasantwoman, no one is here trying to preserve the right of anyone to buy or sell sex.

The issue, at least from my perspective, is that a number of involved paticipants have taken it upon themselves to target and harass johns.

Look, I really don't care what your moral ideals are. They are yours to deal with.

If a john is breaking a law then he or she can be charged. Pretty simple.

If he or she isn't breaking a law then we are back to the john being the target of harassment, whether you chose to call it that or you call it "what he deserves."

All this focus on "the johns" does is show that social service agencies and police who have been battling ( some would say managing), the vice for eons, are powerless to stop it, to stop the pimps, or the suppliers and so johns are trotted out as the villans because they are usually quite easy to catch.

The sad part of it is the defence for this pathetic process claims johns are visious, violent and involved in illegal activities, when what you and others are really saying is
those johns have no morals and deserve god's and my wrath.

Rights in Canada apply to everyone, morals aside, including those you happen not to like Peasantwoman and that includes people who are even ammoral or immoral, both of which, like cheese, come in mild, medium and sharp.

Eliminating violence against women is a necessity, no one can deny that.

But you don't gain anything when you abuse one group in a misdirected effort to assist another.

Can someone give any real evidence that targeting johns pays off anyway.

From my perspective all it does is break up families of johns, ruins their lives and offers a badly flawed PR message to the public that yes, police are having a major impact on reducing prostitution, when, in fact nothing has changed except for the odd individual.

If all you are trying to do is pretend everything is ok, then go ahead, but as long as there are prostitutes on the stroll there will more than likely be johns with cash.

Again, the only people defending anything on this forum are you, barryjo and the author, all of whom use quite pointed language with absolutely no evidence to support the claims you make to justify harassing the johns.

The Swedish law that Jennifer referred to proves that targeting johns and pimps and procurers works. The success of the law is possible because it is backed up by a government committment to the the availability of programs that give women income, education and other escape opportunties.

Allan,
Why not harrass the johns, they are the ones who are breaking the law.
Don't you care at all that johns are hurting these women emotionally for their selfish self centered needs.
Just to know people think this way really sickens me.
Justify harrasing johns, their is no jutification for not harrasing them. Sick predators is what they are.
Peasantwoman, these guys are beyond my comprehension and a big part of the reason these girls stay trapped in the trade. It's as simple as supply and demand and as long as you have the Allans of the world who can't see the harm it does, the sex trade will flourish.
And no Allan, I am not saying you are a john, whether you are or not is your stuff not mine, what I am saying is you have a john mentality.
You certainly aren't the type of person I would like to knowe on any level.

Allan,

holding abusive men to account and insisting that they stop buying and selling women is not abusive of those men. In fact, I'd say that it is, well, loving, in a way, to expect that they can see women as their equals, rather than as commodities. Jennifer's article stated that legalizing prostitution will not protect women. It is prostitution itself that is violence against women, not the legal status of the industry. Men need to stop. Women need real options, decent housing, educational opportunities, communal bonds, as do men, and when we have those, prostitution will be history. Why not? We have nothing to lose by telling men, by insisting in fact, that men stop the practice of buying and selling their sisters, their daughters, their mothers, their friends. We all deserve way better that what prostitution and pornography offer.

Thanks, Jennifer, for taking the risk and publishing this article. Well done.

Yes, thank you Jennifer for putting out your viewpoint - your anaylsis obviously put a few men on the defensive. Your logic provides a lot more optimistic vison for women than the one the pro-legalizing or full decriminalizing commentors have put out. I really do not want the grade 2 and 5 girls that I know to grow up being told prostitution is an option.

barryjo, I guess I could sum up my response to your snide post with FU pal, but I suspect it would sail right over.

Besides you have been taken to task on this forum two or three times for your sleezy comments, after which you said you were finished with this Tyee debate.

What keeps drawing you back?

Perhaps that control issue is flairing up again, eh?

Four times you have not very subtly suggested I am a john. I am not a john, but I am also not dumb enough not to notice that the tone of the article we were discussing, verges quite close to the 'all men are rapists' hate spew.

Again someone tosses out pimps and procurers and then immediately drops any further discussion of those people. Instead we see the hate and ire return to the john.

Why, simple, because there is not enough effort being put into arresting and jailing pimps etc.

Much easier for the officials to park their asses in a squad car and wait to entrap some yokel in for the night from the burbs.

This article is not discussing grade two or grade five children. It as an article on prostitution among adults, adult women and adult men.

Perhaps if you want to defend your stance you'll limit your vitriol to that issue and not get into child sex abuse, pornography of any of the other social ills tossed in to this debate by those who apparently can't argue an issue on its own merits.

Yes, there are links between child abuse, poverty, pornography, drug abuse, immigration, the economy, education and capitalism to prostitution.

Put them in another story and focus on them and the harm they do, but quit trotting out every percieved potential when we are clearly talking about prostitution and the practice of going after the johns.

Are you people suggesting johns are responsible for all of the above?

Wow, talk a bout a broad brush.

Perhaps it's time to begin culling out the gender back in hospital nurseries to solve the problem completely.

Peasantwoman, have your way with abusive men. All I am saying is if a person is not commiting a crime then leave them alone.

Don't like their morals. You can despise them, but they aren't yours and if they aren't illegal then get your nose out of others' business.

jin quo, you have presented absolutely no evidence that anything the Swedes did works. But that aside, if Sweden has enacted legislation that targets those people and it does work, then perhaps Canada should be doing it as well.

My primary objection to this article, which was expressed by several others as well, was the strident man-is-guilty theme of it.

That is where barryjo lept in with his liimbs flairly about, ranting about the morality of it all.

