If an agency gets busted...

Smitty Jaeger-Manjenson said:

From my observations, the more old-school conservatives want the working girls themselves criminalized, because they see them as sinful and destroying society’s morality by leading men into temptation to commit adultery (the stereotype that johns are largely married men being unfaithful is somewhat common). The small-government conservatives who lean towards libertarianism will oppose such an approach, arguing "look, pornography's been legalized decades ago, you no longer need to buy it in a back alley from a guy working for the mob, keeping prostitution illegal is both hypocritical in that context and ignoring the fact that you will never be able to make it go away via legislation" (similar to how they may not be in favor of drug use but realize that the "war on drugs" has been a massive failure).

Conversely, the ones wishing to see clients criminalized instead are the left-wing, "progressive" types. Who might have a vested interest to oppose heterosexual sex to begin with, it takes all kinds.

Click to expand...

I don't know if progressive types want clients criminalized, generally... I've met a lot of people who aren't in the industry and are for decriminalization. but I do think that some people on both conservative and progressive sides are not well informed about the industry at all. It's really unfortunate.

Giselle Montreal said:

So? You think not one of us is paying taxes?

Click to expand...

I’m a realist. I would never under any circumstances suggest either ALL or NONE for anything or anyone.
Even lawyers do “1/2 Cash” for clients’ personal (non deductible) legal payments. “Some” people have cash they probably shouldn’t have and didn’t pay taxes on.
Have even seen this on significant home purchases between a buyer and a seller. The lawyers discretely leave the room as they can’t be a party to that since they’re “officers of the court.”
There are Parking Garages in NYC, where the City charges an 18% tax, that only accept cash. A smart administration would use CCTV or a person with a clicker counting cars going in and out.
Income taxes (federal & local) in NYC & Montreal are about 35% on a USD$100,000 net income or salary.
I don’t work for the IRS or care that much when working people do it to survive.
I have an issue with people earning $100M paying ~6% because they borrow against their assets and paying accountants millions. While it’s a lot of money Bezos pays about 4.5%.

hobbyvil said:

well it was a progressive government (liberals under Trudeau) that passed the law that criminalized the clients.... so I would agree Smitty....

Click to expand...

Yeah but that government wasn't truly progressive.. or at least not about everything. There's a lot of hypocrisy there

MtlGuyNow said:

I have an issue with people earning $100M paying ~6% because they borrow against their assets and paying accountants millions. While it’s a lot of money Bezos pays about 4.5%.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. They need to pay a fairer share.

DetectiveDavidMills said:

No, no, it was Harper, not Trudeau

Click to expand...

Harper passed the law because the supreme court "ordered" the government to change sex laws based on a case of a dominatrix out of Toronto. The Harper government was given a "hot potato" by the courts, and they chose the new laws that they chose (the so called "nordic mode" was in vogue at the time).

I have often wondered what the Turdeau liberals would have done if they were given the "hot potato". I give him credit for legalizing cannabis, but not so sure what he would of done with prostitution.

To an extent, I get it, the prosecution of johns is built into the law so law enforcement has a recourse against PDF files who rent underage girls and the pimps who facilitate this. But that's shoddy legislation, they should explicitly codify the exploitation of minors as the offense that is grounds for prosecution, instead of the "one size fits all" approach which also leaves itself open to legal challenges. It's not fucking rocket appliances, Julian. My parents still disapprove of me not passing the bar.

DetectiveDavidMills said:

No, no, it was Harper, not Trudeau

Click to expand...

I didn't check but I was wondering...

The side I tend to think of is, while legalization hurts the providers, clients would see a dramatic drop in who is accessible to them. And others would be at heavy risk to even offer services. (It would take just 1 bad apple to be upset he was denied, and your favorite underground girl disappears) because you like something outside of the 18-25 cis-woman model style girl, because they now control who you get to have access to. Tastes and desires are varried many like other types of providers.
Your preference now become government data to track and follow as it becomes recorded.

Or Decriminalization, where it gets clients out from the criminal side of things, they still get to maintain their anonymity, and they could report scammers, who fraud them, and clean out the danger in their selection pools. Also makeing it possible for people on either side to report trafficking if they came across it.
I want to see change. I might as well bring the other side people won't say because there is then the backlash of those very same bad players who would retaliate because their access to victims became restricted.

