Malarek insults Stella, SPoC, etc.

[JustBob]

Thus far your contribution sums up to pointing at other's generalizations, stereotypical notions and lack of understanding, all put you in a position of authority.

Care to share your definition of a prostitute, one of course that wouldn't have the defect of producing such logical outcomes that can support just about any position?

While you're there, please provide your insights on contemporary ethical concepts such as virtue, morality and degradation which understanding would lack or is being conveniently brushed aside.

Considering the futility of engaging in this sort of exercise with you, you really think I'm going to do that when as usual, you provide absolutely nothing of substance to back up your oversimplistic conclusion? All you're doing is parroting the radical feminist position on prostitution Meh...

But by all means, aside from namedropping authors and book titles (which would put YOU in a position of authority), please tell us what gives you such insight into this topic. We're all ears.

 

[JustBob]

Here is a good summary of Malarek's views on prostitution. It's a 2008 op-ed piece from the New York Times, co-authored by whack-job feminist and fellow anti-prostitution crusader Melissa Farley. Read this and then read the article below about Melissa Farley.

Malarek's choice of Farley as a co-author of an opinion piece about prostitution should tell you everything you need to know about Malarek. Note that Farley's "book" is described as "self-published." In other words, it's not a real book. At least Malarek got his book published.

Oh! What a surprise! Anyone with half a brain should have realized that by now. You don't need a PhD in anthropology, psychology or contemporary ethics in order to poke a thousand holes in that "theory".

 

[JustBob]

Yup! I've stolen a page from your anti-debating handbook. I don't debate, I don't respond to arguments or counter-arguments, I just "comment" when I feel like it, but I fully expect anybody that responds to my oneliners to do so with a thourough analysis to back up their points. You should be flattered.

 

[gugu]

Another ''Show me your beef, I'll show you mine'' offer? Still waiting for you to fulfill your part of the deal. Now go back and pray.

This post clearly suggests that I did not fulfill my part of a deal made previously. The word "Still" implies that.

Note: 10-19, I don’t get that remark about the showing the beef and fulfilling my part. That thing, if I remember well, occurred on the other board between Eastender and me. We showed each other our beef and we had what I think was a constructive discussion. I think I have fulfilled my part of the deal. If this is not your understanding, I urge you to pinpoint the missing part. I will do my best to complete what has been said.

Beef, i.e. qualify your statements: what's your exposure to the prostitutional scene?

Unless you prove otherwise that I failed to fulfill a deal made previously, I am asking you to retract this accusation.

 

[wet_suit_one]

All I've got to say is thank god I live in Canada where such idiocy does not reign supreme. Not yet anyways. Prostitution is 100% legal in this land.

 

[gugu]

OMFG soon they'll get the lawyers and the Dalai Lama involved. What the hell, you've shown your beef, medium-rare, at leach as much beef as contained in a McDonald's hamburger. I retract. As long as you don't show me your weiner.

Thanks.

Now, my proposition stands about the other beef you're talking about.

The game is played like this:

1. you show me your beef first and I'll show mine after. I insist on that as I did with EE on the other board it is the only way to get something out of you guys. My experience with him shows me that we can have a more constructive discussion (which is what we are all looking for aren’t we?) when it is done this way.

2. the beef you’re talking about is our experience with this hobby : what we have done personally in this hobby and what we have learned about the hobby from that personal experience. Of course, we both accept that our credibility could not stand on the simple number of encounters we have had. Our credibility stands also on what we have to say about it.

 

[naughtylady]

JAG>>> I had stopped reading this thread... I was starting to bore me as I found it was going nowhere but in circles. But when I saw that last commen was bu you I had to see what you has to say.

Well said POV. Three cheers for empowerment.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[Regular Guy]

Needed SP's to bring some sanity to this debate

Great comment JAG. Exactly my point right from the beginning. But this definitely needed to be said by an SP to give the give this side of the argument the credibility it so badly needed. As you say there is some exploitation but there are also people who make choices on both sides of the argument. To blame men alone as the sole authors of the "Oldest Profession" is overly simplistic to say the least. Bravo!

