Urban vs Suburban - 2 styles enter, one style leaves!

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Again it's a arbitrary line. The only reason you don't care if the guy cooking you burgers in the back at Mac D's is a meth addicted exploited worker who is being threatened by his employer is because there is no sex involved. Completely arbitrary. News flash, some people would prefer to have sex all day than flipping burgers. Both choices can be painted as occupation of last resort, and both occupations have the potential for exploitation. Your sacred cow theory regarding sex begin the line we shouldn't cross is an arbitrary distinction.

Human sexuality and massively disproportionate risk of harm are not arbitrary lines. Your imaginary line between what is acceptable and unacceptable based on appearance however is.

Sure, it isn't an OSHA issue, let's sweep the industry under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist in the name of human rights. Your moral crusade is doing more harm than good, by not giving people who choose to enter the industry the proper protection they deserve. You are enabling pimps by sweeping the entire industry under the rug.

I don't think it should be swept under the rug, I think the largest spotlight in the world should shine on it. Make the consequences to johns so great that taking their ipad into the bathroom for a bit seems like an immeasurably better alternative.

And a not so insignificant number of fast food workers are addicted to drugs, in poor health, and are under criminal influence. Do you think they are just going to stop?

Again, another cynical false equivalency. Whatever they are they probably aren't going to end up in a shallow grave somewhere because of their employment in the food service industry. If you want to argue that whatever sex act is equivalent labour to whatever menial task knock yourself out. The risk the participant is exposed to will never be similar.

Thanks for that beautiful ad hominem, which totally degrades this entire conversation. For the record I meant "exposed" in the same sense that you were "exposed", through anecdotes and circumstantial evidence. Not that it matters but I have never employed the services of a prostitute.

Perhaps you should have phrased that differently.

it's no different then your anecdotes that you shared. I am not making any point beyond that was my experience, which was in a totally different to yours.

I will take the opinion of someone who actually had to wade through this mess over whoever told you that the upscale prostitutes of Vancouver have it just great.

It has been a very long time, at least more than a decade, that I have read something in one of the supposedly enlightened corners of the internet that left me with a visceral sense of disgust with the person who wrote it. Congratulations.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Human sexuality and massively disproportionate risk of harm are not arbitrary lines. Your imaginary line between what is acceptable and unacceptable based on appearance however is.

Newsflash, your moral crusade to keep prostitution in the underground is enabling the risk to these sex workers.

I don't think it should be swept under the rug, I think the largest spotlight in the world should shine on it. Make the consequences to johns so great that taking their ipad into the bathroom for a bit seems like an immeasurably better alternative.

Your obsession with "johns" is completely ignoring the fact that there exist several women who prefer to get paid compared to other options and your moral crusade does nothing to protect them.

Again, another cynical false equivalency. Whatever they are they probably aren't going to end up in a shallow grave somewhere because of their employment in the food service industry. If you want to argue that whatever sex act is equivalent labour to whatever menial task knock yourself out. The risk the participant is exposed to will never be similar.

Completely ignored the point. There is absolutely nothing special about your arbitrary worship of sex as something that should never be sold for money. People are trading their blood sweat and tears for money but as soon as sex is involved you have a problem. That is arbitrary.

Perhaps you should have phrased that differently.

Or perhaps your moral crusade has simply clouded your judgement beyond repair.

I will take the opinion of someone who actually had to wade through this mess over whoever told you that the upscale prostitutes of Vancouver have it just great.

It has been a very long time, at least more than a decade, that I have read something in one of the supposedly enlightened corners of the internet that left me with a visceral sense of disgust with the person who wrote it. Congratulations.

To be honest your comments are to me disgusting as it shows a complete lack of empathy with a modern day sex worker and a refusal to admit to an endemic problem with their working conditions.

By the way, it's not like my opinions are completely tangential to what law enforcement also believes. there are plenty of police officers who work closely with prostitutions who believe that public opinions about sex and sex workers are doing far more harm than good. Your little from who worked cases in LA is not the be all end all opinion on prostitution that you think it is.

Some light reading:

http://www.straight.com/news/sex-trade-has-long-history

[speedog]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I am sorry for the derail, but honestly people don't think about the issue in enough depth and it certainly isn't talked about and debated enough relative to the potential size of the human rights abuses which are going on related to that industry as a whole. We need to shine a very large light onto the whole thing.

So start anther thread - they are free after all.

Man, someone coming into this thread is going to be thoroughly confused by this derail when they were expecting to view some 'Urban vs Suburban' discussion which IMHO has totally disappeared as of late in this thread.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by speedog

So start anther thread - they are free after all.

