Needs
More on the “have you ever considered doing sex work?” question:
Members of Parliament were in the House of Commons for debate on a Conservative motion seeking to condemn the decision by the Parole Board of Canada to release a convicted murderer on day parole in Quebec City and allow him to “meet women, but only to meet [his] sexual needs.”
So that’s a question for conservatives? And MPs on the left think it’s fine to send male murderers out to get their “sexual needs” met? I’m on the left, but I lean toward thinking women don’t exist to meet the “sexual needs” of murderers (or anyone else). I lean toward thinking women aren’t a kind of implement for the use of men.
Conservatives have hammered the government over the past week on why the case managers for the killer allowed him to search out women to fulfill his “sexual needs” and Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said last week an investigation is taking place.
Why only conservatives? The NDP think that approach is just fine?
“I would ask the honourable member to consider listening to the voices of sex workers,” said NDP MP Laurel Collins, who represents the riding of Victoria.
All sex workers are pleased to have murders on day parole sent to them for getting the ol’ needs met?
“Sex workers are saying that sex work is work, and I also ask the honourable member if he considers the Harper government’s decision to implement Bill 36, which criminalized the work environments, the establishments that sex workers go to to feel safe, that criminalized their ability to hire security, if he acknowledges that this is a factor in this death and many others.”
Pimps, you mean?
So pimps are there to protect the women from murderers?
I don’t think so. Pimps are there to take a cut.
In response to Collins, Viersen said: “I would just respond to that by asking the honourable member across the way if it’s an area of work that she has ever considered and if that is an appropriate –”
His remark immediately prompted calls of “shame on you” from other members in the House of Commons.
I don’t think so. I think he has a point. I think there is a real issue about “privileged” women (and men of course) promoting “sex work” who would never do it themselves and would likely not be thrilled if their daughters took it up. I think that’s what he was talking about, and it is a relevant question. The “sex work” performed by women who meet the “needs” of men is not work like factory or farm or transportation work.
Very pertinent to this is http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2020/go-meet-your-needs-dude/ .
Men who cannot control their ‘needs’ have a further ‘need’. That is, to have their endocrine systems modified so that their testosterone level is lowered sufficiently to in turn modify their behaviour.
The surgical procedure is a simple one. Veterinarians are probably most experienced at it, and practice it all the time: turning bulls into steers, stallions into geldings, roosters into capons, rams into wethers, boars into barrows, and randy Toms into lumps of fur-covered lard too lazy to get out of their own way, and just managing to stagger to their feet come feeding time.
The incentive is there for a rapist to silence his victim permanently, and to so protect himself. That rapists on parole commonly offend again should surprise nobody.
Problem is of course that rape is usually without witnesses. Her word against his. And if he is high-born and she of lower-class origins, guess who is favourite to win.
If false accusations never occurred, the issue would be a whole lot simpler.
if it’s an area of work that she has ever considered and if that is an appropriate –”
OK, that answers my question in the previous thread.
Here’s a personal anecdote about an encounter I had with Canadian pro-sex-work feminists:
A couple years ago when I ran an event venue I booked a women’s storytelling group and the theme of this particular gathering was something like “What makes you happy?” It was billed as an evening for amateur women speakers to share stories of finding empowerment in doing things for themselves — doing what makes them happy instead of doing things for the sake of others’ feelings. Quickly sold out; 200+ capacity; about a half a dozen speakers. Sounds great! I happened to be filling in as a bartender in the Hall that night so I was able to watch the whole thing.
Turns out not one, not two, but THREE of the speakers were former sex workers — two prostitutes and a phone sex operator. (And by all appearances they all seemed quite middle-class.) Two of them gave talks that were entirely about their sex work and how “empowering” it was. It was so bizarre. I mean, an event that’s supposed to be about women doing stuff for themselves instead of for others, and it was completely overrun by women talking about men paying to use women’s bodies for the sake of men’s pleasure. (ALL of the speakers preambled some blather about it being a safe space and pledged that they were opposed to “TERFS AND SWERFS” — ugh, “TERFSANDSWERFS TERFS’N’SWERFS TERFSSSWERFS” they kept saying it, and they slurred the words together as if the phrase was so familiar by now it just melded into one word and there was no need to bother enunciating each individual syllable anymore.)
As I recall it, the two sex worker talks had the same themes: they both kept repeating that their sex work was empowering and I did it because I wanted to, not because I was forced to. But they both endured horrible childhood sexual abuse from older relatives; both were suicidal as teens as a result of the sexual abuse; both were explicit that they turned to sex work in a kind of self-harming way, as an attempt to process debilitating mental health issues around their sexual abuse — self-hatred; body hatred; psychological issues to do with father figures; sexual trauma; etc. Doesn’t that sound like the opposite of empowerment to you? Sure as hell does to me. They sounded like victims. What it sounded like to me was that these women were seeking to destigmatize their trauma; they wanted us to understand why they dropped out of university and fell into prostitution for a while, and their doth-protest-too-much assertions that it was all so “empowering” were, like, a way to try to claim some control of their life’s narrative and frame it around courage and dignity, or something. It’s one thing to want people to understand that prostitutes are human beings deserving of compassion and dignity but that’s not the same thing as endorsing prostitution and even going so far as to celebrate it as female empowerment. (Of course, it’s exactly because prostitutes are human beings deserving of compassion and dignity that rational people want to end prostitution.) I think that distinction was entirely lost on every one of those speakers. Like with the trans debate, this is a men’s rights movement masquerading as a women’s rights one, and it’s turning everything upside down. I still can’t believe 200 women paid to see a group of women talk about self-empowerment and self-enjoyment and got an infomercial for prostitution instead, and the current social climate is so toxic and intimidating that I didn’t see a single one of them withhold her applause.
I’m obviously new to the SWERF thing. Wanting to protect women in the sex trade from the violence associated with sex work, eliminate trafficking and reduce the overall number of women in the sex trade is a bad thing?
Not to mention, isn’t one of the problems highlighted by trans rights activists the high number of trans women in prostitution? Aren’t TRA’s SWERF’s if they are campaigning against this?
I’m confused.
[…] a comment by Artymorty on […]