If you are in favour of bringing back morals police squads then go for it, but don't try to hide behind the criminal code when you are persecuting people for completely legal activities even if you find it objectionable.

allan is correct:

Put them in another story and focus on them and the harm they do

Look, let's go for logical consistency first. Barryjo's points lack logic.

In two separate but tangentially related topics, Barryjo wants to go after the johns in one debate, and the drug pushers in another. Help me with this Barryjo: why are the buyers guilty in one scenario and the sellers in another. I don't get it.

But more to the point on this topic, it is, as Allan and others point out, largely about poverty and lack of opportunity. There's no need to get your knickers in a rhetorical knot about patriarchal societies and all that crap; just focus on poverty and lack of opportunity that has almost nothing to do with men versus women.

So I'll get back to my initial point. Legalize prostitution in a society in which all humans (men AND women) have an opportunity to get an education, avail themselves of healthcare, and participate in the workplace in a meaningful way. In that society, if women find themselves selling their bodies, it'll be the society itself, not the johns, that should be demonized.

Allan,
It wasn't that long ago that I was driving down Kingsway and there was a couple of girls working and guess what...they were cops, why were they there... I was watching them nab johns and charging them, unless they recently changed the law it is illegal to pick up prostitutes.
Ever here about john school Allan, where the johns go to learn about the consequences of their action to them personally or other sexual partners. And sometimes they bring in girls who have left the street and they talk about what it was like and their feelings about the men.
Defend the actions of these men all you want, it just shows how out of touch with the reality of this situation you really are.
Whoops, I forgot, because I have an opinion I have control issues in Allans world.
In spite of your seemingly coldhearted approach to this subject and your lack of empathy for the plight of these young women, you are entitled to your opinion and although I don't understand it or respect it, I concede, it is our right in a free thinking society.

This is silly.

Sure male sexuality can be tempered and molded, but like it or not, it is what it is- often voracious and undiscriminatory.

Secondly, capitalism and the monetary system will conitnue to ensure that one person will buy a commodity from another. Bid and ask prices need only be agreed upon.

End of discussion! It now merely a question of finding the safest environment to conduct business, and it certainly isn't in the dark cruel streets of the Downtown Eastside.

Grub,
You state" barryjo wants to go after the johns in one debate,the drug pushers in another". And "why are the buyers guilty in one scenario and the sellers in another".
It's quite simple johns and drug pushers victimize the people they have dealings with.
You suggest that society should be demonized for the women in prostitution and not the johns. I say society plays a huge role much like the johns do and a majority of those in society do demonize the johns because they participate in predatory behaviour against mostly vulnerable, sick women.

soap_box has an astute analysis:

Secondly, capitalism and the monetary system will conitnue to ensure that one person will buy a commodity from another. Bid and ask prices need only be agreed upon.

End of discussion! It now merely a question of finding the safest environment to conduct business, and it certainly isn't in the dark cruel streets of the Downtown Eastside.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I will, however, add that prostitutes (male or female) may well be the victims of early sex abuse, lack of educational opportunity, and a paucity of employment; for that society ought to be held to account.

Barryjo, why don't you address my essential point?

To me it doesn't matter if it is legal or not, in fact it is legal. Although it is already legal how does the issue of whether it is legal or not matter if the prostitute gets an education, has healthcare or participate in the workplace in a meaninful way.
I believe in the human spirit and I believe the act robs both the prostitute and the john of the ability to feel good about themselves and damages the spirit.
I know most men who participate in it are married, middle aged men and it has to affect their marriage, where is the benefit in that. The men keep their secret and must always have to worry about their kids finding out. Really adds to a healthy family atmosphere, hey. Kind of hard to give your kids lessons on using and abusing people don't you think.
I understand where you are coming from, I just think there is more to it than legality, morals and values should be an important consideration.
Allan will be all over this but I can understand where he is coming from.

Barryjo and peasantwoman are right. And I will say what they didn't say, "Men who use prostitutes are scum, using up air the rest of us may need some day."

Prostitutes need to get their heads out of their butts (get past denial of their addictions, compulsive disorders and whatever other mental condition they may have), get clean, grab some self-esteem and a goal in life--a "raison d'être". Yeah, most of them have been sexually abused and beaten since childhood. Some have brain damage. They will all have to work around those emotional, physical and mental disabilities, and we should be voting for governments who will put in programs to help them do this--instead of constantly voting for Uncle Sam, reduced social programs and increased tax breaks for the rich, indolent and useless. Johns are as useless as the rich. No self-control. They can all go drop dead anytime and no one would miss them. Johns often spread disease to their innocent girlfriends and wives. Quite a few are predators who graduate to rape, torture and murder. All of them have their heads up their butts in denial that they have an unhealthy attitude towards women and likely an addiction to sex. If they have money to waste on prostitutes, they can afford to go and get psychological help. There is so much stupidity and self-indulgence out there on the streets.

Marysue paints a very grim picture of the situation that prostitutes are in. Addictions, compulsive disorders and mental conditions, sexually abused and beaten since childhood, brain damage. "They will all have to work around those emotional, physical and mental disabilities...".

Some years ago Xaviera Hollander wrote a book called "The Happy Hooker". It seems to me that she made a case for the small business person that someone above said is the norm in Holland. Not to deny that the situation that Marysue describes is extant, but is it not possible that prostitution can be a job that people chose like any other? I've read that that's how the women in the Nevada brothels look at it.

And is it not possible that a lonely guy getting his rocks off is just that, and is not necessarily on the path to rape, torture and murder?

I wonder if women who use sex to catch husbands are prostitutes, and if their husbands are scum.