Often just knowing there is the possibility of report, can reduce offenses, even if it isn't reported, because who really wants to deal with the headache of having law enforcement into your personal business.

All other forms still leave room for the underground to victimize providers, and villainize either side of the transaction, from being able to reduce the number of victims.

Cheaters will cheat no matter what. It takes dedication to pay for it, and no manipulation or coercion was done. If it isn't available for payment they will find someone who then has expectations for some relationship from them, interfering with their current relationship. A cheater won't just go without. Either they will find someone else to satisfy their desires, or it then could become their partners problem whether they want it or not.
If their paying for it, to fill their desires by providers who are available and happy to accommodate, there are less people feeling victimized by a system that closed every option available to reduce victims in the sex industry, that as long as men/people have the capacity get horney, will continue to exhist. It's not a patriarchy system that creats the demand for SWers, it's basic human nature that does.


That's my 2 cents worth.

No form is without victims and things can always go wrong. But, decriminalization is the only one that can minimize victims within the industry.

Edit: You can rip my understand to shreds, but to remove the skin and bones, legalese of it this becomes the outcome I see from the model. Human nature is not going to change. Laws around it need to accept that fact. There's still plenty of people and churches who will demonize those who participate, to make sure society hasn't become completely corrupted.

It isn't patriarchy who creats the way for SW. It's capitalism. If we didn't have to require high payments to live, or survive, the access might not exhist.

(Just so tired of seeing this discussion from anit-SW people on other platforms and ranting it out here.)

Rebaynia said:

It isn't patriarchy who creats the way for SW. It's capitalism. If we didn't have to require high payments to live, or survive, the access might not exhist.

Click to expand...

It's called "the world's oldest profession" (alongside politics) for a reason. Which means it preceded capitalism by millennia, back in the halcyon days of monarchy and feudalism.

Enforcement seems to depend on municipalities. Depends on the mayor. I remember when we had that POS Denis Coderre he destroyed Montreal's red light district and had a vendetta against MPs and stripclubs. Many got shut down under his tenure. He always said he wanted to make Montreal a World Class city. The guy was so arrogant, he wanted to turn it into some boring lame family city. The Longueuil mayor must have similar priorities. I am with you, many on this board seem to take it easy oh not not here but I say think again. Bill C-36 gives the municipalities the tools to go after the clients, nothing there is to stop them. It is all a question of selective enforcement. Tbh I find sex work in Canada is becoming more and more like the US with each passing day.

Rebaynia said:

It isn't patriarchy who creats the way for SW. It's capitalism. If we didn't have to require high payments to live, or survive, the access might not exhist.

(Just so tired of seeing this discussion from anit-SW people on other platforms and ranting it out here.)

Click to expand...

Many SWERFs feminists would disagree with you. They blame men for sex work.

Lunaseraphim said:

Aside from that, notice how many people continue using websites like leolist to find "hidden gems" despite the fact that it's full of scams, bait and switch, pimped girls, etc. and perhaps undercover police officers. I know everyone has to start somewhere and there are genuine indy escorts who post on these websites because they don't have other resources, that was me when I started.. but I had to learn how to prove that I'm legit to clients.

Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth

CLOUD 500 said:

Many SWERFs feminists would disagree with you. They blame men for sex work.

Click to expand...

Yes they would, and it's their points I see elsewhere that I'm venting out my opinion here, to those who actually participate in this lifestyle and know what I'm talking about, rather than deal with the attacks from uninformed SWERF feminist, feminism is change and liberation from suppression = liberals, but if you ask me you cant be a conservative-liberal. They are 2 opposite sides. Either you believe in equality/equity and everyone gets to decide what is right for themselves. Or you demand limitations and control on others and their freedoms. You can't claim to want both. They don't exhist together.

It is conservative women who are threatened by the sexuality of other women, trying to implement rules in an area of reality and human nature they know nothing about, or have a very limited knowledge of. Being propped up by victims who didn't have a say, because the current model made it easy to victimize them, and being close-minded to the fact that other SWers might actually do this for their own reasons and not because they were coerced or forced into it.