Man, someone coming into this thread is going to be thoroughly confused by this derail when they were expecting to view some 'Urban vs Suburban' discussion which IMHO has totally disappeared as of late in this thread.

meh.. urban v surburban talk is pretty terrible at the best of times. The only thing worse is probably the crime thread (where perhaps this belongs). This is one of the first debates formed here with two passionate, informed sides.

Getting back to the discussion, I guess it comes down to how you'd answer this question: What is the best way to minimize exploitation, violence, extortion, drug abuse, and risk to public health and sexual health?

I hope I'm not over-simplifying your stances, but IMO you represent pretty fairly the two sides of the debate. Geo answers the question by calling for legalization and regulation; PW answers the question by outlawing prostitution and discouraging the public from involvement in the industry. I think both sides would agree that prostitution is here to stay, and that sex workers in any case do not deserve significant punishment or incarceration - they are either willing to accept the risks of their workplace or victims of exploitation, depending who you ask. Both sides are obviously against human trafficking and violence too. It's how to solve the problem where they differ. I ask you though, even if it was legal, it would still be best for public health if as few people participated as possible, no?

The solution, as usual, is probably somewhere in the middle. Personally, I think Geo is being a little naive to the nature of exploitation, but he makes a few good points - the strongest of which is probably that we must question what we take for granted as right and wrong. Other places in the world have far different perspectives on the sex trade industry, and Canada isn't automatically morally superior. That said, in practice, prostitution is essentially already decriminalized. Police and social workers are well aware of the reality of the industry, and seem to approach it with empathy and tact. There are tons of programs to get kids off the street, provide sexual health resources, and spread education. Should these attitudes be more strongly codified? Perhaps. Total legalization and regulation seems as though it would only be institutionalizing complex issue that perhaps is better addressed with other programs.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Personally, I think Geo is being a little naive to the nature of exploitation

Could you expand on that? I will never deny that exploitation takes place in the prostitution industry, even if it was fully legal, transparent and accountable it's unlikely we can come up with a perfect system. My argument is simply that we need to make the system more transparent and accountable, sweeping it under the rug as we do today in enabling wide scale exploitation that we are in very little position to address in any kind of systematic fashion.

That said, in practice, prostitution is essentially already decriminalized. Police and social workers are well aware of the reality of the industry, and seem to approach it with empathy and tact. There are tons of programs to get kids off the street, provide sexual health resources, and spread education. Should these attitudes be more strongly codified? Perhaps. Total legalization and regulation seems as though it would only be institutionalizing complex issue that perhaps is better addressed with other programs.

"Prostitution isn't illegal in Canada" is a terrible way to marginalize the issue.

Look at Policy Wonk's main issues with prostitution.

First, he has a problem with girls disappearing since they have to go to seedy secluded places to conduct their business. Why do they need to do that? Because in Canada brothel's are illegal. Brothel's can be set up as a safe and regulated place to conduct business that can be legally held accountable for protecting and preventing abuse.

Second, he has a problem with the risk to disease that a sex worker faces. Again, brothels can be required to do screening and background checks of clients. They can be forced to provide generous health benefits, require regular testing, and in general provide an atmosphere that could make the workers less at risk.

Up until a few months ago, brothels were completely illegal in Canada. Sex workers were forced to operate in a nebulous black market system that exponentially increased their risk.

Did anyone actually read the supreme court decision? The decision was made primarily on the basis of safety and protecting a modern sex worker. Members of the sex industry, women, were fighting for more protection.

Another big aspect that is completely overlooked is human trafficking, which like most times, doesn't get talked about enough. You know, that multi billion dollar industry dedicated to kidnapping women, moving them to foreign countries, drugging them, exploiting them, and forcing them to work as sex workers. It is a totally different beast than the women who choose to make their living by selling sex for money. With a legal brothel operating and providing background checks, official wages, and a support system, all of a sudden a sex worker needs a passport, a SIN, they need to be issued T4 slips for their salaries, there is a paper trail, and it much easier to find and root out that kind of exploitation. Now these black market operations would be competing with legal safe official channels of prostitution, it makes the whole sex trafficking industry a lot more risky and a lot less profitable for the true monsters of the world.

[RWin]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Second, he has a problem with the risk to disease that a sex worker faces. Again, brothels can be required to do screening and background checks of clients.