I wonder if sexuality and the human condition can so easily be reduced to victims and scum.

I appreciate that the author of the article used the words prostitute and prostitution instead of the ubiquitous politically correct "sex trade" and "sex trade workers". Every time I hear these terms, I envision a sex trade booth showing up at my kid's shool some day for career day.

Or how about the woman in Germany I read about in the newspaper who was refused unemployment benefits because she turned down the opportunity to work as a prostitute? She spent months fighting the government on that one. Yeah, I'd really like to see that happen to me or my daughter.

And what about the fact that a whole lot of girls & boys out on the streets are underage?
But hey, if it helps a lonely guy get "his rocks off", why should anybody care?
And let's just ignore the whole issue of HIV transmission because everybody practices safe sex now, right?

It may be the world's oldest profession but it's also the most degrading and demoralizing. There may be a few "happy hookers" over in Holland but I bet they are few & far between. Most fall into this lifestyle, after either experiencing childhood sex abuse or to support their drug addiction. Frequently both. It is rarely a freely thought-out carefully considered life choice. And really, how many little kids say "I wanna be a hooker when I grow up?" And how many parents want to hear this?

Most of the young women & men on the streets dream of a so-called "normal life" white picket fence and all but can't see a way out of the trap they are in.

We desperately need more rehab places and more support services for those who wish to escape this lifestyle. If Sweden has successfully reduced prostitution, why not examine their model?

I find it rather disturbing that so many with male usernames are objecting to this article. We are never going to stamp out prostitution completely, but we can try to reduce the problem. Setting loaded moral issues aside, it's a public health issue.

lyra:

I suspect most of the people commenting on this thread would agree. In fact, I sense most (all) of the contributors are sympathetic to prostitutes and the horrid life-style they're hooked in to.

My point has been that we need to provide the social support systems and the infrastructure in our society that will prohibit or minimize the chances of people slipping into prostitution. Failing that, I think that once adults make the decision to enter that world (or any other decisions adults make) they are, from that point on, responsible for what happens. Just as the johns are responsible for their actions. If prostitutes want to set up a "Happy Hooker" small business, so be it. If they want to walk the streets; that's their choice.

As a society, we can provide everyone with education, healthcare, and meaningful job opportunities; that's our obligation. Once the prostitute has availed herself/himself of that, and still walked away, then they're on their own. Let's legalize it, collect business taxes, make health and safety inspections and provide WCB benefits in case of workplace injuries.

Adults make adult choices

barryjo says:

Look, the people who broke into my house and car (numerous times) were very likely disadvantaged in some way. Statistics show that most criminals have learning disabilities. Perhaps their parents beat them. Perhaps their uncles abused them sexually. DOES THAT MAKE THEM VICTIMS when they break into my house?

I'm beginning to see the pattern in your view of the world Barryjo: I'm beginning to see that, in the theft of my property by some crooks, I'm actually the guilty party. Clearly I'm an enabler insofar as I obviously didn't secure my property well enough. Clearly my lax security arrangements tempted these poor souls into a life of crime!

Give me a f*cking break! When will people (adults) take responsiblit for their actions?! Victims indeed!

lyra, I am glad that you at least get that much of this is about morals.

Had we all been around a couple of hundred years ago there is no doubt my house would have been torched by some righteous citizens for my words.

I don't think a lot of "male names" as someone implied, are upset with the article, but rather the tone that doesn't seem to differentiate between morals and law.

Fine or subtle, they might be, but they are, in my read, a bridge apart and I would thank the moralists for staying on that side.

My second primary reason for staying here is to counter the madness that we see in the writing of barryjo.

As well intentioned as he may be, his grasp of rights seems almost nonexistant and his willingness to abuse others' rights to get his way is frightening.

barryjo, you have a real control problem, I'd say as strong as anyone trying to control the actions of another, so perhaps you might stop and reflect on your mission to cure the world
your way.

I am not trying to defend johns , something I've made clear several times yet continue to have thrown back at me. Why, because it's easier to name call than rationalize?

That's the sad part, when you try to open this to discussion you become part of the problem for those who will not tolerate alternative thought.

Scary.

Exactly Grub,
Taking reponsibility for their actions is the key. Speaking of learning didabilities, I have a guy working for me who is an addict. He was in a car wreck, in a coma for almost a month, they said he may never walk right or talk again.
He took responsibilty, he is six years clean and sober and is a foreman for my company, so clearly taking responsibility is the answer. I believe most addicts and protitutes have been victimized somewhere along the way,uasually when they were young but I also believe personal reponsibilty is the answer.
You seem to really take exception to the statement that drug pushers and johns victimize the people they have dealings with.
I will stand by that assertion, and I don't know how you went from there to someone breaking into your house. Most of those doing b+e's are drug addicts and they should be held accountable for their actions.
For people to change they need care and compassion and for someone to believe in them, life has wounded them somehow and I dont'know if you do already but if you don't, maybe give back a little to your community, get out their and help the wounded.

Hi Allan,
If having an opinion is a control problem, yup, I got one.
I take my opinion and I use it to help others and try to make the community a better place.
What is that opinion? It's that there are a lot of sick, wounded people that don't need to be further victimized and I stand by that.
Oh I forgot, I'm stepping on the toes of the johns and the drug pushers, sorry.

Re the German unemployment to prostitute story

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

Thanks to Jennifer, Barryjo & Peasant woman & a few others for articulating many of the reasons for abolishing prostitution.

Thanks for NOTHING from all the past/present/future johns who have AT LENGTH described why they & their brothers should continue to profit from violence against women. I know you could change your minds & decide to value women and treat us as equals. Here's hoping.

