I could not think straight right now FunSugarDaddy. I got too distracted by the visuals (the curves other than the bell curve). Not enough blood supply is currently flowing into my thinking head.
Is it really this bad? (SP life)
- Thread starter Orifice
- Start date
I hear ya, it's both refreshing, and intoxicating to discuss this type of subject with such a sexy teacher..if I had a teacher like Emmanuelle I may have ended up getting a PH'D is something (probably in fantasizing)
I could not think straight right now FunSugarDaddy. I got too distracted by the visuals (the curves other than the bell curve). Not enough blood supply is currently flowing into my thinking head.
Last edited:
"there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics..."
- Mark Twain
sorry emmanuel, i couldn't help myself actually you've done your homework well - you are bang on with your explanations +1
cheers, vcc
- Mark Twain
sorry emmanuel, i couldn't help myself
actually you've done your homework well - you are bang on with your explanations +1cheers, vcc
This is beautiful. Emmanuelle you are proof to all the idiots, that I would wish be in the minority, that you girls are not a bunch of brainless idiots.
I hope that reads how i'm thinking it. it's supposed to come out as a compliment.
Either way well done gorgeous.
I hope that reads how i'm thinking it. it's supposed to come out as a compliment.
Either way well done gorgeous.
susie's earlier post provides some clues but she didn't provide the critical details.
susie can you elaborate on the source of the survey?
LOL. It is indeed refreshing to be stimulated in more ways than one by a hot teacher.I hear ya, it's both refreshing, and intoxicating to discuss this type of subject with such a sexy teacher..if I had a teacher like Emmanualle I may have ended up getting a PH'D is something (probably in fantasizing)
it was research done by dr.poulin i believe, it was part of the crown's expert testimony submitted in defense of the ontario charter challenge.
in her decision she explains that the testimony of the abolitionist "experts" does not meet the critieria set down by the government of canada to qualify the statements as exceptable to the court; i quote;
[352] I find that some of the evidence tendered on this application did not meet the standards set by Canadian courts for the admission of expert evidence. The parties did not challenge the admissibility of evidence tendered but asked the court to afford little weight to the evidence of
the other party.
[353] I found the evidence of Dr. Melissa Farley to be problematic. Although Dr. Farley has conducted a great deal of research on prostitution, her advocacy appears to have permeated her opinions. For example, Dr. Farley's unqualified assertion in her affidavit that prostitution is inherently violent appears to contradict her own findings that prostitutes who work from indoor locations generally experience less violence. Furthermore, in her affidavit, she failed to qualify her opinion regarding the causal relationship between post-traumatic stress disorder and prostitution, namely that it could be caused by events unrelated to prostitution.
[354] Dr. Farley's choice of language is at times inflammatory and detracts from her conclusions. For example, comments such as, "prostitution is to the community what incest is to the family," and "just as pedophiles justify sexual assault of children....men who use prostitutes develop elaborate cognitive schemes to justify purchase and use of women" make her opinions less persuasive.
[355] Dr. Farley stated during cross-examination that some of her opinions on prostitution were formed prior to her research, including, "that prostitution is a terrible harm to women, that prostitution is abusive in its very nature, and that prostitution amounts to men paying a woman for the right to rape her."
[356] Accordingly, for these reasons, I assign less weight to Dr. Farley's evidence.
[357] Similarly, I find that Drs. Raymond and Poulin were more like advocates than experts offering independent opinions to the court. At times, they made bold, sweeping statements that were not reflected in their research. For example, some of Dr. Raymond's statements on prostitutes were based on her research on trafficked women. As well, during cross-examination, it was revealed that some of Dr. Poulin's citations for his claim that the average age of recruitment into prostitution is 14 years old were misleading or incorrect. In his affidavit, Dr. Poulin suggested that there have been instances of serial killers targeting prostitutes who worked at indoor locations; however, his sources do not appear to support his assertion. I found it troubling that Dr. Poulin stated during cross-examination that it is not important for scholars to present information that contradicts their own findings (or findings which they support).
[358] The applicants' witnesses are not immune to criticism. The respondent asks this court to assign little weight to Dr. Lowman's opinion. The respondent called Dr. Melchers, a research methodologist, to provide an opinion on Dr. Lowman's three major prostitution-related studies.
Dr. Melchers was highly critical of Dr. Lowman's empirical observations, largely based on the language of causality used in his affidavit. During cross-examination, Dr. Lowman expressed discontent with portions of his affidavit, citing "careless" language and "poorly reasoned argument." Dr. Lowman rightly takes responsibility for the content of his affidavit, which was drafted for him by law students. In his affidavit, Dr. Lowman made a direct causal link between the Criminal Code provisions at issue and violence against prostitutes; however, during cross-examination he gave the opinion that there was, rather, an indirect causal relationship. Such inattentiveness on such a crucial issue is indeed concerning. During cross-examination, Dr.