 

[eastender]

Empowerment

Empowerment without responsibility and structure is a start down the slippery slope to anarchy which brings us back to virtually the same spot where we are today except for an extra concept added to the debate. An extra shirt for the wardrobe.

Effectively in the sex trade you would still have the survival of the strongest with the greatest damage inflicted on the weakest.

Propose some form of empowerment which includes responsibility - financial, civil, social including medical with a structure to oversee the implementation and we'll have a look.

PS: Welcome back.

 

[eastender]

It's Not About Debate

Thanks naughtylady

Regular_guy: I, like Ronnie, got bored with this thread so I missed most of your interventions.



EE: I missed the part in my post where I started singing 'Girl Power!' and posited that would happen if we all sang it together while holding hands. Presumably, if I'm talking about a need to reframe prostitution, empowerment necessarily comes with a structure.



"We'll have a look"? Thanks for the vow of confidence

See, what I'm trying to say is we can't begin to "propose some form of empowerment" until we stop arguing over who said something that sounded abolitionist and who is the nicer guy because their discourse appears to be rights-oriented. I don’t suggest to have a solution; I’m not so arrogant to think I do and I'm not, nor plan to become, a policy-maker (or an elected official with a duty to report to you).

I only suggest the problem is the debate. The arguments that currently monopolize it fit in two distinct categories that appeal to people who share two distinct worldviews. Abolitionists are never going to convince decriminalists with their 'facts' nor are decriminalists going to convince abolitionists with theirs. Why? Because you can’t win a debate by arguing facts. Ask the Democrats who lost two elections in a row to the Republicans. The facts that have so far been presented only appeal to the people who share the same worldview as those who have launched them in the public arena. Facts like "prostitution does not always have negative repercussions" bounce off the conservative, abolitionist worldview. Facts like "prostitution is a social problem" bounce off the liberal, decriminalist worldview. But all these facts do contribute to outrage those who share the respective worldviews those facts support. You're an elected official; you see all this; tell me, would you touch this issue even with a ten-foot pole?

So sorry EE, no tangible plan or structure or implementation method to present to you in order to receive your "now you're talking" pat on the back. I do think we could propel the debate forward if we focused on finding a language that might appeal to both worldviews. Think that's impossible? I don't. But I'm just an idealist, right?

JAG

JAG empowerment is not about the debate it's about DOING something.

Ralph Nadar did not debate about consumer empowerment he empowered consumers by ACTING against injustices that touched consumers and getting others to ACT.

Even simple basic things. Use this venue to teach other SPs about how to avoid being suckered by media or academics, how to make critical decisions at various times of their career. Write about expectations from an SPs perspective and from a clients perspective. Many possibilities.

 

[Rexroth]

The greatest myth of this century is 'the truth will set us free'. Facts, facts, facts. The god of the 21st century...
JAG

Actually, the idea that truth will set us free is as old as Plato. But what has changed since his day, and will no doubt continue to change, is just what counts as truth, and more importantly for the social sphere, who has the authority to dictate what truth is. In this regard, I completely agree with you. The issue is less about empirical evidence than who gets to 1) decide what counts as evidence (empirical or otherwise) and 2) interpret what that evidence means both in descriptive and in prescriptive terms.

For political change to occur (and I am not merely referring to politics as what politicians do), people have to accept the change as being consistent with their interest and beliefs. This claim is merely a variation of a well-known principle of argumentation, to wit: Frame your arguments and appeals with the help of common knowledge and accepted opinions (Aristotle). To the extent that the political is largely if not wholly mediated and modulated by the discursive, there is no a priori reason why this principle cannot be extended to the logic of political change. Indeed, consider the masterful way in which Thomas Huxely significantly contributed to ushering in the supremacy of modern science, not to mention the professional scientist (which did not exist before his time), by arguing that it was all part of the “New Reformation,” an expression that resonately deeply and very favourably with the popular imagination.

