Montreal Escorts

Amnesty International votes for decriminalisation

Merlot

Banned
Nov 13, 2008
4,117
0
0
Visiting Planet Earth
Hello all,

I wonder what the angle is for "older" Hollywood women to come out against this. Enhanced their popularity amongst conservative women and make it more likely to get this audience to view their movies?

Just a bit cynical isn't it.

On a sex board where...ummmmmmmm...a lot of guys are so focused on having fantasy sex with as much ease as possible it's not hard to see why some need to knock down those who might be opposed to sex for money. Go figure. :lol: Still, why so blatantly cynical. In relationships and marriage women want to be equals, many men still want to dominate. Many women reject domination by men in any relationship and so it's logical there is going to be a segment that worries about that element in women being paid for sex, which they would consider demeaning, even threatening...and they don't have to be feminists either.

I know there are hobbyists here who don't want anything to interfere with BOINKING fantasy ladies, but be real. There are very rational basic concerns about risks in the industry legal or illegal. Stick to the far better argument that legality offers a much greater opportunity for protection.

Cheers,

Merlot
 

PopeDover

New Member
Jul 3, 2009
298
0
0
deplorable basket case
On a sex board where...ummmmmmmm...a lot of guys are so focused on having fantasy sex with as much ease as possible it's not hard to see why some need to knock down those who might be opposed to sex for money. Go figure. :lol:

It's not about them simply being opposed to sex for money, it's about their supporting the use of violence to stop it. Sure there are concerns with legality but the use of aggression to prevent people from making love is a far greater concern. Prohibition laws themselves are less moral than whatever they're attempting to prohibit when all involved parties are voluntary. It has nothing to do with protecting some kind of alleged inequality between men & women. It's a basic freedom that unfortunately has little benefit to undesirable women and their sympathizers... c'est la vie
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
I wonder what the angle is for "older" Hollywood women to come out against this. Enhanced their popularity amongst conservative women and make it more likely to get this audience to view their movies?

There are many reasons I think.

A lot of aging sexy actress or model now speak against the sexualization of the media and not just sex work. Once they get too old to use their sex appeal as a way to get fame and money, they often want to prevent younger competitors from beating them in the same way.

I think a lot of them are also just stupid and not well informed. If they can just look good and wise and philantropic by speaking against ''human trafficking'' they will do it. Looking good and speaking bullshit is literally how they make a living.

About Canada and the prostitution law, I would say that decrim would have no real impact on actual convictions and the prison industry. In Canada, the police almost only enforce the law in situations that would also be illegal even if it was decriminalized (underage girls, illegal immigrants, gang activity, public nuisance...) In our case, the goal of the law is just to send a message on the moral stance of the government, but like marijuana, the majority of the population leans toward decriminalization for consenting adults. The only financial gain they make with this law is that their voting base will open their checkbook during fundraising.
 

CaptRenault

A poor corrupt official
Jun 29, 2003
2,098
933
113
Casablanca
Patron, you make some very good points about whether the industry would be better off or not. You might be right about "careful what you wish for."

As for what the industry would look like if there were decriminalization in the U.S. or Canada, well, I hope it would look like Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Spain or Colombia. I hope it would mean that brothels would be legal, as in those countries. I think for many working girls (and clients), brothels are the safest and best places for escorts and clients to do business (of course, escorts should be free to conduct business in their homes or in a hotel too...but not on the street).

So yes I am in favor of decriminalization but I don't think we will see it anytime soon in the U.S. or Canada. On the other hand, I didn't think I would ever see a U.S. state legalize marijuana. BTW, weed is not one of my vices. I have tried it and I tried to inhale but I couldn't. :lol:
 

gugu

Active Member
Feb 11, 2009
1,741
17
38
Now what would happen if every chick could sell tail and society embraced anti-bullying and no one was mean to sex workers (or their customers). I do not know what would happen, which is why I am asking.

Nothing. Things would stay pretty much the same, as suggested in your previous paragraph, with less than 1% of people ready to sell sex and less than than 1% ready to buy it. We get sex for free easily. Sex for money is a shrinking business, certainly not because of repression nor social pressure, but beacause it's more easily available for free.
 

Merlot

Banned
Nov 13, 2008
4,117
0
0
Visiting Planet Earth
Gentlemen,

It's not about them simply being opposed to sex for money, it's about their supporting the use of violence to stop it ...undesirable women and their sympathizers... c'est la vie

Who is "them"??? The way this quote reads it looks like you are saying all opposition is violent, a large segment of who women who don't support decriminalization or legalization won't because they can't make anything off of it, while others are saying aging has changed their support of using sex appeal to get ahead. So in sum, according to you guys, no one against this simply has rational concerns or can behave positively without resorting to violence. If that's what you guys mean it sounds like gross stereotyping.