That would be a great way to go out of business. Whether it's legal or not, what guy is going go through a background check before using the service of a brothel? Again, whether it's legal or not, I don't think many people will want it to be public knowledge that they're using the services of a brothel. I assume you mean such things as medical exams and police checks. Kind of takes away some of the privacy. I could see that there will still be a big underground market for those who want to do this in secret.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by RWin

That would be a great way to go out of business. Whether it's legal or not, what guy is going go through a background check before using the service of a brothel? Again, whether it's legal or not, I don't think many people will want it to be public knowledge that they're using the services of a brothel. I assume you mean such things as medical exams and police checks. Kind of takes away some of the privacy. I could see that there will still be a big underground market for those who want to do this in secret.

Now we are just arguing over the details. It wouldn't have to be public knowledge, and there are plenty of less intrusive options a brothel could also employ to protect their workers, including at minimum enforcing protection.

I think it's important to recognize that even if prostitution is legal there would likely still be an underground market, just like there are underground markets for prescription drugs and guns and other heavily enforced industries, but I suspect that underground market would be severely weakened and prohibition in the long run does more harm than good.

[RWin]

Originally Posted by geotag277

It wouldn't have to be public knowledge

That is one big difference between the sex trade industry and the hamburger industry.

I don't need to worry about my wife finding out that I went to McDonalds.

[Policy Wonk]

This is my last word on the subject.

Believing that legal brothels would have any meaningful impact is ridiculous. Those excluded from them will go about their business as they always have and most johns probably wouldn't go to a brothel in the first place. (Ramsyfarian will be parked outside honking and waving at people as they go inside and posting it on Instagram)

The red light district of Amsterdam and the various trailers in the Nevada desert are tourist traps.

I don't believe that prostitution can be stopped but to stridently reduce it to just another shitty job represents societies worst form of misogyny.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I don't believe that prostitution can be stopped but to stridently reduce it to just another shitty job represents societies worst form of misogyny.

The more egregious form of misogyny is to actively prevent these people from getting the rights and protections they deserve under the guise of an archaic anti-sex moral crusade high horse "I don't want my daughter to do it" attitude while sticking your head in the sand regarding the very supreme court decision that was spear headed by a coalition of actual sex workers.

As a final thought experiment, ask yourself if you would want your daughter appearing in pornographic videos or pictures? Do you think making pornography illegal would eliminate demand for the material? Do you think making pornography illegal, and thus sending all participants into a shadowy black market underworld with no legal protection, representation, accountability, or regulation would be a net positive for the health and well being of those people who choose to enter the industry? Note that the pornography industry is far from perfect, there are people who get diseases, there are people who are manipulated into it, and there are problems with exploitation drug abuse and safety, but the question is are the women involved better served being regulated to operate in the shadows?

"I don't want my daughter to do it" is not a basis for legal policy and no one gives a shit about your arbitrary moral code and standards you give yourself as a parent. I don't want my daughter to be a corporate lawyer, to dedicate 1000+ hours a year during the prime years of her life slaving away to some soulless law firm that treats her like shit in an industry that to me barely deserves to exist as a human endeavor. Those parents who are proud their child finally made partner at that top law firm after 20 years of sacrifice don't give a shit about my views and that's exactly the way it should be.

I've said my peace on the subject as well, I hope it is a debate that continues more and more in the public sphere and people don't shy away from voicing their opinions about it. These kinds of "prostitution is evil OMG my daughter sex is a sacred cow that can only be used as I see fit" knee jerk reactions deserve to be challenged and exposed and debated. It is an issue that is much too important and too much harm has already been done.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by lineman

Again. It isn't illegal.

While I have no personal interest in the ... services provided - please, enlighten me as to where I can go and engage with a prostitute, legally. In Canada.

Your words are the worst kind of weasel words known to man - literally true, and false in every possible practical way.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Getting back to the discussion, I guess it comes down to how you'd answer this question: What is the best way to minimize exploitation, violence, extortion, drug abuse, and risk to public health and sexual health?

While I'm not sure of the best ways to minimize it, I do know the best way to MAXIMIZE it - make it illegal. Make it shameful. Bury it deep underground so that people can moralize about those who participate in it can be labeled, marginalized, and otherwise tolerant people can look down upon them. Oh wait, that's precisely the situation we have right now.

The irony is that much like with Prohibition, a surprising number of people don't seem to realize that most of the problems they decry are more to do with the activity being illegal than the activity itself.

I ask you though, even if it was legal, it would still be best for public health if as few people participated as possible, no?

Technically the same thing could be said of all forms of human sexual encounters. It's a very short trip to "abstinence is best!" once you start thinking that way. You're literally correct in what you ask, but the question is misleading.