Just how you might use this to develop a political action program, I have no idea.

 

[Regular Guy]

I think Malarek left out a bit.

Interesting that Oprah's show today is about sending her crew to the Bunny Ranch. She picked one SP to interview and put her on the studio screen. I got to watch some of it before the phone rang. But essentially the lady in question made a conscoius choice to apply for the job of escort as she liked the money and the lifestyle, and more. She made it clear that she runs the show and must feel right with the customer or passes him on. Sure didn't sound like she was a victim at all. She saw the opportunity and she took it. I suspect there are many like her. There was a lot more to it but I am afraid I missed the rest. Hope it will replay sometime.

Now I must say that I just can't quite recall any of that coming out in Malarek's interviews. He conveniently left out that segment of the population. Well maybe it's all about book sales and economics.

 

[sapman99]

False or grossly exxagerated information

Is always damaging. Journalists who engage in disseminating heavily biased information should be shot and pissed on. This type of sensationalism is just what has desensitized many people and is stopping them from reading the news and get any kind of interest in politics and social issues. Either creates outrage or complete cynisicm, nothing in between.

The fact that Mister Malarek is doing this @ a network funded by tax dollars just irritates me further.

And someone said that if the bad guys use these types of tactics, the good guys should do so as well. Oh la la, then what pray tell is the difference between good and bad? J'en perds l'east, euh, je voulais dire le nord .

 

[gugu]

Nice to see you back JAG. I hope you are doing fine. It is always a great pleasure to read you.

About empowerment

Maybe we could stop talking about 'decriminalization' and 'abolitionism' and talk, more properly, of 'empowerment'? Isn't that what we all want? Let it be empowerment for all and not just the few, who are already more empowered than the most.

This idea of empowerment has an almost universal acceptance: left wing, right wing, feminism, nationalism, abolitionism, decriminalisationism… name it. The founding principal of our constitutions and our charters of rights is to give people opportunities and an environment in which they can freely set their goals and have a minimum of constraints in attaining them. All fields and all schools of thought in social sciences subscribe to that and every single social issue can be understood with those glasses.

Prostitution can be seen as a social issue or problem. And the use of the empowerment concept helps to understand this issue. It is of a particular importance here because prostitution is often a last resort for women entering this trade. Even those who made a “decision éclairée” have felt the social pressure about it: escorting is an underworld. So I guess every escort remembers quite well the precise moment when they made, more or less willingly, the decision to enter this world, how the scored, at this precise moment, on the self esteem scale and how they felt the social pressure. As the other guy said, when an event connects with some intense emotions, it burns into your memory. So, of course, empowerment is, here, a response to prostitution not only as a social issue but also as a personal issue. And what EE is saying is that when you are dealing with those for whom prostitution was and remains a last resort, the way to help is empowerment through appropriate forms of social integration. Looks clear, simple. I subscribe to that. But it is one side of the coin.

Prostitution can also be seen as trade, like any other trade: a way to earn a living. From that point of view, escorting is not seen as a problem, it is seen as a solution, as a way of empowerment. It provides money, which is an obvious mean of empowerment, it provides a job, which is a great way to learn some skills, it provides a way to meet people and learn from them, and, if you are comfortable in the trade, it may even have a positive effect on your self esteem. I wrote this a few years ago:

« Une professionnelle m’a confié un jour que sa mère, à qui elle venait d’apprendre qu’elle faisait des massages érotiques, avait été atterrée en apprenant la nouvelle. Quelques jours plus tard, elle lui a dit : j’ai réfléchi à tout ça. Finalement, quand je compare ta situation à la celle que j’ai vécue, je pense que ta liberté est plus grande que la mienne. »

Prostitution advocates, including Amélie, Stella (who does not permit itself to play a role of advocate, by the way) and myself I admit, see this side of the coin. I am not trying to convince anybody that this side is more important then the other side. I am just trying to say that this other side of the coin is not simply a view of the mind. And I understand that you agree with that, at least at a personal level: “an enlightened decision”, as far as you are concerned.