While it's impossible for me to respond to all of the comments there are a few points to clarify. Decriminalization and legalization are two separate approaches to prostitution but they go hand in hand. Decriminalization means pulling all of the sections of the criminal code that deal with the acts surrounding prostitution; pimping, procuring, brothel keeping and communicating for the purposes of prostitution. Changes to the criminal code fall under federal jurisdiction.
Legalization means the government controls and regulates prostitution. Legalization starts on a municipal level since zoning red-light districts and collecting liscensing fees fall under municipal jurisdiction.
If the parliamentary sub committee reforms after the federal election, and continues to push for decriminalization, municipalities across the country are free to start legalizing through zoning and licensing.
The parliamentary sub committee has made it clear that they will regroup and continue their campaign as soon the election is over.

And when did women's human rights become an issue of moralizing? Don't trivialize this.
This is not an issue of "consenting adults" when women and 13-year old girls are coerced by poverty and violence.
Jennifer Moreau

Jennifer writes "when did womens human rights become an issue of moralizing".
My answer would be the same time they did for men, when any group of people who are marginalized for whatever reason are preyed upon. In this case mostly women whose main motivation behind their participation is to finance a drug dependence.

Grrlbrain wrote:

"Thanks for NOTHING from all the past/present/future johns who have AT LENGTH described why they & their brothers should continue to profit from violence against women."

Your anger is clear. Your thinking is not. Is it your wish to alienate those few men who take the time to talk with you about this important issue? Branding me as a john and a pimp does not serve to convince me of anything other than your intolerance and your inability to hear anything other than your own thoughts. If you wish to be valued and treated equally, you might try offering the same.

Nobody is talking about 13-year old; they're not consenting adults. As to women "coerced by poverty"; I've already addressed that. Society carries that burden (the poverty).

And at the risk of inflaming the debate, I have to ask, when Jennifer talks of "human rights", does she include the rights of consenting adults (ADULTS, not 13-year olds!!!) to make their own decisions? And to take responsibility for them?

Can we at least agree that NOT all prostitutes are "coerced by poverty"? Can we not agree that adults have the human/civil right to make their own decisions?

If you would deny men and women that right, then you're denying women the right to make decisions over their own bodies. I'm not sure you really want to go there, because that get's you into the realm of making decisions regarding abortions. I stand by a woman's right to that decision -- even though she might be coerced into that decision by poverty (again, shame on a society that allows such situations to develop).

This was written today in the Vancouver Sun by a sex trade worker known as Erica. In my opinion, Erica's piece much more clostely reflects the reality of sex trade work than the position espoused by Ms. Moreau

Micah Erickson, Special to the Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, December 06, 2005

My name is Micah. I am a Vancouver prostitute, and the single mother of a pre-school child.
I grew up in foster care and have a Grade 9 education. I have a massage practitioner's license. During the day I worked at a straight job, for $9 per hour, until quitting two weeks ago.

I am now looking for another day job. There is no way that I can make enough money to pay for daycare and support my son and myself on $9 an hour.
At night I work in a massage studio to supplement my income. Working as a prostitute is emotionally and spiritually draining, but it's a choice I've made so I can support my son and myself and plan for our future. I'm saving money to go to hairdressing school.

Without my night job there is no way I could do that. Without my night job I would probably be on social assistance.
At the studio (we dislike the term "brothel") I'm able to choose my clients. I'm not forced to do anything I'm not willing to do, and I don't provide any services that make me uncomfortable.
I keep all my tips less $10 per shift for advertising. The company provides me with everything I need to work comfortably and safely. I have STD tests regularly to ensure the safety of my clients and myself, and I don't smoke or use illegal drugs.

In a studio the prostitutes are never alone, and the clients are aware that there are always other people there. This screens out the abusive predators who merely wish to harm us.
I've experienced violence in a studio only once in 10 years. The lady I was working with came to my rescue and we threw him out. Unfortunately, those men pick up prostitutes who work the streets and who have no protection.
Violence within the trade usually occurs on the streets. Every night, the women and men who work the streets face robbery, beatings, police harassment, arrest and sometimes death.

To avoid the police, they must go to secluded spots, which put them in more danger from men who are looking for human beings to abuse.

Street prostitutes don't want to work on the streets, but circumstances have led them there. Anything can and does happen to them -- no one knows where they are and no one cares.

Escort services have become quite popular. It's very cut and dried work. You show up, get your money, provide your service and leave. I hate that work because it's so dangerous. You never know what you are walking into.
The men who called for us have usually been drinking or using cocaine and don't want to leave their hotel or home.
Even though we are the ones risking our lives, the escort service takes a great deal of the money we make, and in the end they made more than we do.

If all sex workers worked inside a studio it would eliminate a great deal of violence against them. The community wouldn't have to see them on the streets, and men wouldn't be circling blocks where families live and people work.
Working inside would also allow many of the drug-addicted sex workers to get help with their addictions. Then they might be able to gain control of their lives and get out of the business as I hope to do someday.
Prostitution will always be here. But if we decriminalize it, put the sex workers in studios and monitor them we will be keeping them safe, cutting down on the spread of disease and cleaning up our streets.

As well, it will give many prostitutes the opportunity to become drug-free and leave the profession.

Micah Erickson, 29, resides in Vancouver and frequently travels to Calgary where she also works at a massage parlour.

© The Vancouver Sun 2005

Micah's, (not Erika) story actually proves Jennifer's point. That if she had been offered the opportunity to live without being forced to choose prostitution, she would not do it. I'm glad she has some measure of safety, but its pretty clear that this was not her first choice of employment. Why are men so willing to accept that prostitution will always exist, when in fact buying another human being is soemthing that any man can stop himself from doing.

jn guo thinks:

I disagree. I think it makes the case for legalization.