Lowman gave nuanced and qualified opinions, which more accurately reflect his research.
And in case anyone wanted to know the specific decisions but wasn't quite interested in reading through the details of the decision, here are her general conclusions:
Conclusion: The Applicants Have Been Deprived of Security of the Person by the Impugned Provisions
[359] Despite the multiple problems with the expert evidence, I find that there is sufficient evidence from other experts and government reports to conclude that the applicants have proven on a balance of probabilities, that the impugned provisions sufficiently contribute to a deprivation of their security of the person.
[360] I accept that there are ways of conducting prostitution that may reduce the risk of violence towards prostitutes, and that the impugned provisions make many of these "safety enhancing" methods or techniques illegal. The two factors that appear to impact the level of violence against prostitutes are the location or venue in which the prostitution occurs and individual working conditions of the prostitute.
[361] With respect to s. 210, the evidence suggests that working in-call is the safest way to sell sex; yet, prostitutes who attempt to increase their level of safety by working in-call face criminal sanction. With respect to s. 212(1)(
, prostitution, including legal out-call work, may be made less dangerous if a prostitute is allowed to hire an assistant or a bodyguard; yet, such business relationships are illegal due to the living on the avails of prostitution provision. Finally, s.213(l)(c) prohibits street prostitutes, who are largely the most vulnerable prostitutes and face an alarming amount of violence, from screening clients at an early, and crucial stage of a potential transaction, thereby putting them at an increased risk of violence.[362] In conclusion, these three provisions prevent prostitutes from taking precautions, some extremely rudimentary, that can decrease the risk of violence towards them. Prostitutes are faced with deciding between their liberty and their security of the person. Thus, while it is ultimately
the client who inflicts violence upon a prostitute, in my view the law plays a sufficient contributory role in preventing a prostitute from taking steps that could reduce the risk of such violence.
She then goes on to rule on issues of arbitrariness, overbreadth, gross disproportionality, the rule of law and concludes that the violations of the applicants' Charter rights cannot be saved by s.1:
[441] In the case at bar, where I have found all the impugned provisions to be grossly disproportionate, and some to be arbitrary and overbroad, it is not possible to say that the provisions are proportionate or minimally impair the applicants' rights to liberty and security of the person. I, therefore, find that none of the impugned provisions are saved by s. 1.
And regarding s. 2(b) Freedom of Expression, it was not disputed that s.2(b) was infringed; the issues was whether or not the infringement was justifiable (saved by s.1):
[503] At this stage, I must weigh the pressing and substantial purpose of controlling the social nuisance associated with prostitution and the minimal salutary effects I have identified against the deleterious effects on the right of prostitutes to express themselves in an effort to protect their
personal safety. As I concluded earlier, this sort of communication is at the very core of the Charter guarantee.
[504] In my view, in pursuing its legislative objective, the communicating provision so severely trenches upon the rights of prostitutes that its pressing and substantial purpose is outweighed by the resulting infringement of rights. This rights infringement is even more severe given the evidence demonstrating the law's general ineffectiveness in achieving its purpose. By increasing the risk of harm to street prostitutes, the communicating law is simply too high a price to pay for the alleviation of social nuisance.
[505] The communicating provision, therefore, fails to meet the proportionality test in Oakes, supra. I find that s. 213(1)(c) represents an unjustifiable limit on the right to freedom of expression.
Justice Himmel also responds to the claim that decriminalizing will create a legal "vacuum" to deal with exploitation and violence by listing numerous sections of the Criminal Code which could and should be applied in the event of victimization. These are listed on pp. 127-130.
GO SUSI! Hell i'd probably not been able to find all that stuff, then again being male i'm not known for my brainpower.
more proof to my earlier statement. these girls got brains and beauty.
that's not good for men in general. LOL.
more proof to my earlier statement. these girls got brains and beauty.
that's not good for men in general. LOL.
benjamin perrin, so called trafficking expert, also does this. he compares conditions in 3rd world countries and war zones and extrapolates those applying them to canada, which is not comparable on any level to an african war zone.
also, much of the abolitionist "research" is conducted by accessing sex workers through rape crisis centers. if all of the sex workers you speak to are calling a rape crisis line, of course your research shows that all sex workers have been raped.
they manipulate the facts in order to achieve their desired outcome and the majority of these so called findings and statistics do not meet the critieria set forth by the government of canada in terms of ethical research involving human beings, known as the tri council policy statement.
love susieXXXO
also, much of the abolitionist "research" is conducted by accessing sex workers through rape crisis centers. if all of the sex workers you speak to are calling a rape crisis line, of course your research shows that all sex workers have been raped.
they manipulate the facts in order to achieve their desired outcome and the majority of these so called findings and statistics do not meet the critieria set forth by the government of canada in terms of ethical research involving human beings, known as the tri council policy statement.
love susieXXXO
It is if they think YOU'RE smart. Cause we all know smart people gravitate towards each other. (or so I've heard..lol)
(or so I've heard..lol) Susie,
Are there any research you know, to date, that focused on the less vulnerable segment of the sp population or at least try to broaden the sampling base to encompass the sps who manage their own in-call location?