Heads: prostitution as a social and personal problem

Tail: prostitution as a tool of empowerment, like any other job.

(I know that the moralist will come in to tell us that we have to examine the outside ring of the coin: heh… tell the hummer driving babes of the tail side to act responsibly and pay their income taxes).

About the facts

We could always bring it down to the question of choice. This is a recurring, and indeed critical, theme in what you write, JAG.

My body, my choice! It was a legitimate argument for abortion, but where prostitution is concerned, I'm sorry, but your choice isn't every woman's idea of a good time. For many, it's a choice made due to a lack of choice. I recognize it's your choice - it was my choice when I decided to become an independent; I'd even say it was an enlightened decision. How can you not recognize it's not the choice of those who'd leave the trade in a heartbeat if they could find a 20$ an hour job, and call yourselves feminists? You're only feminists where your advancement is concerned?

Choice is a complex phenomenon to measure. We have a lot of methodological tools to do it, but in my knowledge (I buy a discount Easter bunny and give a warm hug to the first one proofing me wrong) we have no available study providing measures on that. We can argue about choices and motivations behind them. We must do it. A lot of things can come out of the all out deduction performance we try to deliver here. But our knowledge suffers from the lack of induction from even a minimum set of facts.

Facts, unfortunately, are not readily available to answer all our questions. We have to resign ourselves to this reality. We have to rely on what is available. And, damn, methodological flaws have contaminated this field of research more then any other I know. Inquiring looks like a marginal approach here, and when it is done, methodological designs are driven by ideologies.

I strongly desagree with those who say facts are not important. Facts are crucial. Our knowledge of facts in any field of life, contribute to personal and individual opinion building and decisions. I cannot subscribe either to the this idea that everybody apprehend facts in an exclusive confirmatory attitude. Hardliners do. Most people don’t. And let me tell you that if the Canadian parliament decides to legislate on prostitution one day, facts will become the central point of attention. Most people know close to nothing about prostitution. They will be asking for the facts.

Some facts I really like. They are not about moral issues, about motivational issues or about methods of empowerment. They are about the impact of decriminalization in New-Zealand. My personal conclusion after reading it: empowerment has improved with decriminalization.

A good read

About rights and congruency

Rights are not granted by occupation - they are guaranteed to all Canadians by way of citizenship. ... [bawdy house laws] deny sex-workers' fundamental right to security and dignity.

Fine and let’s hire this guy if he can get rid of ar. 210 of the Criminal Code. By the way, I can’t resist telling you, JAG, that this is a reliable facts and that you have good reasons, like all of us, to insist on it. Lawyers are pretty good at giving this type of facts in this specific domain. We pay them for that. There is no reason to make a fuss about the accuracy of every escort advocate making claims on the subject. Some of them are nonsense. Some of them have some truth. Some others are truly worthy. Awaiting a coherent force here, with a unified strategy and strictly controlled communications is hoping too much. Why not see diversity more positively, just as in the women’s movements. I have seen lawyers melting in courts when activists of the same organizations testified one after the other with a totally different story of an event. But, gush, we pay them to deal with it. If we can’t even agree among us about a single fact, an event that actually occurred, imagine what it is to choose goals and strategies. The court challenge is there. Reactions, declarations and opinions about the challenge are there. That’s life. Why expect more? Facts are what they are: organizations and individuals with different goals, perspectives, levels of analyses, interests, misrepresentations, opinions. I guess that in default of having a unified leadership and reliable facts, we need use a more constructivist way of understanding.