Prostitution, like many activities, is not something most people would choose to do. On that I think all contributors to this thread agree.

Further, I can't personally comprehend the motivation of johns.

However, those motivations are as old as time itself. Criminalizing these motives and/or the activities which satisfy them will only drive the activities underground and into all the spooky places most of us can't even imagine. That's a reality; we've enough history with all sorts of "prohibitions" to know what happens when prohibition is invoked. Willing buyers and sellers will find a way and will create a marketplace.

As a society, we do however have a choice regarding where that marketplace is located; a scummy back alley or a "studio" as per the article.

jin guo further asks:

On the latter point we agree: "buying another human being is something that any man can stop himself from doing." I don't condone it and, in fact, I find it reprehensible.

However, on the former point: "Why are men so willing to accept that prostitution will always exist..." I need only ask: "Don't we have enough history to comprehend why it is called the 'oldest profession'?" Let's get our heads out of the sand and take care of the safety of our women!

Jennifer has made some valid points in her article, and I agree with her that:
- For many women and men that have entered the sex-trade, it's not a matter of choice. Many women are forced into the sex trade as a result substance abuse, untreated mental illness, learning or personality disorders that make it very difficult for the women to hold other forms of work. Society must address these fundamental issues, so that women have real choices;
- We must prevent kids from entering the sex-trade as an escape from abusive or neglectful home environments;
- We must eliminate human trafficking, particularly as a conduit to the sex trade;
- Politicians and society are conflicted over the issue, and as a result we have a set of ambiguous laws emanating from multiple layers of government.
The article has some significant weaknesses, however, in that:
- Its tone has an anti-male, sex negative ring, and drips with fundamentalist moralism. The author presumes that all heterosexual domestic violence is committed by men against women, despite the fact that many studies show otherwise;
- The author over-generalizes on the topic, and can not fathom that some women chose to be in the sex trade, and some even enjoy the sex as much as the money. Further to this, she can not appreciate that sex between consenting adults - whether partners for 60 years or 60 minutes – has the potential to be life-affirming, even in the context of a commercial sexual transaction;
- The author tends to portray the issue in black and white, often in terms of good and evil. She does not consider that life is full of shades of gray, paradox, and irony, and sexuality issues are no different;
- The author argues that a move towards decriminalization or legalization would cause more damage. In the countries that have legalized the sex-trade– Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia to name a few – how does the incidence of violence compare to those countries that have more restrictive laws, such as the United States? How have these jurisdictions reduced the entry of children into the trade, interrupted human trafficking, and forced the unscrupulous pimps out of the process?
- The notion that personal sexual expression can be controlled and suppressed by the legal system seems anachronistic at best. An interesting university study would be to look at the correlation between a society's sexual repressiveness (as measured by its values, beliefs, practices, mores, and laws), versus the incidence of violence (both sexual and non-sexual) and level of compassion found in the society. This would give a good basis for understanding the contribution the sex-trade may provide to Society. Could it be that sexual repression gives rise to more pathological expressions of human behavior?
- The article ignores other factors that motivate men to use the service of a sex worker, such as lack of a partner (due to death, illness, or relationship break-up), willingness of a partner as a result of illness or old age, physical handicap, and an imbalance between men and women regarding the sex-drive. Given that men, on average, have stronger libidos, how do we as a society constructively deal with it, apart from repression and suppression? Perhaps we need to offer a socially sanctioned, non-monogamous marriage option that accommodates the male sex drive?
It would be great to hear from some women in the sex-trade, particularly those in the higher echelons of the industry – massage parlor attendants, escorts, courtesans, and mistresses – so that we can have a better understanding of the issues, and avoid the judgments, condemnation, and name-calling that undermines healthy dialogue.

Most women I know would rather work for $9.00 an hour and look for something better than to sacrifice their soul for money. But its her right and if it makes her happy, what the heck.
Micah says she is a liscensed maasage practishioner, why not get a job doing that non- sexually as opposed to turning tricks.
Grub says "given that men, on average, have stronger libidos", whats the point are you saying its okay to use a person like a piece of meat to satisfy yourself.
Good thing most of the lefties on Tyee won't be running the world anytime soon. wheew.

Sorry, I was rushing out the door when I wrote up my post.... her name was Micah, not Erica.

Barryjo -

I think that it's pretty normal for men and women use each others bodies to satisfy their sexual desires - and of course, to offer their bodies for such use. If you want to find out what it's like to be used like a piece of meat, go work a heavy manual labour job. Some men enjoy the work, and many are there for the dollar and as soon as they can afford to get out they do. It seems that society (made up of the men and women who enjoy the products of the labour) has an insatiable demand for the sacrifice of the bodies of men to industry.

I know that this is a tangent. I'm reacting to the judgementalism and victim-voice that are coming down on this thread. Of course we should help those who are victimized. But let's not lose sight of people's desire to better themselves. Sometimes women, and men, rent out the use of their bodies for various purposes in the hope that they'll be able to use the money to move into something less demeaning and damaging.

Which brings me to the language that many are using here. Someone above on this thread made the distinction between selling bodies (slavery) and prostitution. While I recognize that there are people trapped in virtual slavery by their employers (pimps, industrialists, whoever), to use the language of slavery where it doesn't universally apply muddies the argument. I rented my body to my employers, and nowadays I rent them my knowledge, ability and experience. What I sell is a service. Not me. Just a service. I own me. I'm fine with helping prostitutes - and manual labourers, and anyone else - to get clear about owning themselves.

