We are not Criminals

[Merlot]

Hello all,

I've been reading a lot of serious papers on the Swedish law recently.

It is legal to be a prostitute, but it is illegal for them to rent a place to work, or to work in group, even to live with another sex worker. They can be arrested and charged for all kind of things. They ''can'' sell sex, but it's impossible for them to do it safely without breaking some law; exactly as in Canada. I don't want to sound overly optimistic, but there is no way the government could use the Swedish Model and get away with it.

This sounds like a joke. Yeah you can sell cars, but it's illegal for anyone to buy them. So the women can sell sex, but the market (clients) is eliminated. It's a shameless shady chicken-shit way of saying they really don't want to legalize sex for money on any level. They pretend to give women rights but remove any chance to exercise them in a completely legal operation. It's really just cowardly. If women have this right then create safeguards to exercise. Don't cop-out with double-talk that amounts to a de facto ban by criminalizing one side or the other of the parties.

Feminist who try to convince people that prostitutes are just helpless-victim-that-do-that-against-their-will sound pretty silly when you consider that sex workers already sued the government and won.

The anti-prostitution Feminists are never going to allow for any view that sex work could be a rational choice or that this choice is really an exercise in Feminism...ie...female self-empowerment. Now what do they do after the suit? Try to say criminals were behind it? The women didn't have the rational capacity to choose? It all works to undercut Feminism itself when they propose that women can't make some choices in contrast to Feminism being about empowering women to choose.

If the goal is just to criminalize violent clients and pimps, there's already laws against violence and abuse of people.

Agreed. If clients are banned from buying then such a wholesale law is not about protecting sex workers, it's about removing their source of work. As I said previously, if it was about protection they'd be working on regulations for safeguards.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[gugu]

it's about removing their source of work.

Of course it is. But the Swedish government does not say the contrary. Forcing them out of prostitution, it's the price to pay as they more and more openly admit. Authoritative feminism.

 

[Siocnarf]

Unless you are kidnapped or threatened, if you decide to do something then you take responsibility for your own actions. We are all influenced by circumstances, whether we decide to become a drug dealer, a prostitute or a surface hygiene technician. Being a sex worker is not a good choice for everyone, but it's a choice. Some of them in Sweden quit sex work and turn to dealing cocaine, because that is less risky than being a prostitute. Or they become anti-prostitution puppets like Tanja Rahm. That too is a choice.

Like gugu said, Merlot, the stated goal of the law in Sweden is explicitly to eliminate prostitution. By not criminalizing prostitutes, Swedish moralists score double: (i) prostitution is still illegal so they can make the job of sex workers difficult and (ii) prostitutes who continue of their own free will are shown as BAD persons. It's a catch-22. In Canada, the current laws did not have as a goal to eliminate prostitution, only to prevent public nuisance and exploitation. The question is not what kind of laws they will make, but what the stated goal of the new law is going to be.

I Wonder what will happen to afternoon gangbangs....where very othen a SP is hired to accomodate many gents at the same time?
Will it become illegal?

I'm not sure. When I was younger, before starting hobbying, I remember seeing on the news that swingers club were in trouble, even if they did not have any prostitutes. Because the members had to pay to get in, they were treated like a Bawdy house. That's the problem with prostitution law. It's almost impossible to make something that will not be over-reaching.

Siocnarf: thank you to had answered me. xx

You're welcome. Maybe we will have the occasion to continue that conversation privately, between consenting adults in the future.

 

[Morris Wanchuk]

I saw an interesting documentary on the CBC news channel last night. Covered the legalization of sex work in New Zealand which seems to be working well, the Swedish model which prosecutes the male buyers while protecting the female providers, and the Canadian situation wherein the lawyer, Alan Young, has won the Bedford ruling at the Supreme Court. Good arguments on both sides from interviews with sex workers and feminists for and against legalization. As an occasional massage parlour hobbyist, I favour liberalization, of course. The documentary was titled Buying Sex.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/sex-work-is-work-despite-our-hangups/article17371046/


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...itution-was-the-easy-way-out/article17214776/

 

[Maria Divina]

You're welcome. Maybe we will have the occasion to continue that conversation privately, between consenting adults in the future.

Everything might be possible if you will be willing to :nod:

For my part, I consent; so now, it's missing only your consent...... :lol:

xox

 

[Siocnarf]

Excellent. I will go to the notary to get our consent agreement form.
X O O
O X O
O O X

 

[gugu]

Excellent. I will go to the notary to get our consent agreement form.
X O O
O X O
O O X

Careful! We are witnesses of this. Better pay your taxes on the legal bill. No under the blanket arrangement allowed.:nono:

 

[Siocnarf]

Careful! We are witnesses of this. Better pay your taxes on the legal bill. No under the table arrangement allowed.:nono:

They only have small coffee tables in the rooms. It's impossible to make any arrangement under there.

 

[gugu]

:noidea: table?

 

[Siocnarf]

As you can see, I quoted your original text in full. Your blatant falsification has been reported to the internet police.

 

[Maria Divina]

Excellent. I will go to the notary to get our consent agreement form.
X O O
O X O
O O X

:lol:

:cheer2:

 

[EagerBeaver]

I did not realize prostitution is legal in any Muslim country, but evidently it is in licensed brothels in Tunisia:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/12/world/africa/tunisia-prostitutes-brothel/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

It just proves that even Muslims need to get laid.

 

[Merlot]

Gents,

I did not realize prostitution is legal in any Muslim country, but evidently it is in licensed brothels in Tunisia:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/12/world/africa/tunisia-prostitutes-brothel/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

As I've described a few times before, one my my two best friends years ago was a Turkish Muslim with dual American-Turkish citizenship. Yes, there are brothels. But as we all know about the strictness of Islamic purity for women, those in brothels are considered spoiled goods unfit for any marriage. He noted that many in the brothels were foreigners.