Just one short complimentary note here: I have never considered the debate here as anything significant for the course of action. We exchange ideas, “moqueries” and, unfortunately sometimes insults. Everybody does want he or she wants with it.

About advocacy

Many participants in this forum, including you JAG, have strong reaction towards advocacy groups and individuals of the escort trade. The reason given is the absence of the heads side (prostitution as a social problem) in their platform, their agenda, and their communication strategy.

How would that work? What should they do precisely? Are we talking about declarations of principals? Are we talking about new types of supports in personal empowerment not readily available? The facts you provide: women being abused, murdered and imprisoned, women in need for assistance. In my knowledge, these women receive support both through the public programs, the support groups and the escort associations themselves.

The far away day when a trade association will see the day, it will be in his mandate to control entry in the trade and offer services to it’s members. At this moment, organizations cannot even pretend to talk in the name of anybody else then their members.

 

[Regular Guy]

The Triumph of the new Moral Relativism

But the crux of Young's argument isn't based on all that. It's based on the bawdy house laws - and here we agree. They should be struck down because they are unconstitutional. They deny sex-workers' fundamental right to security and dignity. It is the Criminal Code that is responsible for the murder and assault of many prostitutes because they had no where else to work but on the street. Yet, this is not what made the news (it did, but as a parenthesis). What made the news were the poor mothers and the legitimate job arguments. Add to these the 'we love our job and stop casting us as victims' arguments of the few who have driven me away from this debate (that I'm an abolotionist because I dare suggest that yes, most sex-workers endure working conditions that have absolutely nothing to do with my (or their) experience as an independent escort and that god forbid they might like to have tools to get out of the trade - tools a winning challenge will not provide) and we've got a full blown case of fact spinning.

JAG, I can appreciate your reluctance to tackle the debate on moral and political grounds. The arguments you make for taking this out of the realm of counterculture and into a level of acceptance based solely on pragmatic considerations has some merit in the grand scheme of things. Left in the shadow world those who practice this are virtually exposed to the lawless elements which exist there. At present the abuse suffered by the ladies who practice “the oldest profession” is more or less tolerated by society in general. Nobody gave a damn about biker wars until they began to kill innocent civilians instead of each other. Similarly, there is little sympathy for the plight of prostitutes among the general population. Though I feel this does stop short of outright homicide.

You may feel that present legal considerations (Bawdy House laws etc.) are contraventions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to some extent you may be right. Perhaps they could not survive a charter challenge. But then we are faced with the question that, if the answer is so simple why then has a solution not come forth before now? Laws are children born of the political arena. As such they are often subject to interpretation. And that interpretation often recognizes moral and political considerations. When you get to the higher levels of the court system the blindfold on the statue of “Blind Justice” often seems to slip a little. So you will have to consider just what lies at the core of it all which engenders such passionate debate.

Even here we are beginning to trot out the buzz words, 'Empowerment' without giving due consideration as to what the term truly entails. It is simply about initiative and imperative. There is no moral dimension to it except as an expression of entitlement. And when terms like this enter in they simply cloud the debate.

The point is that you just might get your wish but perhaps not for the reasons you think. The present day initiatives towards individualism as the defining principle of the new moral relativism just may accomplish this in the natural scheme of things. This is slowly creeping into all aspects of western society. The old morality based on our Judeo-Christian traditions or even our utilitarian approach to promoting a successful and stable society are falling by the wayside. The signs are everywhere. There is an old axiom which states that every society progresses towards its own end in chaos. I don't quite share that deterministic view as I have faith in the triumph of reason but there it is. So I do believe that your view will eventually prevail and prostitution will gain acceptance first in law then as a part of the fabric of society. When that will happen is just a matter of time.

