[SWAF-Potluck] Problem with the Nordic Model

[Andy Sorfleet]

Well Esther,

I think it's pretty clear when HIV researchers and academics make
misleading, denigratory conclusions about sex workers' abilities to
negotiate safe sex with clients that's it not good for sex workers'
careers. So who does it benefit exactly? There was nothing veiled or
personal about what I said.

Cheers,
Andy

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Esther Shannon <emls at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Whoa, Andy. It's clear that you are opposed to some sections of the letter and have a strong perspective on such issues - all of which is well and good. But you lose support for your perspective when you make statements - and, particularly, passive aggressive statements - that gratuitously impugn the motives of others by implying that their position is based on careerist ambitions. Your statement is a veiled personal attack that can only be rejected. Statements such as this also undermine people's willingness to participate in discussion and debate at a time when sex worker movement is working hard to develop an analysis that speaks to the complex issues at play.
>
> Esther
>
>> I think my point was that this was in fact, NOT "empirical" knowledge.
>> It is conjecture and hypothesis. And, if these academics were truly in
>> support of sex workers, they would not call us down in public in this
>> way. I am not one who believes in making such incredible concessions
>> in the name of "consensus." But of course, it doesn't benefit my
>> career to do so, unlike some.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Andy
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Bowen, Raven <raven1 at mail.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>> Thanks for sharing Andy.  Opinions on this issue of the effects of criminalization vary tremendously and are based in the intersectional experiences of race, class, gender, age, power, biographies, and a number of other elements that influence decision-making, choice and opportunity.  Everyone is positioned differently and academics are only sharing empirical knowledge that, as you know, is based in sampling strategy, research questions and methodologies.
>>>
>>> I am someone with diverse knowledge of the industry far beyond empirical ways of knowing. Those who know me are aware of my personal history so I'm not going to share it here.  I'm proud to be part of the 300 academics who signed onto this letter. I agree in principal with the content, save for a few points of contention. You may know that consensus-building can be quite challenging when engaging in activities with hundreds of people. We did our best, but no one can please everyone.
>>>
>>> Be well,
>>> raven
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Andy Sorfleet [mailto:a.sorfleet at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 11:15 AM
>>> To: Ki Bournes
>>> Cc: Bowen, Raven; Sex Workers and Friends Potluck mailing list
>>> Subject: Re: [SWAF-Potluck] Problem with the Nordic Model
>>>
>>> Try to imagine for a moment standing on the street and negotiating sex for pay with someone driving a car.
>>>
>>> First, you can see the car driving around. You can see what colour, make, and possibly model and year it is. Often you can see the licence plate. The car drives around the block usually a few times -- unless it's a regular meeting with a regular client.
>>>
>>> You strut a bit, and eventually the car pulls over. You lean in the window. Most often the passenger side. If there are police, the car usually doesn't pull over, and you usually don't strut. You look busy, perhaps fiddling with your phone or digging in your purse etc.
>>>
>>> Once some basic terms are discussed, often no more than confirming that you are working, you get into the car. Here you have a private discussion negotiating such terms as price and act and location. If the terms are unacceptable, you ask the driver to pull over and you get out of the car. If the terms are agreeable, you drive to the location and complete the transaction.
>>>
>>> If the driver does not pull over and let you out of the car, what would you do? If the driver insists on unprotected sex, and you are not willing to provide it, what would you do?
>>>
>>> Try to imagine how it feels to have your "allies" tell the government, the Supreme Court, the police, the public, the media and the helping professions that you and your colleagues get into cars without screening clients and have unprotected sex against your will. And, the reason you do these things is because you are afraid of getting arrested for a summary charge of communicating.
>>>
>>> This hypothetical premise entirely lacks authenticity. Perhaps, there are other reasons why people's judgements might be impaired. It seems there is a difference now between sex workers' discourse and "sex workers' rights discourse."
>>>
>>> Now imagine working alone from home meeting a client for the first time in your doorway, who you agreed to meet with no more verification of their identity than a gmail address.
>>>
>>> Don't tell me that working the street and the laws against it prevent you from screening your clients. I've worked the street, I know better. At least on the street you have colleagues who share information about which cars are great dates, and which ones to avoid.
>>>
>>> The Supreme Court's statement says "if screening could have prevented one woman from jumping into Pickton's car." "If". The error in trust may not have been related to a lack of screening. Most murderers of this sort are adept at luring their victims.
>>>
>>> In solidarity,
>>> Andy
>> _______________________________________________
>> SWAF-Potluck mailing list
>> SWAF-Potluck at lists.resist.ca
>> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swaf-potluck
>