Taken from a blog post on the Feminist Current.
Also, it is the full decriminalization and/or legalization that has “produced more victims,” not the Nordic model, which is what Canada’s new laws are modeled after. Also — key point — prostitution produces victims. The demand for ever more (younger, fresher, newer) prostitutes is what supports the entire industry. Johns = the demand. Johns victimize women and girls in prostitution — not laws. And if it is the perpetrators we are after, than a feminist solution would be to go after the perpetrators. A law that criminalizes a man who seeks to abuse prostitutes will not abuse a prostitute. Rather, that law will serve to deter the man from seeking out a prostitute in the first place and make it easier to charge him if he does assault a prostituted women or child.
The fact that the new law, which will criminalize those sweet old johns out there prowling the Downtown Eastside, perhaps and likely looking for a young, vulnerable, Aboriginal girl to satisfy his “needs,” will come into effect on December 6, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, is perfect.
December 6th is the day we remember and take action on violence against women. That is the name of the day. What better action could we take on that day than to say to perpetrators of violence: no more. It is not your right, these women and girls are not for you. They deserve better and are more than a series of holes for you to penetrate on a whim. Women who are poor and racialized deserve better options than prostitution. They deserve better than to be left on the street for the Robert Picktons of the world to pick up. So let’s criminalize those men before they have a chance even to get to them.
Ms.Murphy knocks it out of the park with this quote. I suggest bookmarking and following her site, as it as excellent feminist resource.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
5 comments
December 18, 2014 at 8:07 am
Brachina
Wrong again, the Nordic Model has a 100% victimization rate, because the law itself violates the rights of both workers and they’re clients, the right to chose thier sexual partners for the reasons they choose as long as its conscentual (and no just because you think prostitution is automatically unconsenting, no matter what the prostitutes says, thinks, or feels doesn’t make it true).
I don’t get how you can call yourself a feminist and fight tooth and nail againat women’s rights and liberty? Your arguements reek of paternalism and mysgony, why don’t you respect and treat adult women as adults instead of childern?
I know why, because they refuse to obey you and radical “feminists” like yourself.
If you really cared about these women and those who would prefer not to be prostitutes then you wouldn’t waste a minute supporting the Nordic model, you’d be fighting teeth and nail for gaurenteed minium income as I do, which is the only way survival prostitution will be wiped out completely. Anything else is a waste of time and a violation of human rights.
LikeLike
December 18, 2014 at 8:09 am
Brachina
By GMI I mean the basic universal income variation to be clear, not potentially degrading means tests.
LikeLike
December 18, 2014 at 12:03 pm
The Arbourist
@Brachina
I didn’t realize that paying for sex was a human right. I must have missed that somewhere.
Because there is no power differential involved in prostitution, ever. One of the keys to making consent work is that both parties are on a relatively equal footing – this situation usually does not exist when it comes to prostituted women and their johns.
You’ll have to pardon me as the right to be a fuck-toilet for men isn’t particularly high on my list with regards to the liberation of women from patriarchy.
I’m not sure where you get the paternalism and misogyny angle from. The prostitution and trafficking of women and children is destructive force our society, it impairs and often ruins the lives of many women engaged in said activities. Exceptions exist, however from a basic class analysis perspective prostitution is a harmful for women and the adoption of the Nordic Model is a good first step toward helping women out of the cycle of exploitation which is the dominant feature of prostitution/human trafficking.
Since radical feminists are not in power the situation you describe, doesn’t exist.
The Nordic Model and the small steps Canada has taken in this direction are a good start toward helping women who wish to exit prostitution. Guaranteed minimum income would be a considerable boon for all of society, but that fight is much larger and will take more time than many women have right now.
Is it just me or is deeply ironic that you as a ‘feminist’ seem to advocate that dudes’ access to pussy is noble cause, a human right worth fighting for; while at the same time ignoring the idea that women should have the right not to be exploited because of their sex. Funny how that works.
LikeLike
December 18, 2014 at 2:53 pm
Brachina
At no point did I say a dudes “right to pussy” as you put it, I suggest that two adults should be able to decide for themselves why and how they have sex. To flip it around don’t these women have a “right to pussy” as in thier own to use as they see fit, because the only person who seems to be taking ownership of these pussies appears to be you and you allies.
As for human trafficing and forcing people to have sex there are already laws against this.
As for the power difference, that is far from black and white, johns are not all powerful and many prostitution reserve the right to refuse and what services they provide.
Not that such power difference are any of anyones business. Are you going to go around and make sure that every relationship is on equal footing, that for instance one personality is stronger then the other, that one person isn’t richer then the other, that one person doesn’t have greater sexual opinions outside the relationship then the other, that one person doesn’t have stronger feelings then the other. What you prepose is delusional, no relationship is perfectly equal, one person always has an advantage and sometimes both do at different times.
As for Fuck-Toilet, wow, just wow, and you complain that johns are sexually objectyfying women and you called them fuck-toilet, just wow. I’m sure many prostitutes would thank you for calling them fuck-toilets, obvious contemt for them in your post.
As for no radical feminists in power, hahahahahahahahhahaha, your kidding right, its the influence and power of rad fems that gave birth to the Nordic Model, the Yes means Yes model, and so on. They were also the ones to use mob mentality to drive poor scientist into tears in shirtgate, and that’s just for starters.
LikeLike
December 18, 2014 at 5:16 pm
The Arbourist
@Brachina
You did not, however it is a logical conclusion that can be drawn given the premises offered.
Wow, well stripped of all relevant and useful context with regards to prostitution – I absolutely agree with you.
The Nordic Model is about making the purchasing of sex illegal. It rightly focuses on those who create the demand in the first place, so women have full control of their bodies and what they do with them. It is one the Johns if they want to risk breaking the law.
And by glossing over this point you can safely ignore that face that prostitution and human trafficking almost always go hand in hand and almost always cause ruinous harm to those women and children involved in it. I keep forgetting this is *really* about empowerful choosy-choices though and we should ignore the exploitation of women that is endemic when they are involved in prostitution.
Wow, its like prostitutes are peppy entrepreneurs and not degraded, objectified and exploited by the men that use and abuse their bodies – also because it is so amazingly effective to tell a man “No” when he is paying for sex – because a woman’s “No” is so effective in other situations…
Of course not, especially when power differentials make prostitution almost always a bad deal for women. We should definitely gloss this point over as well as it shoots the hell out the argument that this is just a business deal between “two consenting adults”.
No actually I’m not, but to ignore the power differential and wallpaper over the exploitation of women by johns under the guise of mere business transaction is a pretty terrible thing to propose.
Wow, you do like dancing around the fact that prostituted women are abused and exploited by men.
Because being treated as a fuck-toilet by men is awesome! Super awesome even. Here is what I said:
Arb:You’ll have to pardon me as the right to be a fuck-toilet for men isn’t particularly high on my list with regards to the liberation of women from patriarchy.
I was arguing that being treated by men as fuck-toilet shouldn’t be high up on *any* feminists list of things to do. And it doesn’t matter what I think of women who are prostituted, it is what the Johns think, and let me assure you this is the way they think.
*sigh* – The Nordic or Swedish Model started in Sweden and was put forward by an umbrella of political parties. So no radfem boogy-women to blame there.
Because who needs consent or treating women as if they were human? Damn Radfems.
Two female scientists in the STEM fields tweeted that the shirt was not appropriate. It was against the dress code of the dude’s place of work. Not until the anti-feminists got a hold of it and blew it into the debacle that it was. And here you are taking their side and blaming women for the stupid things men do. Fascinating.
LikeLike