Not a class abuse if you respect her terms of the service. The abuse occurs when you breach that "contract".
Nice la Presse Article on XO this morning
- Thread starter felixLg
- Start date
I would even go beyond that and say it’s a moral imperative to report abuse when you witness it or have credible knowledge it occurred.
I agree with you, but a lot of people don't agree on the definition of abuse, and a lot of people don't understand nuances when these situations are discussed. It's also very hard to prove it in front of a judge, and it's hard to prove to and by LE. Personally I wish people would just learn more about the dynamics of sexual and domestic violence and listen to survivors instead of focusing on the legal aspects of it. Very often the legal system is not supportive of abuse victims.. Instead, I think it's more important to focus on education and supporting victims ourselves.
I have witnessed a lot of call outs of men I knew in the past.. I know how it goes. Abusers and rapists are often pleasant people who have a lot of friends and supporters. They are rarely abusive to everyone, they are often charming. That's also why the victims often stay, because the abuser has good traits and it becomes confusing. They also fear telling the truth, because they know it will not be believed. And really often people either forgot after a while, or nobody believed the victim and she (or he) lost many friends.
It's also very rare that abuse is ''witnessed'' and even when it is, it's often hidden or presented as something else to others. It's usually not that obvious. ''Credible knowledge'' is also a tough one.. and it touches upon everything I've said earlier.
Last edited:
Just look at the Epstein files.. It took decades until this came to light, and a lot of victims had reported to LE. They were not taken seriously. A lot of the victims of Epstein were girls who were from abusive homes, they needed money and they were often seen as juvenile delinquents, which weakened their testimony. Even Virginia Giuffre in her memoir describes that the media trashed her, blamed her for the abuse that happened when she was a teenage girl, etc. Abusers really often go for victims they know are scared, naive and isolated.. Or they use the fact that their victim already has a poor reputation. Just being a sex worker could discredit someone. Clementine here has an advantage because of her ''good girl'' image. She is no longer an escort, has a boyfriend, a supportive family.. Even the way she's presenting herself in the documentary with no makeup on and really drab clothes contribute to us being more likely to believe her than other girls who are still sex workers who have been abused at XO.
I couldn't stop thinking also about the Epstein files.
Like some of those girls had the courage to report it, some were ignored, some where being BS because even the LE and law (the "deal" with Attorney Alexander Acosta) were on the side of the rapers.
What made the case viable were (non exhaustively):
- Publication of the serie "Perversion of Justice"
- Public "support" with the metoo movement to give an opening for people who has been abused to speak out
- Additional victims with testimonies that were similar which could bypass the usual disbelief in such acts and practices.
The similarities in abuse is the feeling that the abuser have lot of powers in their hands that will make you lose the sense or the possibility to complain or report it.
I understand your point. But I beleive that taking the folks in the Epstein files is a bad exemple. We talking about folks in the 1% of wealth here. This is more of a case about wealth class and how these people can get away with anything.
Report to the police. Period. Every Time. All the Time. Other type of confort should be provided but pushing for police report and autorities report should be mandatorie. Nothing can convince me otherwise.
It was an extreme example, I agree.. But that doesn't mean it doesn't reflect reality. Abuse is always about power dynamics. You are still missing my point. If a victim is not seen as credible and not respected as a person, LE won't care and most people won't believe them. If the abuser is well liked by the community, very often people won't believe the allegations. If it happens within a family, the child who does the accusation is often ostracized.
Even in this thread, you see numerous people say ''Sam was so nice to me'' .. ''I have never witnessed such a thing''. Most people think if it didn't happen in front of them, it wasn't happening. And EVEN THEN. Even when it happens in front of them, a lot of people use mental gymnastics to justify what happened.
Once again this isn't simply about ''comfort'' it's about wanting to avoid retraumatization.
Last edited:
It's not just people who are as wealthy as Epstein. When I was in university I knew a girl who was groomed and abused by her teacher in high school over the course of a year.. Not a wealthy man but someone who was well liked in her town and who was popular with students. She came from a poor family and was seen as a troublemaker, it was known she had been sexually active early, etc. Another adult convinced her to report it to the police and they insulted her, made her feel stupid, etc. Then more testimonies came out over the years, and he ended up getting convicted.. WAY later.
This is just one example. I have so many stories like this to tell.
Even if the "power" in the Epstein case are far greater, the atmosphere of fear are similar.
In Clémentine's interview she described her "escape" with her dad. From an outsider POV it looks simple: open the door, walk away.
From her perspective it was more like the anxiety of having someone watching her, if she walked out the door will someone follow them, what will happen if they caught her like any repercussions, etc.
It's always about power dynamics and the sentiment of fear.
I think we all tend to believe victims and disbelieve abusers here which is one reason we were so appalled when the hockey accuser's stories were proven to be fabricated.
The fact that some doubt parts of Clementine's story has nothing to do with accusing her of fabricating the whole story. There is a clear media narrative story here as well as the fact that people always embellish their story. Anytime you hear 2 people recount an incident they always recount it in their favour. The victim shaming angle is not relevant here I think because her stories is told as a hero story - No aspect of it was critical of her and the mass and media rallied around her.