To say or imply the opposition has no rational principles is to ignore the basic fact that a lot of people just don't think sex for money is right. Implying they are violent nuts or don't agree because they cannot benefit is little more than a self-serving distortion and poor over-generalization. .

Cheers,

Merlot
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
Gugu, according to the same logic restaurants should have no business. You can get sex for free, but in many respect things are more enjoyable when you pay for them. You save time and effort to get exactly what you want.

There is said to be 200 MP in Montreal supposing they have 2 women on average each day, that's about 400 workers just in MP. Even if they do just 2 or 3 customers each, that's 1000 every day, or a third of a million tricks every year. Some clients are regulars but most go every once in a while. If you now consider all the escorts and strip clubs and sugar babies and paid mistresses, the % of men who buy sex occasionnally is certainly much higher than 1%. I will agree that today's sexual freedom favors more informal sex transactions and the distinction between ''real'' and commercial sex is getting more blurry.

I also agree decrim would probably have no effect on numbers. It didn't in New Zealand as far as I know. Prohibition of any kind never stopped most people. Some people are scared of the law, others are excited because it's illegal. In the end pretty much everyone who wants to exchange sex for money does it in a form that is available to them.
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
So in sum, according to you guys, no one against this simply has rational concerns or can behave positively without resorting to violence. If that's what you guys mean it sounds like gross stereotyping.

They do not have ''rational'' concerns, because their arguments are dishonest. If you read their letter it's obvious they didn't read the AI proposal or are being very dishonest in their interpretations of the facts

Being in favor of a criminal law is being in favored of repression by the police; therefore people who support criminalization support violence against sex workers. They may not be aware that they are doing that, but that doesn't make it any better. If they're going to protest a proposition, the least they could do is understand the subject.
 

ledoux

Banned
Jul 15, 2015
276
1
0
Really? I got older, but my Dick didn't. Sounds like country music song. The free ones from hot girls goes down as guys age.

With the aging population, the demand for sex with young women by aging Baby Boomers will constantly increase. And we are knowledgable, sophisticated johns. When things are fully decriminalized, I think that 1 percent number will go way up on both the demand and supply side.

I agree, gugu talks statistics, you talk reality!
I saw it tonight on Radio Canada news. They had Miville Deschenes on interview. So much non sense coming out of her mouth. Like saying that 95% of escorts have pimps and have to be protected! Also it is very disturbing to see that official medias always show pictures of street prostitution everytime they talk about the subject. These people are supposed to inform, but they obvisously desinform. They should tell the truth: most business is now done through online communications.
 

Merlot

Banned
Nov 13, 2008
4,117
0
0
Visiting Planet Earth
Gentlemen,

They do not have ''rational'' concerns, because their arguments are dishonest. If you read their letter...

Then you are stereotyping or thinking some activist group represents all opposition thinking, which is not the case.

And who is "they"? I'm talking about the population in general not some unnamed and undefined amorphous "they". Please show all of us "their letter". Provide a link to who you are referring to. Also I'm not talking about being in favor of a bad law, I'm talking about concerns that will remain regardless of the status of criminalization, decriminalization, or legality.

Please post a link so all of us can see these "dishonest" arguments.

Cheers,

Merlot
 

gugu

Active Member
Feb 11, 2009
1,741
17
38
Gugu, according to the same logic ...

If you now consider all the escorts and strip clubs and sugar babies and paid mistresses, the % of men who buy sex occasionnally is certainly much higher than 1%. I will agree that today's sexual freedom favors more informal sex transactions and the distinction between ''real'' and commercial sex is getting more blurry.

I also agree decrim would probably have no effect on numbers. It didn't in New Zealand as far as I know.

Very good answer and I stand corrected in many respects. I was talking on a long run, I mean decades. Also more about women (and men) offering sex for pay regularly as a job for at least some years and clients buying regularly. But I fundamentally agree with you that policies, over all, be them decrim, legalizing, abolitionnist (like UK) or prohibiyionnist (like Sweden), have very limited short term effects on the volume of transactions.

Gentlemen,

Then you are stereotyping or thinking some activist group represents all opposition thinking, which is not the case.t

Well of course, Merlot. A lot of people do not like sex work, be it prostitution, pornography, strip clubs, etc. I respect them absolutely. But most among them would tell you they are basically ignorant about it and do not know what is the best policy to deal with it. They don't write letters. We are talking about the activists, those who want to influence policy makers. I think they are welcome to tell out loud what their moral values are and that they despise sex work. The problem is their use of faulty stats and misrepresentation of the AI position, the strawman arguments.
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
And who is "they"? I'm talking about the population in general not some unnamed and undefined amorphous "they".