I too have only heard of such a thing.It is if they think YOU'RE smart. Cause we all know smart people gravitate towards each other.
thank you very much - the whole post was fascinating reading. sounds like quite a circus went on in that courtroom
I think that 99% of women in this industry have baggage of some sort.. I think that the majority of us have a vice. smoking/gambling/drugs/drinking. I think that the serverity of the vice varies girl to girl. I grew up in a normal home and wasnt abused as a child, I have always had a high sex drive.
So are you saying you are in the abnormal 1% with no baggage???
lol
People come with baggage, if they've been around long enough. Why should sps be expected to be different from everyone else in the country?
yes, tamara o'dorhety from SFU crim is focused on indoor sex work and it's being safer, she is also about to finish a research project i took part in for her PHD and for which i am attending her informal defence this thursday!!
it's open to the public!!
10:30 am thursday jan 13,2011
room 10218- seaward hall-
in the arts and sciences building SFU burnaby mountain.
love susieXXXO
ps, sorry porcelian princess i have to disagree, i think your 99% is a bit over the top and besides, don't 99% of all people have some kind of baggage?
when they say we are all molested as youth or too raped to know what's best for us, they are justifying taking action without consulting us. it is how they strip us of our voice and agency and make decisions like removing craigslist under the guise of of them knowing what is best for us and us being too emotionally comrpimised to form consent so needing to be protected from ourselves.
the department of justice has a mandate that claims they are commited to public consultations and victims rights and that they always want to hear from the people affected. they lobbied for the removal of craigslist without ever consulting a single person who would be affected based on the assumption, we are all abused and don't know what's best for us and so don't need to be consulted.
don't mean to carry on but making broad sweeping statements like 99% of workers are emotionally unstable or have been abused etc based on no evidence is not helpful.
That's great info. Thanks for sharing. I will wait for her thesis to be available online, through the SFU library portal, probably a few months from now if all goes well with her defence.
It should be an interesting read and can potentially provide a good rebuttal to those who like to issue blanket statements against the the industry.
Thank you susi for posting this and the info on Justice Himmel's report.
It's the 21st century:
It is about time we legalize prostitution and allow sp's a safe environment to work in. It's that simple. Let those who want to do it, be given the right to do it safely.
Many women do it because they are attractive, enjoy sex, enjoy being independent and strong businesswomen, and frankly beautiful sexy woman are going to attract men...if they want to make money out of it and make it safely, it's their right. Just like it's my right to pay them for their company.
This ex-madam who exploited others in the past, and now says she found 'Jesus'...whatever, she's a hypocrite in my books. Those religious zealots who sling arrows at others misfortunes, and then rub salt in it by saying I told you so, are the biggest hypocrites. Religious nuts have done the most damage in our society. Just look at their intolerance towards minorities, gays, women's rights, etc. The catholic church is against safe sex and providing condoms in third world countries because they believe the single bit of meat called an embryo is sacred...please. How many lives have misguided religious beliefs ruined??
As one of the sps said, she loves the wide variety of cocks and orgasms she experiences. As a man, I love the wide variety of beautiful women to we can have sex with.
It's the 21st century:
It is about time we legalize prostitution and allow sp's a safe environment to work in. It's that simple. Let those who want to do it, be given the right to do it safely.
Many women do it because they are attractive, enjoy sex, enjoy being independent and strong businesswomen, and frankly beautiful sexy woman are going to attract men...if they want to make money out of it and make it safely, it's their right. Just like it's my right to pay them for their company.
This ex-madam who exploited others in the past, and now says she found 'Jesus'...whatever, she's a hypocrite in my books. Those religious zealots who sling arrows at others misfortunes, and then rub salt in it by saying I told you so, are the biggest hypocrites. Religious nuts have done the most damage in our society. Just look at their intolerance towards minorities, gays, women's rights, etc. The catholic church is against safe sex and providing condoms in third world countries because they believe the single bit of meat called an embryo is sacred...please. How many lives have misguided religious beliefs ruined??
As one of the sps said, she loves the wide variety of cocks and orgasms she experiences. As a man, I love the wide variety of beautiful women to we can have sex with.