Not wanting to recognize that every aspect of the lived expierience is something, if someone has money for, can be paid for.
Why should intimacy be any different, if there is someone willing to offer it? Anything that has a demand, has a job to fill that demand.
These same people have no problem with fast fasion, that actually is trafficking and making and using women as slaves, working people to their death without proper facilities, nutrition, or any respect. For a pay not enough to even sustain their own health.

This is the same fate these SWERF people would have see for SWers. They don't care if we survive, they just want society to represent their pretty little perfect clean idea of what/how people should look like and behave. In their mind if you don't live life their approved way, then you shouldn't have the right to live how you want to either.

SW is a result of a demand filled by willing participants. It is natural to get horney and search for release, that is how the human species continues. They blame men, but men is the other 1/2 of the species. One chases, the other chooses who they are willing to cater to. That's replicated in nature in most species, not just humans. So it makes sense no men who chase = no demand to be filled, but that's not how nature designed us for procreation.

What they are also fighting for, is that any man they deemed unsuitable to date, be left without any means to intimacy, assuming he would then have to change and conform to be able to have access to sex at all, because the only way then is threw a gf, or wife. With no access to even porn for the lonely man.

The real tragedy of it all is, governments are more likely to have a SWERF in the room making rules for SWers then they are likely to have a SWer, to help design the format that would work best for those involved.

Rebaynia said:

Yes they would, and it's their points I see elsewhere that I'm venting out my opinion here, to those who actually participate in this lifestyle and know what I'm talking about, rather than deal with the attacks from uninformed SWERF feminist, feminism is change and liberation from suppression = liberals, but if you ask me you cant be a conservative-liberal. They are 2 opposite sides. Either you believe in equality/equity and everyone gets to decide what is right for themselves. Or you demand limitations and control on others and their freedoms. You can't claim to want both. They don't exhist together.

Click to expand...

At the end of the day, I believe the thing to keep in kind is that those SWERFs you're talking about are bitter, petty women that most men would hardly consider as desirable for dating, let alone marriage. So, like you mentioned, they attempt to exert political pressure in order to make it more difficult for males to have alternatives to...well, them. They're not sufficiently retarded to actually believe that they can make prostitution and porno simply go away, but they can render them as marginalized as possible (and in doing so, playing right into the hands of organized crime which traditionally profiteered from the flesh trade, but they lack the self-awareness to consider that aspect). In the hopes that bereft of options, men will submit to morphing themselves into the sort of emasculated nu-males that SWERFs consider a suitable archetype for masculinity.

The only conservative thing about these women is their excessively conservative attitude in regards to sexuality, pressuring the state apparatus to regulate people's private lives has more in common with "statism" than with "conservatism", as it also seeks to radically transform society as well as human nature (which hardly counts as conservative values). Full disclosure, I freely identify as a conservative fellow, I'm usually the most conservative guy in the room (voted Eric Duhaime in last provincial elections). I have little interest in starting a family of my own but acknowledge that the nuclear family is the bedrock of civilization. I also freely identify as a horndog, but that is because I have the courage of my convictions and have no desire to gain popularity among people by propping up a pharisaic image of myself. I believe that society should be guided by certain values, that should be encouraged but not imposed. There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation, yada yada. I guess that also gives me some points in common with "classical liberalism", which today qualifies as conservatism or at most centrism. But suffice it to say, beyond the old "conservative vs. liberal" political divide, there is also the "libertarian vs. statist" political divide. And I find myself in the "conservative libertarian" quadrant as I am hostile to state overreach (although I don't go "full libertarian" as that is equal to anarchy). Contemporary feminists in general and SWERFs in particular gravitate strongly towards the "statist" side as they believe the state apparatus should promote their ideology. They will frame this under the advertising term of "progressive", but progress towards what, exactly? A slide towards anarchy via discarding all traditional values? Or towards the "Demolition Man" future i.e. the ultra-sanitized, spayed & meutered csricature of Commiefornia from that movie, where nobody even has real sex anymore because it's seen as too unclean? I recommend that movie to anyone that's bored, as it strikes me as the ideal dystop-utopia that SWERFs agitate for.