 

[eastender]

Getting Help

These women receive support through public programs and support groups? This statement obviously comes from someone whose never needed to seek these services out. There is some help available through Stella (whose services I used myself), but if you go to them and say something like 'I'm looking for a way to get out of this', they'll direct you to health and social services because they don't do 'ways to get out of this'. When they are referred to these health and social services, sex workers then have to deal with professionals who have basically zero experience with dealing with their issues. I challenge you to find a specifically-geared sex-workers' PTSD group for example. Not just in Montreal; try the whole country. And if you find any (in the States there are some), narrow down your search further to non-partisan groups. Like groups funded by... our friends who see sex-workers as unable to recognize their own alienation. Good luck!

Suppose you started in this business when you were 15 and at 25 got fed up with your loser boyfriend and wanted out? You need to find a job; or you'd like to go back to school. Problem is, you have these nasty things called flashbacks all the time, which make your reintegration very difficult. You can't hold a job and you're too depressed to attend school on a regular basis. You don't have anyone to turn to because you don't feel like talking with someone who has no idea how prostitution works, or getting some prescription for anti-anxiety pills, or anti-depressants for a chemical imbalance you don't believe you have. Put it this way: the Canadian Armed Forces have many resources to help soldiers deal with the specific issue of PTSD (I use this as just one example where resources are needed for women in this trade). The resources are specifically geared toward soldiers. Here you can say, well start a program for sex-workers! Why should I? Why don't you? The better question is: why can't a higher authority? who actually has resources, like those that fund programs for women who live domestic violence or who abuse drugs and alchool? There are tons of programs that could be helpful, you're right - if the women who needed them didn't feel like outsiders by using them. You're an alcoholic; do you go to a substance abuse program for delinquant teens? You want a program that speaks to your personal experience, even if the dynamics of both programs are the same.

JAG

JAG

Focusing on a limited part of your post.

Over the years I have been in contact with a significant number of the community organizations in east central Montreal and virtually ALL of them are better equipped to help a sex worker who wants to leave the trade than Stella.

Let's be realistic. If an alcoholic wants to stop drinking then going to a bar or a brewery for help in reaching this goal is not the best idea. There are a number of community organizations that if approached will direct a sex worker to appropriate resources within the community. Some have former sex workers on staff. If not they will direct the person inquiring to the closest organization that should be able to help.

As for defining the parameters of help - not really productive. Experience, willingness and a modest track record is all that is presently available.

The Canadian Armed Forces have programs for soldiers. True. They did after all create the situation and self-interest necessitates damage control.

Why should you start such an organization? You shouldn't. Definitely not your niche.

 

[Regular Guy]

Further...............

Precisely my point. No one gives a damn, especially if we support the only view of decriminalization that currently monopolizes the debate. Admitting negative repurcussions would lead the public to think 'wouldn't decriminalization make things worse?' Just as admitting that there are positive aspects to prostitution would water down our 'prostitution is evil' arguments. Remember that member who went by the double-G handle? Admitting the possibility that some escorts actually like their job would have shattered his conception of the world. He coudn't admit it. They don't admit for different reasons - for political reasons.

JAG,

Perhaps I should have elaborated a bit on my last paragraph above. I believe you are implying that a utilitarian philosophy or Judeo-Christian morality do in fact dominate the debate. And to some extent that is true. If I understand you correctly, the negative repercussions which you refer to, suggest that decriminalization will help to promote prostitution and the general public will feel that, that is destructive to the stability of our society. The other side argues the opposite. This is the kind of thing which monopolizes the debate or indeed is the debate. Further, if I understand you correctly, you want to keep decriminalization outside these kinds of moral considerations. There should be no debate. It is simply a question of choice, if you like.

As I suggested, however, that since the early 80's there has been a marked emphasis on a new yardstick by which this generation is measuring how we live or should live, how we should develop or interpret the laws by which we live. The “Me” generation of the 80's initiated a rebellion against the old way we used to define morality. Now Moral Relativism born of the concept, that the needs of the individual to achieve the highest potential, seems to be the moral precept by which we should interpret the laws we live by and how we should draft new legislation. Basically this says that if a course of action is right for me then it is right. If that same course of action is wrong for you then it is wrong. Laissez-faire is the order of the day. Each of us has the inalienable right to follow that course of action which best serves us. Now granted that I have simplified it somewhat and others here might want to tweak it a bit but as I understand it this is the gist of it.

In the light of this, the morality of prostitution is simply a non issue. Once you remove the debate and recast prostitution as simply a choice, then the path to decriminalization is inevitable. Have we reached the point where this concept is reflected in the laws we live by? No! The laws which define our way of life were drafted through many years of legislation and jurisprudence. Though the newly drafted Charter of Rights and Freedoms does markedly reflect an emphasis on the rights of the individual over broad social considerations. The big question is, will this ever come to pass in its purest form? I don't think so. But that is another debate. The 64,000 dollar question is, will the concept of Moral Relativism ever gain acceptance to the degree that it will mitigate moral considerations where prostitution is concerned. Though not all may agree with me, that is a very real possibility in my view.

 

[Doc Holliday]

The fact that Mister Malarek is doing this @ a network funded by tax dollars just irritates me further.

You can relax. Victor Malarek works for CTV, not the CBC. CTV is privately owned.

 

[Regular Guy]

In defense of the meatatarian

RG, I don't think I agree that one side of the debate, the 'decriminalists', are moral relativists....

Actually JAG, I don't either. My point was that what fuels the debate in its present form is the idea of a moral code to which we are all subject to and what defines right and wrong for all on an equal basis. The moral relativist is not bound by any such code. Therefore the moral relativist does not debate, either for one side or the other.

As you point out, moral relativism is about various peoples/cultures having different ideas as to what is moral.

In the broad sense I suppose that your definition does apply. But I was speaking of the concept of relativism as it applied to the trend in our society towards the sacrosanct concept of the authentic self or individualism. To quote one of the great thinkers of our day:

"The good life is what each individual seeks in his or her own way and government would be lacking in impartiality, and thus in equal respect for all its citizens if it took sides on this question."

The same then would hold true for those who either are for or against prostitution, for or against decriminalization. For the moral relativist, then, it is merely a question of choice and you have no right to question anyone's choice on anything, and that includes prostitution. Think about that the next time you see the fast food commercial where the young fellow eating a hamburger declares himself to his date that he is a "meatatarian" (Like a vegetarian except he only eats meat). He then matter of factly announces that, "It's a personal choice!" in a tone that suggests that, that fact is the only defense he needs. Of course the sponsors are simply poking a bit of fun at the moral relativists but ask yourself how many times have you run across a similar application of that argument.

And I agree with you about the slippery slope.

 

[gugu]

About health issues

… a significant number of the community organizations in east central Montreal and virtually ALL of them are better equipped to help a sex worker who wants to leave the trade than Stella.

Let's be realistic. If an alcoholic wants to stop drinking then going to a bar…

You see Stella as group trying to convince sex workers to stay in the business? Stella is not a pimping organization. They have chosen not to provide direct assistance to the girls who want to leave the business. It is their choice as an organization. We don’t run their organization. They don’t have the money to do that. Their choice is helping the girls in the business. But should they decide to provide these services one day, I see no reason why they would be unprofessional in doing it. They provide one important type of assistance to them though: they refer them to the available resources. When we push this logic, the best place for help would be la Cles. They will teach them how much prostitution is an evil. The only thing here: an evil for someone may not be an evil for someone else.