You know barryjo, you are the only person tossing political jabs on this thread, yet you insist you are absolutely serious about the issue of prostitution.

I like a good political line often, but it just seems really out of place in this piece given the nature of the debate.

So I am surprised you would take cheap shots at probably a lot of people on both sides of this thread.

I think you'll agree it was a dumb move, but perhaps you could explain why something so important to you could be trivilized to score cheap political shots.

Are you more interested in people than politics?

How do you know?
Did you try to prostitute yourself legally and illegally in the same city at the same time? In Berlin government opened the largest brothel in the world. 800 women and 200 man willing to serve tourists to the Worls Soccer Championships next year. No alcohol served or allowed on the premises.
Keeping prostitution legal, but bowdy houses illegal helps only pimps and serial killers, who prey on a streetwalkers. I met hundreds of prostitutes as a taxi driver in Vancouver BC. They say that typical Johns hate women and usually have a bitch for a wife. Many of them just want to talk to the polite prostitute rather than nagging wife.
Is there any Moral in this story? Figure it out wives? If you do not want to do to your husband what he wants, he will find somebody who will, for your and your kids money!

barryjo says:

Sorry, I did not. I would not. Please withdraw that allegation.

Rod Paynter says:

Barryjo and others making similar arguments seem to miss the point that this is about as sympathetic an audience as they're ever going to find. Most of the counter-points have been empathetic but have questioned the logic of the argument. In that sense, we're only trying to be helpful.

An argument is of no use whatsoever if it implodes due to logical inconsistencies. If you try to win the argument on emotional appeals, meant to tug at heart-strings, you're doomed from the start.

If you want to talk about women's human rights, that's fine. But you must be aware that you can't be picky and choosy about what human rights are important. Your rights stop where mine start. If we can all accept that, we can start a meaningful dialogue about prostitution.

Grub,
You are correct sir, it was someone else who said that, I do apologize. I do disagree this is the most sympathetic audience we would get, most pople dispise johns, it is a rarity to run into so much john justification in numbers.

Allan,
I really enjoy dialouging with the likes of Grub and Truman etc. but you my friend are something else. Never any reasoning just verbal diahrea, bordering on insanity.

barryjo, if you have uttered a reasoned statement on this thread please point it out.

Look fellow, I don't know you but certainly get the impression your head is far too large for your body.

You beleive you simply toss out vague stats and then use them to justify abusing anyone you feel doesn't quite muster up to your view of the world.

As I said before, you have some true control problems. I pity anyone employed by you or under yout control.

If you want to debate anything, please bring an iota of logic and give up this dependancy on emotional bullshit that is neither factual nor of any value in attempting to get a true look at the dynamics as play in this issue.

You sound like the classic reformed something or other, driven to prove your way is the only way, yet unable to focus past your own self-interested nose.

Wake up there fellow, It's a big world that doesn't simply enclose the DTES.

Well, at least you have given up that cheesy little effort to tar anyone who disputes anything about this article as a "john."

Jennifer, I'd like to thank-you for posting your article here. It's promoted some really passionate responses on both sides of the issue. Hopefully, it's caused us all to reflect more deeply on the topic and our reactions to it.

I have found that human sexuality topics bring up strong reactions amongst most of us, regardless of idealogy. Is it possible to create an environment where respectful dialogue on sexuality is encouraged, and we begin to hear what the other person is saying, rather than reacting to what we think we are hearing?

Jennifer, you make the same mistakes all over again! Why do you insist on saying a 13 year old sex slave is exactly the same as a 30 year old adult sex trade worker in the business because she prefers it over slaving at McD for minimum wage? This attitude simultaneously trivializes child sex slavery and is utterly disrespectful towards adult women (and the smaller numbers of male prostitutes). It's like saying chaining a child to a carpet loom is the same as paying an adult a decent wage to do a 40 hour work week at a carpet loom.

And no, you mix up legalization and decriminalization again. Municipalities can and do legalize prostitution any way they like right now. Under current laws, which are completely contradictory, prostitution is legal, but any way of actually doing it is illegal. So municipalities and police simply have 100% discretionary power to arrest or not arrest prostitutes at any time and they can therefore control the sex trade any way they want, and that's exactly what they do. They generally respond to NIMBY attitudes and drive the indoor and outdoor sex trade around the city when people complain. And they charge exhorbitant fees for licences. Decriminalization will force municipalities to give the same sets of basic legal rights to prostitutes that they give to any self-employed professionals or small businesses. Sure, they'll still have a little discretionary authority, but nothing like they have now, and nothing like would exist if we created a comprehensive, highly controlling 'legalization strategy' a la Nevada.

As for peasantwoman and those of you who say things like, "Prostitution is essentially male violence against women." I think, what planet are you living on? First off, some women go to male and female prostitutes, too. A smaller number, granted, but how are you going to describe that? And how is marriage, a legal economic arrangement involving sex, so fundamentally different, then? And how is buying someone dinner in the hopes they'll like you for being so generous and kiss you at the end of the night fundamentally different? As I said previously, are you trying to argue that women should, by law, be forced to give sex to men for free, or else not have sex at all? Because that's the logical conclusion of your position.

I've actually never paid for sex in my life, incidentally; my personal connection is I have friends, both male and female, who work in the trade.

You also wrote: Why are some of you defending men's rights to buy and use women in this way?"