How about instead of prying our noses into what other consenting adults do in their free time, we educate people to do what they're going to do anyway, but do it SMARTLY. And regulate/tax the fuck out of it.

Hm. Can't decide if I'm talking about soft drugs or human sexuality now.

Um... GO SUBURBS.

[RWin]

Originally Posted by freeweed

tax the fuck out of it.

Yup, no fuck, no problem.

[lineman]

Originally Posted by freeweed

While I have no personal interest in the ... services provided - please, enlighten me as to where I can go and engage with a prostitute, legally. In Canada.

Your words are the worst kind of weasel words known to man - literally true, and false in every possible practical way.

I wouldn't have the slightest clue where one would engage in hooking up with a prostitute legally, but I'm sure a quick Google may enlighten you (I hate dropping the Google card, but I hate seemingly smart individuals asking me stupid questions).

I was just reiterating what it says in the Criminal Code of Canada and correcting the misnomer that prostitution, in itself, is illegal in Canada. All I know is that you can't discuss things in public, you can't have a brothel and you can't be a pimp. If you don't like what I've typed, I could only care enough to type this response.

Don't shoot the messenger.

GO INNER CITY

[freeweed]

I'm not shooting the messenger, the fact is that prostitution is completely illegal in Canada - even if the criminal code weasels its way around this by saying that prostitution ITSELF is not illegal, just everything necessary to engage in it.

It's like saying "sure, alcohol isn't illegal, it's just illegal to manufacture, sell, or distribute it in any way". Oh wait, that's precisely what many Prohibition laws did.

It's not a misnomer at all. There is no legal way to engage in prostitution in Canada. If there were, all the illegal ways people do it wouldn't exist. That is kinda self-evident.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I'm not shooting the messenger, the fact is that prostitution is completely illegal in Canada - even if the criminal code weasels its way around this by saying that prostitution ITSELF is not illegal, just everything necessary to engage in it.

It's like saying "sure, alcohol isn't illegal, it's just illegal to manufacture, sell, or distribute it in any way". Oh wait, that's precisely what many Prohibition laws did.

It's not a misnomer at all. There is no legal way to engage in prostitution in Canada. If there were, all the illegal ways people do it wouldn't exist. That is kinda self-evident.

I've ignored this entire discussion, so apologies if I have missed this, but didn't the Supreme Court just strike down all prostitution laws? Isn't that why provinces and municipalities are now scrambling to address the issue?

[mersar]

Originally Posted by fusili

I've ignored this entire discussion, so apologies if I have missed this, but didn't the Supreme Court just strike down all prostitution laws? Isn't that why provinces and municipalities are now scrambling to address the issue?

Pretty much. They struck them down while giving the Federal government until I think it is this December to come up with new laws before the old ones are actually invalid.

That said, this topic is quite off topic for this thread. So time to move along I think.

[freeweed]

Yeah. The laws are unconstitutional but remain in de facto place in lieu of anything else. However the specific laws in question never actually made exchanging money for sex illegal - they only made it illegal to do anything that actually facilitates that transaction. It's one of those bizarre legal things where self-righteous people can proclaim "But it's not illegal!!" even when it really is. A legal nicety and nothing more. I believe the original thinking was that making prostitution itself illegal would violate our rights to free speech and assembly, in whatever form they actually exist in our constitution.

Considering this thread was set up as a joke, to contain off-topic nonsense from polluting the main construction thread, I'm a bit surprised at how strong a reaction to off-topic discussion has been. I didn't realize that a free-for-all VS thread was actually something in demand that needed to remain on course.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Considering this thread was set up as a joke, to contain off-topic nonsense from polluting the main construction thread, I'm a bit surprised at how strong a reaction to off-topic discussion has been. I didn't realize that a free-for-all VS thread was actually something in demand that needed to remain on course.

Pretty sure this thread was created for all the urban vs suburban debates that frequently happen. The watercooler thread was the catch-all for off-topic nonsense. Hence its name.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Pretty sure this thread was created for all the urban vs suburban debates that frequently happen. The watercooler thread was the catch-all for off-topic nonsense. Hence its name.

Poorly worded on my part. Given that I was the one who created this thread, I'm well aware of what it was created for.

I just didn't think people took it that seriously that they'd start complaining about a couple of pages of off-topic nonsense. Like, usually off-topicness annoys people because it drowns out other, valid posts. Or it just makes it a slog to read to find the info you're looking for. I never realized there was such a community interesting in debating the pros and cons of suburbs here.