A Few Points
misunderstood said:
It would be interesting to know the feeling of agency owners about all this.....
On another note,the problem with getting sp's to sign this is that as others before me have posted one of the advantages of being an SP is the undeclared income and most wouldn't want this to change.
Also,usually the one's being abused are SW's who are usually doing it to pay for their addictions and not to buy a condo.They would never sign such a chart.
I did not vote on this poll because I cannot make up my mind but I'll allways be a defender of human rights.
You raise some interesting points.
Agency owners are free to answer for themselvs BUT history has shown us - after Prohibition was repealed in the USA being a prime example, that certain operators adapted to the legalized business model while others did not.
In the pre-contact days in SCs there was talk amongst the dancers about unionizing. Remember this was the era(1970's) in Quebec when everyone was unionizing. The loss of the undeclared income was a consideration BUT the transient nature of the business combied with the total lack of obligation were other cosiderations as well. Specifically the girls wanted to retain the right to move to another club without notice and they were not going to give anyone the right to call a strike when it would hurt them financially.
You raise the issue of SWs which I will balance against a point raised by Lilly earlier and pasted below:
_________________________________________________________________
The categories, divisions, sub-divisions, and the sub sub categories : that comes from the sex workers themselves to have an easier time accepting what they do : "I do hand jobs but no penetrations... I am not a prostitute... " because prostitute used to be use in a negative way.
But the bottom of it, no matter what sex act you are performing IN EXCHANGE OF MONEY, you are prostituing yourself. Period.
_________________________________________________________________
Not interested in getting into the merits of the definition BUT will make a few points.
When contact was allowed in the SCs(early 1980's) the basic complaint from a large number of the dancers was that to retain jobs they would have to become prostitutes and that prostitutes would be allowed to work in the SCs.
This raises the second point and that is do we define the act or the person.
If we are simply trying to define the act then the definition outlined by Lilly serves as a starting point. If we are trying to define the person then it fails.
In the Hochelaga / Maisonneuve / Ville Marie area of Montreal you will find a cross section of SPs. From sexy waitress restaurants, to massage parlours, SCs, incalls, outcalls, SWs and whatever else you wish to throw into the mix.
The restaurants, massage parlours and SCs have managed to integrate themselves into the mainstream of the neighbourhood. Whatever happens inside the premises stays inside the premises. The providers do not go outside to target venues that attract people nor do they dump condoms or syringes wherever they might use them.
The SWs in particular but some of the incall/outcall as well do target venues that attract people and will try to solicit in bars going against the mainstream of the neigbourhood.
This distinction should be accounted for in the definition.