Bystanders will always put themselves in the situation to see if they think they would have behaved differently. It is not shaming and definitely not denying the victimhood of the person - assuming the story is credible.
I think we need better ways to ensure that providers and clients can meet without fear of abuse on either side (recognizing that more abuse happens to providers - the fact that we need to make it better for both sides does not mean that it is the same on both sides). Changing the side that gets criminalized could have been useful but legalizing the work is key. This does not mean that you need to be registered and they only registered people will be protected. Factory working is legal... and all factory workers are protected (and if some ever got coerced no one would ever say "yeah but they were not registered"). Is the legalization fear the fear that taxes will have to be paid? If so please decriminalize large construction engineering projects because I also hate paying taxes.
Have you read my very long comment about decriminalization versus legalization? People are not pushing for decrim because they don't want to pay taxes lol
I'm not going to repeat all of this.
Most of us already pay taxes, and it’s not even close to be a legal job.
thank you so much for your input I find all of your interventions very insightful
I did read your comment and I don't disagree that decriminalization would be good. This is especially important to readers here since it is *clients^ that are criminalized in Canada (and people living off of the earnings of sexwork but not my role or expertise to defend them).
I just don't think a single group will get to decide sadly. The choice we will likely face is some additional repression (likely just making the fear of repression more likely to control the business) or more legalization but with some constraints.
We likely agree here that minors/coercion should be policed. It is not customers sole responsibility to do that (although sex workers, clients, and bystanders have some agency here to help). I would prefer a free market to an enforced one but would not protest if the government introduced minimal hygiene/STD verification. Same for blacklisting abusive providers and clients (once truly proven to have been abusive of course).
Not sure how we get to decrim though. It feels like part of feminism truly stands against it (while another supports it of course).
Can you clarify what you mean by this, are you talking about provider's ? Clients ? Both ?
Decrim is good for everyone involved including clients.. And we know that clients are criminalized. I just find it strange that some clients here want it legalized and don't support us in wanting decrim, when in fact they would have a lot more options as clients if it was decriminalized vs legalized. And it's been shown through multiple studies that in places where sex work is legalized, a lot is still pushed underground, and the multiple providers who aren't able to work at brothels are punished. So are their clients. The government doesn't know shit about sex work and dosn't know how to take control of it. We as sex workers and the organizations that are here to support us know what's best, they know decriminalization is the way to go.
I don't really understand what you mean by ''abusive providers'', unless you mean scammers. But that's another thing that decrim would protect you against.. If you were scammed by a sex worker, as a client you could report it to LE. Otherwise everyone would be forced to work at brothels, and the ones who can't could still scam clients and the clients who saw them would still be criminalized if they saw the worker outside of a controlled brothel.
It's really hard to prove that a client is abusive. You talk about ''truly proven to be abusive''.. How can you even prove that? Aside from massage parlors where I have seen clients run out of rooms without paying or girls run out of rooms crying because they were assaulted, it's very hard to prove that a client raped you or pushed boundaries. Most of us have absolutely no reason to lie about a client being abusive. There is just no point in doing that. But it's impossible to prove it..
I don't think that argument is useful here tho.. It's really exhausting to argue about this.
From what I've been told, at legal brothels, STI screening is mandatory.. FOR THE PROVIDERS. Not for the clients.
And logistically it makes no sense to give every client a STI screening every time they want to visit the brothel.
To me that doesn't change much from how things are now lol because the vast majority of providers are encouraged to get screened at their work place or do it themselves. If clients never get screened and bring STI to the brothel, it's the worker that is punished.
Last edited:
Yeah definitely; all my girlies get STI screening at the parlour directly, they're not mandatory but I've never seen anyone not want them / refuse to take them and we have so many amazing / perpetual conversations about sexual health. Our bodies are literally our bread-maker and precious work tool. We're the first one needing for it to be top shape; healthy; safe (we are 100% the ones punished if a client brings stuff with him to see us first and foremost because we lose our literal source of income)... It always amazes me how a lot of clients seem so terrified of catching things because they see providers. It's definitely a belief born from demonization - stigmatization - antisexwork propaganda so I understand why people tend to be a tad ignorant about that subject, but still.
Beside my gyneco (lol), the most informed and knowleadgable ppl arount me about sexual risk/health/STIs have always been sex-workers.
I think that's why I actually got confused by that precedent comment about sti verifications.
Last edited:
I don't like saying this but from what I've seen on this forum and what I've heard elsewhere, often it's on the client side that there is misinformation about STI's or there is some type of carelessness.. It's good to know that at a parlour girls are getting STI screenings. When I worked at parlours, unsafe services were strongly discouraged..
Well, every parlour is different ofc, I can only talk about my own experience at the current place I'm working at rn.
But yeah, I've had to explain often to clients stuff like skin to skin contact = possible sti risk, unprotected oral = possible sti transmission, cuts / blood = no go.
The irony of then having to live with the stigma of being a risk for ppl who have intimacy with me on a professional or personal level is crazy sometimes ngl. But I love also informing ppl about it, clients or friends and I've found over time that this feeling is shared by a lot of colleagues from many different sw area ! ! !
Seeing a thread like this one with so much brilliant knowledge about so many aspects of our reality as provider gives me lots of hope tho. Love reading all of those back and forth.
Last edited:
Similar threads