I couldn't care less about the johns, really. I'm concerned about the prostitutes, those women and men. Do you really think they're all just stupid? Not enlightened like you? Is that what you think? Because you're acting like that. It seems like you simply think only victims, idiots, addicts or mindless slaves would work in the sex industry. In my experience, many of them are educated, intelligent, sensitive, caring, responsible, strong, loving people. And they get a bit annoyed when feminists merely rail against them and add fuel to society's hatred, violence and demeaning abuse of them instead of actually trying to help improve their self-esteem and working conditions.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard prostitutes say that their johns are usually much nicer and more respectful to them than ordinary people are when they find out they're prostitutes. So what's that saying? Why do so many of you show such utter disrespect for the intelligence of adult prostitutes? Is it just possible they might have a valid point of view on this, too? Talk to the Sex Professionals of Canada,http://www.spoc.ca/
or Peers in Victoria, or anyone who actually works with these people and find out.

Alan and I have enjoyed disagreeing over other issues on this site, but you are currently doing him a disservice. Your posts are personal & nasty and your arguments lack clarity. Please heighten the level of debate.

Steve P
It was Allan that was constantly callig me down, I make one negative comment in return for all his b.s. and you're all over it. Look at all the posts on this and other topivs before you decide who is disrespecting who. Actually you don't have to worry as far as he is concerned, I will never again respond to anything hw writes.

barryjo, do as you urge others and read back through these posts.

You will note I did not get close and personal with you until after you had tossed stuff in the fan in several of your posts, first implying that I was defending myself as a john and then degenerating into a generally hostile attitude toward I and others who do not see the world through your color of sunglasses.

In fact, it was you who interjected into a response I made to the author of this piece several days ago.

As for you no further responding to anything I write, that is encouraging, but your track record ( telling readers you would no longer continue in this debate several times before doing exactly that), isn't stellar, is it?

xbie,

I have no quarrel with women (or men--more likely boys, of course) who are prostitutes. Quite the contrary. And how do you know that I don't know what i'm talking about in regards to prostitution? I know many women who have been involved in the system of prostitution, have worked closely with them, they are friends and colleagues. How do you know that anyone on this list who has a strong critique of the 'sex trade', including me, has not been involved in that same trade? You don't. And no one has to reveal this here, either. as for your question about whether marriage is essentially prostitution, well...yea, maybe it is. Women do not have equal footing with men in this society. not yet. until we do, marriage is going to be at least partly about ownership, property, finances, yada yada yada. But this is not about marriage. It's about prostitution, which is a system of enslavement of women. Most of whom, by the bye, entered prostitution at the age of 14. It is the men who buy these women and girls for whom I have such contempt. and yea, a few women also buy other women, or men. Reprehensible practice, that. I see it as another way to attempt to acquire the kind of 'power over' that men have in our society. I don't think women should be forced to give sex to men for free, or to not have sex at all, that does not follow at all from my argument that prostitution is violence. Men should not force, coerce, wheedle or buy sex, or control women's sexuality in any way. It oughta be fun, exciting, consensual, intimate...c'mon.
Sure some of the johns are nice to these women. They're getting what they want from them, aren't they? Why would they be rude?(though, of course many are rude. And mean. Viscious...you've heard the stories, you know what goes on, you live in the world) Lots of slave owners, I'm sure, had genuine affection for the people they kept as chattel. But gee whiz, when slavery ended, those same previously enslaved people were in great danger from their former "benefactors". Still are. We have so far to go...why are you in the way?

one more thing-- Micah, the woman who works in a brothel, she said she found it "emotionally and spiritually draining". doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for legalization to me. Sounds like she'd rather be working at something she wants to do and that pays her enough to care for herself and her son. Why should she have to jack off men to make enough to go to school? There's enough, this is a wealthy country, give her a decent income, educational opportunities, good childcare for her child, community, not more "opportunities" to give guys blowjobs. guys who could be your grandfather or your dad, your brother or your buddy.

okay. that's all from me.

I think we should let prostitutes speak for themselves.

From the Sex Professionals of Canada web site:

Re: living on the avails

Re: the futility of criminalizing prostitution

Prostitution is going to happen, even if most of us people believe it is immoral. Therefore, we should take a harm reduction approach, and empower prostitutes to take control over their own lives.

A controversial story from Denmark:

Danish activists for the disabled are staunchly defending a government campaign that pays sex workers to provide sex once a month for disabled people.

Opposition parties call the program, officially known as ''Sex, irrespective of disability,'' immoral.

''We spend a large proportion of our taxes rescuing women from prostitution. But at the same time we officially encourage caregivers to help contact with prostitutes,'' said Social-Democrat spokesperson Kristen Brosboel.
Responded Stig Langvad of the country's Disabled Association: ''The disabled must have the same possibilities as other people. Politicians can debate whether prostitution should be allowed in general, instead of preventing only the disabled from having access to it.''

Steve P. It seems only a prude would deny an otherwise healthy adult one of the few pleasures his or her body has to offer.

Peasantwoman, I do appreciate your energy on this, but I believe your arguments are badly flawed, primarily because they insist that women have no self-control, that women can't refuse or turn down money.

, you ask.

She doesn't have to jack men off. Are you saying that she had an economic reliance on the sex trade before she turned her first trick?

Why not flip burgers, be a server, do the call centre thing?

If you say they don't earn enough in those jobs then perhaps government can subsidize workers who move out of the trade and into more mainstream employment.

As it stands prostitutes can earn far more doing that than a $6Bucks wage provides.

Who's to blame for that, the john's because they pay the asked and going price, or government and the hospitality industry that lobbied the provincial Liberals so hard to gut the minimum wage that it's now poverty inducing?

It seems to me the chicken and egg view of this is that when prositutes are "moved" out of some areas because of increasing political pressure from nearby residents, business etc., they decide where they will relocate, sort of like the queen bee.