I suppose you could sum me up as a "Silvio Berlusconi conservative", which will only make any sense to those with a casual grasp of Italian politics, haha.

Smitty Jaeger-Manjenson said:

At the end of the day, I believe the thing to keep in kind is that those SWERFs you're talking about are bitter, petty women that most men would hardly consider as desirable for dating, let alone marriage. So, like you mentioned, they attempt to exert political pressure in order to make it more difficult for males to have alternatives to...well, them. They're not sufficiently retarded to actually believe that they can make prostitution and porno simply go away, but they can render them as marginalized as possible (and in doing so, playing right into the hands of organized crime which traditionally profiteered from the flesh trade, but they lack the self-awareness to consider that aspect). In the hopes that bereft of options, men will submit to morphing themselves into the sort of emasculated nu-males that SWERFs consider a suitable archetype for masculinity.

The only conservative thing about these women is their excessively conservative attitude in regards to sexuality, pressuring the state apparatus to regulate people's private lives has more in common with "statism" than with "conservatism", as it also seeks to radically transform society as well as human nature (which hardly counts as conservative values). Full disclosure, I freely identify as a conservative fellow, I'm usually the most conservative guy in the room (voted Eric Duhaime in last provincial elections). I have little interest in starting a family of my own but acknowledge that the nuclear family is the bedrock of civilization. I also freely identify as a horndog, but that is because I have the courage of my convictions and have no desire to gain popularity among people by propping up a pharisaic image of myself. I believe that society should be guided by certain values, that should be encouraged but not imposed. There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation, yada yada. I guess that also gives me some points in common with "classical liberalism", which today qualifies as conservatism or at most centrism. But suffice it to say, beyond the old "conservative vs. liberal" political divide, there is also the "libertarian vs. statist" political divide. And I find myself in the "conservative libertarian" quadrant as I am hostile to state overreach (although I don't go "full libertarian" as that is equal to anarchy). Contemporary feminists in general and SWERFs in particular gravitate strongly towards the "statist" side as they believe the state apparatus should promote their ideology. They will frame this under the advertising term of "progressive", but progress towards what, exactly? A slide towards anarchy via discarding all traditional values? Or towards the "Demolition Man" future i.e. the ultra-sanitized, spayed & meutered csricature of Commiefornia from that movie, where nobody even has real sex anymore because it's seen as too unclean? I recommend that movie to anyone that's bored, as it strikes me as the ideal dystop-utopia that SWERFs agitate for.

I suppose you could sum me up as a "Silvio Berlusconi conservative", which will only make any sense to those with a casual grasp of Italian politics, haha.

Click to expand...

I've met some very attractive swerfs with boyfriends and I've met a lot of men who were swerfs. Just saying. A lot of this attitude towards sex work isn't about "bitterness" or "women being jealous because they're unattractive", it's a misunderstanding due to bad press, stigma, misinformation etc.

I've actually met a lot of people who were against sex work before who became sex workers or who changed their positions entirely. And I've unfortunately encountered ex sex workers who started speaking and the work in a way that totally packed nuance and demonized both sex workers and clients

Lunaseraphim said:

I've met some very attractive swerfs with boyfriends and I've met a lot of men who were swerfs. Just saying. A lot of this attitude towards sex work isn't about "bitterness" or "women being jealous because they're unattractive", it's a misunderstanding due to bad press, stigma, misinformation etc.

I've actually met a lot of people who were against sex work before who became sex workers or who changed their positions entirely. And I've unfortunately encountered ex sex workers who started speaking and the work in a way that totally packed nuance and demonized both sex workers and clients

Click to expand...

One can be physically attractive and still be consumed by bitterness. Lucifer was described as the most beautiful of the angels.

Smitty Jaeger-Manjenson said:

One can be physically attractive and still be consumed by bitterness. Lucifer was described as the most beautiful of the angels.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree lol but I don't think bitterness is the culprit here... I think a lot of these people are just ill informed. It also has to do with ideas of respectability and remnants of religious conservatism that aren't acknowledged.