My friends sisters living in the U.S. were controlled as much as possible, and the worse thing possible was to have the honor of their virtue in question, which was the family's greatest fear. Of course being a Muslim man he could do as he pleased with non-Muslims...who were also often considered unfit for marriage, all the more so if they gave in to his sexual appetites.

Quite hypocritical isn't it. We ceased being friends long ago.

I don't know if there is a lot of girls/women in the industry who want the "label" of sex worker for the rest of their lives written publicly for everyone.

There may not be nearly the kind of harsh stigma that goes with Muslim brothels, but being identified as an escort would have some negative impact with the general population.



Merlot

 

[EagerBeaver]

That article actually indicates the women working or seeking work in that Tunisian brothel are Tunisian women, not foreigners.

 

[blkone]

If ever a day you declare yourself as an escort, you will be for ever, in the official papers, and escort. That will be a public information. Right?

I don't know if there is a lot of girls/women in the industry who want the "label" of sex worker for the rest of their lives written publicly for everyone.

Yes and no. Your name would be held by the State as is the case with every other person paying taxes in a legal job, but, to actually get that information a person would have to get a pretty extensive background check and need the legal power to do it through your social insurance number like State agencies, or Banks (if you provide them with your number).

But for a friend to find out your employment status would be hard, not impossible, but very hard.

 

[blkone]

C'est une entente personnelle et intime entre 2 adultes et je ne vois pas comment le gouvernement pourrait s'abroger le droit de venir se mêler de ma chambre à coucher (pour donner une image concrète), autant qu'il n'y a pas si longtemps, il était illégal d'avoir des relations sexuelles entre gens du même sexe au Canada, je ne vois pas en quoi aucune décision autre que celle de la femme ou l'homme (en pleine possession de ses moyens qui décide de pratiquer des activités d'ordres sexuels/sensuelles contre rétribution) regardent "les autres". Si ces activités sont faites dans la discrétion à l'abri des regards des autres, elles ne dérangent personne en fait, et "arrangent" ceux et celles qui décident de le faire......

1. It does not matter if it is consensual. Just because people consent to a financial transaction does not give them the right, in the eyes of the State, to not pay taxes on that financial exchange. Employers and Employees cannot simply "consent" to avoiding taxation by being paid under the table. A consenting smoker cannot simply evade taxes by "consent" between two adults and buy contraband.

2. The same sex argument is not valid, because consensual sex without a financial exchange isn't the same at all. Also the very reason same-sex marriage was outlawed is because (you guessed it financial reasons again) homosexuals do not produce children. The State gives married couples benefits and those benefits are usually paid back to the state when the children reach working age. A few things have changed over the years in tax law, so that it doesn't really matter.

Governments are administrators of the state, not arbiters of morality. As long as they get their cut, they'll go along with it.

 

[blkone]

Laws are made to enable the Government to raise more money in taxes.

Exactly. What a lot of people think Government is and what Government actually is tends to be night and day.

 

[Siocnarf]

Just because people consent to a financial transaction does not give them the right, in the eyes of the State, to not pay taxes on that financial exchange.

It depends if the exchange is done as commerce or not. If you want the business transaction to be considered valid and protected by laws and insurance, then it has to be declared and tax have to be paid. But if I give a gift to a mistress (read sex worker), or anyone, then it's a personal matter and the tax official cannot do anything. Tobacco, cars, houses like most goods are regulated by law and it is illegal to trade them privately. Sex between consenting adults is not regulated. Giving small gifts of money is not regulated. There are too many people having sex and the distinction between paid and unpaid is often unclear.

 

[blkone]

It depends if the exchange is done as commerce or not. If you want the business transaction to be considered valid and protected by laws and insurance, then it has to be declared and tax have to be paid. But if I give a gift to a mistress (read sex worker), or anyone, then it's a personal matter and the tax official cannot do anything. Tobacco, cars, houses like most goods are regulated by law and it is illegal to trade them privately. Sex between consenting adults is not regulated. Giving small gifts of money is not regulated. There are too many people having sex and the distinction between paid and unpaid is often unclear.

But, we are discussing the regulation of sex-work and such work if made legal would become a taxable product. A legal product.

Regulations, regulations everywhere.

But keep in mind that not all John's or Jane's are nice people who simply enjoy sharing sexual experiences and services with each other.

Some are killers, traffickers and bad folks in general.

I do not envy Stephen Harper. His is a balancing act between state finances and the security and prosperity of future generations. The impact on the healthcare system, Police service, marriage system, organized crime, taxation etc ... There is much more to take into consideration than just us and Sp's and our private activities.

 

[gugu]

Sex work is a particular sector of the economy, bikone. No government seriously legislates for taxation purposes. It's just not worth the effort to try to make sex workers pay their taxes, although some basic measures could yield some taxation revenues (to preserve a minimum appearance of equity). The costs of gathering the evidence for each and every sex worker far outweigh the benefits. Most sex workers enter the business as a short, temporary, time frame. Paying taxes for them, is pure lost. Also, there are those, like Maria Divina, who think the State has no business benefiting from their intimacy. I can understand that easily.

Cost benefit analysis should be made on the other elements that you point out: public health, policing and judiciary costs. Decriminalization or legalization have clear advantages IMHO. Health official can reach more easily the sex workers in case of STD outbursts; policing costs could be lowered if sex workers stopped seeing the police as their enemy and the judiciary system could be uncluttered of many stupid cases they have to pursue with no benefit to society. BTW, I'd be curious to know how seriously the public health officials are consulted at the moment.