I mean, the idea of men driving around blocks or back and forth along the strip, insisting that the prostitutes get in line, is a bit much.

But what bothers me most about your post is that it is jam packed full of morality.

Man should not force, coerce, wheedle (I've experienced that one and I'm a man), or buy sex, or control women's sexuality in any way.

Certainly no one should be forced, but are you saying that attracting the attention of a hooker and agreeing to her price and terms can be described as forcing someone against their will?

I oppose the political move to making it possible for the legalization of brothels, Jennifer, I back you all the way.
Grub saying "Criminalizing these motives and/or the activities which satisfy them will only drive the activities underground and into all the spooky places most of us can't even imagine. That's a reality; we've enough history with all sorts of "prohibitions" to know what happens when prohibition is invoked. Willing buyers and sellers will find a way and will create a marketplace".
In response to the above comment, I would like to suggest that this is a conitued myth in society that is not rooted in any scientific research. First, prostitution is already underground in those spooky places that the author believes are unimaginable. As a woman, I find no spookier place than the front seat of a stranger's car. Second, I am so tired of the assumption that prostituted people are acting on their uninhibited 'Free Will'. As has been stated in many cooments already, nobody would freely choose a position where they are under constent threat of being raped, murdered, or infected by an STD. Why is this argument consitently being used to rationalize the persistence of this historic form of oppression? Third, the issue that Jennifer brings to the table is that Vancouver is seriously considering a red light district and that this is erroneously intended to help prostitutes. I agree whole heartedy, and clear mindedly, with her argument. This very real political move is a serious threat to those who are and will be prostituted in our community.
Furthermore, the above mythic point of veiw transcends issues of human rights, moves beyond economics, and skips over political issues and steps into the rhealm of human beahaviour. The quote implies it will always be as it has always been. This is circular and wrong. It is a well proven fact that a behaviour is stopped and prevented particularly when a punishment is clearly and consitently used in a timely fashion. The severity of the punishment is not as effective as the reliability of being caught, tried, and sentenced. The criminal justice sysem is arguably Canada's chosen method to systemicaly punish certain behaviours it deems as criminal. I beleive, as Jennifer, that prositution is oppressive and a form of violence against the person. Hence, the opressor is the John, and the John purchasing the body of a prostitute for sexual gratification should be seen as a criminal act by Canada. I believe the only reason that prositution has been allowed to continue in human history is because the Johns have never faced the certainty that they would be caught, tried, and sented for this act. Therefore the punishment logically must be aimed at preventing their behaviour in a reliable way that will apply to each man (and they are overwhelmingly men) in order to stop this. Quite frankly, these men are getting away with crime, and murder today and the suggestions of the Vancouver municipal board will not properly deter this crime.
I agree with Jennifer, the act of prostitution is oppressive to the women, men, and children who's bodies are being purchased for sexual gratification of Johns. I think it it most helpful to view prostitution as purchasing the use of another human body for sexual gratification. No prostitute I have ever met is proud of their job, they are never consenting to the sexual act soley for sexual gratification. It is obvious that prostitutes are always and in every circumstance in a compromised position based on their socio-economic motives to perform this act. Furthermore, prostitutes are most likely to be young, low income, women of colour and to experience physical and sexual abuse- these are the scientifically found facts that all support the argument against the state legalizing prostitution. These facts also make prostitution an issue of male violence against women in Canada. The laws won't be changed around assault and rape, just the laws about opening brothels. This is a mistake I don't want Vancouver to make. -Aurea

auraelea

Right! We're agreed! So let's create an environment that is regulated so that the threats you speak of are controlled.

When it comes to the safety of people engaged in these activities, I think all persons contributing to this thread agree.

aurealee

Hmmm, can't say as I'd disagree with you. I think Singapore is a great example of what you propose. However, what sort of punishment do you envision?

Further, to what extent does your model infringe on human rights? Are you willing to forego universal human rights so easily? Before you do, take a really close look at Singapore. Is this really what you want?

VSSGC- Uh, I don't know about that sex drive imbalance. Really. I think it's an individual thing, not a female-male thing. Our culture (and well, most) certainly focuses more on the male sex drive. We, as a culture, seek immediate gratification, and in this respect women and men differ. The drive itself, I don't think is all that different. For crying out loud, multiple orgasms, friend! Sexual beings capable of such a thing must have very healthy sex drives, don't you think??!! The sad thing is how little female sexuality is understood, even by women ourselves.

Agreed =^)

In response to Grub:

Okay, I looked at what is happening in Singapore, and as far as the following article states, prostitution is not illegal there, merely soliciting on the streets is. This is similiar to the canadian laws at present as far as I am aware. It's my understanding that in Canada a prostitute is arrested if she is caught inviting a man to offer her money for sex. Therefore, in canada, prostitution is not itself a crime, but inviting a man to pay for sex is. Thus the prostitute remains the de facto criminal, and Johns merely get sent to 'john school' and do not recieve a criminal sentence/record for his part.
The laws that the Vancouver municipality are proposing are not clearly aimed at changing the direction of the law, thus is it forseeable that it will retain it's direction of prosecuting street prostitutes instead of Johns. This is one reason I am oppposed to the moves made by Vancouver at present.
Furthermore, in response to what I imagine as being an effective punishment to change the behaviour of Johns, Jennifer's suggestion of manditory t-shirts that say 'I pay prostitutes for sex' would probably be very effective, however it is not likely to be practiced in our society at present. The threat of a criminal record is more in line with status quo in Canada todate, and would be more effective than both doing nothing and 'john school'-both of which are the practice of the criminal justice system today.

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2004/yax-383.htm