We are talking about the amnesty international proposition here and the protest by the hundreds of clueless celebrities. That's why we sometimes use the word ''they'', instead of repeating ''clueless hollywood celebrity'' every sentence. Patron asked our opinion of them and I gave it.

Like gugu said, most people wh just don't like sex work don't get involved. If someone militates publicly against the AI proposition they either have a moral agenda against sex workers or they didn't bother to understand the research behind that proposition. Like gugu said, there is a difference between voicing concerns and opposing a policy. For links see the sticky thread about news articles.
 

PopeDover

New Member
Jul 3, 2009
298
0
0
deplorable basket case
Link to letter:

http://catwinternational.org/Content/Images/Article/621/attachment.pdf

The argument appears to rely on this;

Consequently, should Amnesty vote to support the decriminalization of pimping, brothel owning and sex buying, it will in effect support a system of gender apartheid, in which one category of women may gain protection from sexual violence and sexual harassment, and offered economic and educational opportunities; while another category of women, whose lives are shaped by absence of choice, are instead set apart or consumption by men and for the profit of their pimps, traffickers and brothel owners. Neither the Universal Declaration of Human rights, or international law excepts any human being from enjoying a life free of violence and equality.


Apparently it's about providing people stuck in poverty more choices, say the obscenely rich white experts who seem to be convinced they understand 3rd world poverty more so than Amnesty International.
 

Merlot

Banned
Nov 13, 2008
4,117
0
0
Visiting Planet Earth
Gentlemen,

Well of course, Merlot. A lot of people do not like sex work, be it prostitution, pornography, strip clubs, etc. I respect them absolutely.

They consider it exploitation.

I think they are welcome to tell out loud what their moral values are and that they despise sex work. The problem is their use of faulty stats and misrepresentation of the AI position, the strawman arguments.

How many of us don't have arguments with some fault in them when we make decisions. Hell, many elect people based on our emotions to run our lives and the world. When I see a very good man say "they do not have rational concerns, because their arguments are dishonest" I see a faulty over-the-top emotional statement. It goes both ways.


Thanks. I read it all. Gentlemen, on this board I've seen the same people give their concerns, the same basic concerns in the letter, that in Montreal we have issues of gang control and mafia-like control of women, underage recruiting, etc. I don't thinks those issues go away with legalization or decriminalization. Yet some of those people who wrote about those issues now say opponents on this issue "do not have rational concerns". C'mon, can you not see the contradictions in your positions.

I'm not among the opposition. However, when I see statements like there is no rational concern against this issue, that it's "rich white experts", that it's people who have gotten too old or are too unattractive to benefit I see poor generalizations that are badly over-reaching to discredit any opposition. These are the same tactics opponents of sex workers use to discredit you by misrepresenting the real situation with exaggerations and bad stereotyping. I would think guys who have participated in this industry and know something of it from the inside could make much better arguments than narrowly classifying our opponents as "clueless celebrities". We have pointed out the big problems in such a lightly regulated stage as Montreal. So why are you denying the same points and concerns now?

Getting rid of bad laws will not be a panacea that ends all abuses. I think it's a far better argument to say the real choice is about making things much better, to destigmatize and offer legal protection, not demean the opposition by painting them in caricatures.

C'mon,

Merlot
 

PopeDover

New Member
Jul 3, 2009
298
0
0
deplorable basket case
I'm not among the opposition. However, when I see statements like there is no rational concern against this issue, that it's "rich white experts", that it's people who have gotten too old or are too unattractive to benefit I see poor generalizations that are badly over-reaching to discredit any opposition. These are the same tactics opponents of sex workers use to discredit you by misrepresenting the real situation with exaggerations and bad stereotyping. I would think guys who have participated in this industry and know something of it from the inside could make much better arguments than narrowly classifying our opponents as "clueless celebrities". We have pointed out the big problems in such a lightly regulated stage as Montreal. So why are you denying the same points and concerns now?

The opposition is discredited simply by their own immoral actions, i.e., their support of legalizing the infringement of the basic human right of self-determination while counteracting the Amnesty conclusions.

The generalizations were simply speculations on the motivations behind their aggressiveness. Sure, Lena Dunham is privileged, arrogant, talentless, and unattractive, and that doesn't discredit her opinions, but it may help explain where the ogress is coming from.
 

Siocnarf

New Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,796
2
0
Snuggletown
When I see a very good man say "they do not have rational concerns, because their arguments are dishonest" I see a faulty over-the-top emotional statement. It goes both ways.

No, because if someone denies scientific evidence, they have no rational arguments. That's all there is to it. The general public are allowed to be ignorant about complex issues like that, but when someone militates against a proposition that is based on scientific evidence, they better have some solid arguments to justify their position. Saying that Amnesty International supports human trafficking is either ignorant or dishonest. And when you make that kind of public stand, there is no excuse to be ignorant.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts