Ladies and Gents,
In response to Merlot's distorted characterization of my views:
I stand by my contention that these articles constitute propaganda. Merlot, as you can see from the definition below, "propaganda" is not the same thing as "lies," as you suggest.
I did add the second part of that line,
"meaning untrue, fabricated" because it's the common notion of propaganda, not the accurate one as we both know. It had the benefit that you might explain your position more clearly, as you did.
I never said any such thing. "Seediness" can be found in the sex industry, in government & politics, in law enforcement, in business, in education. Despite the seediness that I have sometime observed in those institutions, I am not in favoring of abolishing them.
Seedy or seediness are poor generic words indicating any kind of dealings that skirt the law or ethics. You're right that this exists everywhere. But in the sex industry I meant to refer to methods to actually control a person's life for sexual profit, such as promoting drug use, using physical abuse as a constant threat in many cases, emotional blackmail as a mode of operation, unusual in the other businesses.
Should we take you skipping over the existence of
"abusive pimps, drug dealers, gangs, or mafia type organizations" to be your tacit admission of their involvement.
Not all feminists, just 99% of today's feminists.
So I distorted this one by 1%. Actually less than .5% since I allowed that many feminists are against the sex industry.
The reason that women face risks in the sex industry is because of the illegal nature of many of the activities associated with it.
This is contradictory. You indicate being a sex worker is already no more risky than other work, yet indicate greater risks because of the "illegal nature".
Unless I have good evidence to the contrary, I assume that an adult woman with whom I have contracted to provide me with sexual services is doing so of her own free will. Women are not children in need of protection from meddlesome politicians, police officers, nitwit feminist professors and hack writers.
Have you ever seen a rape? Reported crimes against women show 1 in 4 or 5 women are raped. So you imply if you don't see it or don't see the police reports it didn't happen since you have already said to me that a woman simply telling me she or her friends have been abused in some way isn't good enough. It's guaranteed you have spoken to women you never knew had been raped even though they never said anything about it.
Clients who think nothing is wrong just because they've never seen anything are sealing themselves in a wishful bubble.
I've never met any lady since 2001 who seemed to be providing sexual services against her will. Why? She is there to perform/act as everyone keeps saying. If she is in trouble is she likely to unburden herself to some stranger who is paying for service illegally, doesn't want involvement or exposure?[/I]
I don't see why anyone characterizes those who might really be trying to help as "meddlesome" and "nitwit". Sure there are those who have agendas that are not concerned with the well-being of the ladies, but to stereotype them wholesale is denial of the good many are trying to achieve.
If you oppose legalization of the business of prostitution then you condemn lots of girls to having to work for the assholes you typically find in illegal businesses.
You are contradicting yourself. You keep saying conditions in the business as they are today are no worse than other businesses yet you indicate an admission of common exploitation when you say "condemn", which clearly means a situation of danger from "assholes" well beyond normal.
If you're satisfied with the status quo, then to me that shows disdain for any girl who doesn't have the ability like you to manage her own business. If your position is that we should have a law that bans only "asshole pimps" (i.e., asshole agency owners, boyfriends etc.) but not "good pimps" (i.e., agency owners that you approve of), how is that supposed to work?
You seem pretty closed to anyone who can offer first hand experience and testimony if it contradicts what you believe. Again, do you need to see it happen in front of you to admit to it.
You're also making some poor presumptions about Sidney, rejecting the possibility that she may have gotten out because of having seen some very bad things happening to the ladies, as well as her own bad experiences. I don't know what's in her mind either, but I wouldn't disparage her if her witness information contradicted
my view.
Merlot, I think these are all points on which you and I can mostly agree.
- I view this series of articles in La Presse as part of a campaign to attack the sex industry in Montreal and radically restrict it
- To ameliorate the problems associated with the sex industry, I have called for it to be legalized.
From my original post in this thread I didn't think we would be far apart, so your original reply seemed harsh. I have agreed with everyone who says so many of these articles like these in La Presse are made to attack the sex industry as an evil as a whole, denying any positive possibility exists rather than dealing with the reality that the industry will never go away so protection of the women must be paramount.
But as you now indicate the difference between us seems to be that you think that working in the industry is no worse than other jobs (though you have shown some contradictions) and I know the abuses are beyond normalcy in other jobs.
Since the business will continue there is no choice but to protect the women involved. If legalizing it achieves that I think we should support it. Simple decriminalization may not be enough for the reasons CaptRenault explained.
Cheers,
Merlot
