Lovely article. I worked as a sex worker for years while attaining an Honours degree in Women and Gender Studies at a Canadian university.
I got out of the industry after experiencing "burn-out". The stress of worrying about the law, potential bad men, and my limited options if a man turned violent (which has happened) finally got to be too much.
I miss parts of the job. The majority of clients were very nice men looking for company. However, I do not miss the potential for violence inherent when prostitution is illegal. Legal brothels provide the best protection for the women and should be welcomed into Canada without hesitation.
i'm a 42 year old feminist queer woman who's been working as a sex worker since I was 40. I owe everything I learned about getting into the biz to friends of mine who were already or who used to work. solidarity! and yay to organizations like maggie's in toronto who provide vital support to those working as sex workers.
there is nothing inherently degrading about sex work. what is degrading is being treated by the legal system as though I'm incapable of making sensible decisions about who I f*ck and whether or not I get paid for it.
why can't the politicians of canada get the message and strike down the law, decriminalizing (NOT legalizing, thank you very much) all forms of sex work.
Thanks Juliet, Sophie and Anon,
very nicely written. The problem in countries like Canada (after all not all of Australia is decriminalised, and some parts are highly regulated) is the lack of political capital for those in charge. Standing up and proposing decriminalisation would not attract many votes. However we did get close with the recent House of Commons Committee, and it might be worth another run at it if there is a change in government. In New Zealand it was the sex workers themselves, through the New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective that ended up getting the law changed, although they were able to point to the progress in New South Wales as a precedent.
Michael
I am responding to the comments of Nicole Kennedy of Montreal in a subsequent letter to the editor (July/August).
http://www.walrusmagazine.ca/articles/2009.07-letters-julyaug-2009/
While I recognise that Nicole has had a longstanding involvement with this issue as a proponent of the oppression model, she should perhaps have mentioned her association with Rape Relief.
I do not think it is constructive to dismiss any article as 'nothing but'. However Nicole's bias is evident in her depiction of a 'sex industry' that is 'vastly powerful'. In this she makes the same error as she accuses Juliet of, simplifying a social construction to one dimensional essentialism. To depict sexual exchange as a monolithic organisation is naive at best, and denies voice, agency and the lived experiences of women and men who have exchanged sex around the world. Very few of these have had any connections to any sort of organised industry.
I agree with Nicole that we must include the structural factors that shape human behaviour in our understanding of any constructs. I also agree that economic disparity is one of the forces that constrain women's choices in employment, but it is quite wrong to say that this somehow explains sexual exchange, it is merely one of many complex factors that affect it, albeit to a greater degree amongst the most disadvantaged.
I also agree with Nicole that given the vast diversity of experiences amongst those who exchange sex, one should listen to many voices. In an earlier comment Sophie mentions some negative factors in her life choices. CLES (Concertation des Luttes contre l’Exploitation Sexuelle) which she cites is involved in the human trafficking campaigns and is hardly typical. Ethnographic studies (such as Leslie Ann Jeffrey and Gayle MacDonald: Sex Worker's in the Maritimes Talk Backc, UBC 2006) consistently reveal a very different picture.
Abuse occurs in all employment sectors but, extending Nicole's arguments, it is the social factors of stigma, prejudice, and criminalisation that shape much of the negative experiences of people who exchange sex, and it is to these factors that we should be addressing our concerns (eg Kate Shannon et al. Structual and evironmental barriers to condom use negotiation with clients among female sex workers. American Journal of Public Health 2009). The exchange of sex itself is not intrinsically harmful.
Finally it would be incorrect to provide the impression that this is some feminist struggle to rescue women from oppression. I would consider Juliet a feminist, and there are large numbers of feminists who work to protect the rights of sex workers and to improve their conditions. The best known example in Canada being FIRST (Feminists Advocating for Rights and Equality for Sex Workers).
Michael Goodyear
Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University
Stepping Stone, Halifax
I was very encouraged that there is some articulate sanity on this subject. Of course we will not approach a sane solution so long as there is authority between customer and client and not common sense. This is not terribly unlike the marijuana prohibition.