Unfortunately, I think we are going to hear a lot more of this kind of rhetoric as there is debate around new legislation. It sounds like this is the kind of language used with the introduction of the 'Nordic model' in Sweden, and also elsewhere.
--SNIP--
I've heard the question bandied around "what women would EVER want to be a prostitute and sell their body if they had real choice?"
--SNIP--
So, I have rambled a bit, but in short, where there is true freedom of choice on the part of the individual (she/he is in the industry because they want to be and not forced to as a result of circumstances), the transaction is truly consensual, and the woman (or man) is not forced to undertake any acts against their will, I fail to see or understand how it can be considered violence against women. There is a much greater likelihood of violence against women, in my opinion, if it is forced underground, which the Nordic model (among other options) would be likely to do. It is denying a biological urge that has been met in this way for as long as recorded history, and probably earlier, and has also been seen to happen in some form among chimpanzee's.
I also wonder where 'amateur prostitution' fits into this where a women goes out to dinner with man and has it paid for, and maybe received flowers from him as well, and then in exchange at the end of the night agrees to also have sex with him.
I find that this question dovetails in very neatly with the 'rhetorical question' asked by abolitionists that I bolded from your other post.
Peter McKay, in discussing what approach the government will be looking at, stated the philosophical position as their starting point that prostitution is inherently degrading and demeaning to women so they would be looking at legislation that addresses "assisting women to transition out of this lifestyle while punishing pimps and johns."
What I have always found peculiar is that this attitude starts from a basis of "why on earth would any woman want to let multiple men be physically intimate with her
for pay?" And yet, the exact same people asking this questions have spent decades fighting to assert the right of a woman to have absolute control over her body -- including the right to be physically intimate with whomever she wants, whenever she wants, as often as she wants,
for free.
So every night single night, on college campuses and in bars and nightclubs across the land, thousands of young women 'hook up' for one night stands with equally unknown men
for free. In fact, when you read popular blogs, college surveys, questions to advice columnists or even watch popular movies and TV shows, it would appear that many college coeds have more sex with more different casual partners than many discriminating escorts. And that's perfectly fine and liberated.
But if those exact same young women decide they want to cover their college tuition by asking for payment upfront in cold cash from some of those guys they would otherwise be doing for free, suddenly
that's so degrading and demeaning that it must be made illegal?
Apparently, a 21st century Western woman should only be entitled to control her use of her own sexuality
if she doesn't choose to get paid. Or only takes payment in certain forms that have been tacitly deemed acceptable by society: basically payment 'in kind' rather than upfront 'in cash'.
I think you hit the nail on the head, hornygandalf: Why is it perfectly fine for a woman to sleep with a guy after he has bought her drinks for the evening, or wined and dined her, or taken her out and bought her gifts in the mall -- and for her to finance her social life by doing that with a different guy every night -- but if she just asks for money up front
that is suddenly 'degrading' to her and her gender?
For that matter, many modern porn stars now get into that business via 'amateur webcam sites'. Something that obviously wouldn't even be addressed by any anti-prostitution law. They aren't charging their partners for sex; they're charging thousands of online viewers to 'watch' that sex. I saw an article on line not long ago about one of them setting a record for having sex with the most guys in a row -- at a gangbang at a European porn convention, she did
919 guys consecutively! But hey! It was for fame and subscription hits to her website / films, so no money changed hands, so that's not degrading to her, right?
I think that this kind of idea is complete garbage. How is it violent if women are willing? To say that women aren't capable of making conscious decisions regarding their bodies because they are women is total right-wing propaganda, and far more violent towards our gender, just in a figurative and sexist way.
Nice short summary of the entire problem with this approach. Apparently in 21st century Canada, you pure and delicate women
still can't be trusted with control over your own bodies - if that is, you intend to use that control in a fashion not approved by those who have 'liberated' and 'uplifted' women...
Not to mention the interesting point that - in Peter McKay's recent comments about possible new legislation, for example - the transactions are all seen as going one-way in terms of gender. (Prostitution is degrading to
women.
Women will be assisted to transition out of this lifestyle. Pimps and johns
[male] will be punished.) I wonder how they will approach the issue of
male prostitutes (either gay or the classic gigolo) or if it will even be addressed?