Health issues are… health issues. More than 40% of the public spending goes into this area. Scarce service for PTSD? Money not spent where it should be spent? Need to spend even more? Need new rules for funding? Need better funding for community organizations? Need more money for prevention? Need different structures? Those are all good questions. But the fact is: as a society, we chose to have a public planning of our health system. We should expect that you should be eable to get in the system and that once you get in the system, they will diagnose the PTSD and offer a treatment. I understand JAG here. If it is common problem for the women getting out of the trade and we do not have in our health services the tools to deal with that, it is the role of prostitution advocates to make it a claim. It is not prostitution’ advocates’ responsibility to develop and provide theses services. How should this be made available? Who should the empowerers be? Psychiatry, psychologists, social assistance, community support groups? I don’t know. It is a technical question I believe. A very complex question for health system managers. Not much because we are talking about prostitutes, but because treatments, unless by a psychiatrist, is not totally supervised by the medical profession. I doubt that that community organizations are “well equipped” to deal with the complex health issues linked with PTSD. This is a responsibility for the medical profession I think.

About morality

…recast prostitution as simply a choice…The 64,000 dollar question is, will the concept of Moral Relativism ever gain acceptance to the degree that it will mitigate moral considerations where prostitution is concerned.

Hey! The X generation would find 65 000 $ cheap. Make it 64 M $ and we’ll have a debate. lol.

A society that decides to legalize prostitution take a position on the morality of prostitution. A society that criminalizes either sex workers or clients for the simple act of prostitution takes a position on the morality of prostitution. A society that decriminalizes prostitution does not necessarily take a position on the moral issue — New Zealand did not— it takes a specific mean to obtain specific results: security and health for the sex workers. And we need no moral background to appreciate the results. We need facts. Decriminalization is about public health, occupational health and the security of escorts. Escorts are citizens and they have a right to all of that as citizens. Some brands of morality, I agree, are nothing else than fancy excuses for ignoring these issues.

About consensus on defining the issues

Facts are indeed important, but at this point, they serve nothing but to further polarize the debate. While they can and have provided numerous insights as to the relative goods and bads of prostitution, they will only become useful again if and when the concerned parties choose to reintegrate the debate with an eye toward consensus. To arrive to that, we have to take a closer look at the arguments themselves. They're the problem. They reveal a debate over language rather than over the issue they appear to be speaking to.

You have stated the fundamentals here and I think that you are stating quite correctly at least what the problem is about the discussions we have had on his particular forum. It is, fundamentally, a question of attitude toward the debate. Take this particular thread for instance. 141 posts up to now, 38 by 10-19, our devil advocate. What’s his attitude toward reaching some form of consensus? Nil. Devil advocating is precisely a method against consensus reaching. Devil advocating is fun sometimes, even necessary. But systematically doing it, combined with over posting, ruins debates and attempts at making some consensus.

An other thing about reintegrating the debate with an eye toward consensus. For this to be possible, we need some form of a pledge by the participants. Being on one side of the debate over the necessity of decriminalizing does not mean you cannot discuss openly. But having a fundamentalist view means that. And, here, I think that abolitionist loud speakers had an attitude often close to the creationists. They are marketing an idea. They do not want a debate. I am quite sure that you did not mean: let’s gather somewhere with Poulain and his troops and try to have some open discussions.

So the question is how do we do that. Honestly, I am still puzzled by this. I am not criticizing you for not giving all the answers, just trying to push this a little further. What I gathered from what you wrote is this:

1 If we are to have a constructive debate, we need to start somewhere else than the polarizing moral issues. I agree with you.

2 If we are to have a constructive debate, we need to start somewhere else than the polarizing facts interpretations. I agree with you for one reason: this field is too contaminated so it will be a never ending discussion on choosing the reliable facts.

3 A debate should start by defining the issues. As you say, the debate, at the moment, is over the language rather than the issues. Again I agree.

4 I also read that, in your opinion, “empowerment will occur when political change occurs”. I agree on this even more than on the 3 prior points.

Where do we go from there?

Suppose we solve the following issue:

My issue with some sex-workers advocacy groups is they won't take into account that some women want out. If they want to give more wings to their arguments (which I essentially agree with, until we deny there are women who are not at all empowered in this line of work), they might think about integrating to their arguments their reality as well

Suppose that these advocacy groups would come to accept what you say. Is it all what’s needed?