[SWAF-Potluck] Problem with the Nordic Model

Wed Apr 2 15:00:16 PDT 2014

Susan,

I totally agree that there are many reasons why as sex workers we have
trouble negotiating sometimes. You listed some of the most likely
reason -- its harder to make money, you're dope-sick. I am not trying
to say that don't make poor choices for reasons I don't fully
understand. And I definitely have made such choices myself. Like
working after leaving the bar drunk for example, in my youth.

What I am saying, is that the statement implies that the reason I have
not been able to negotiate is because there is a communicating law.
The evidence you speak of cannot prove that. And what's more, I feel
it lets the real perps off the hook, when it is the violent people
posing as clients who are to blame for assaults and murders -- not the
victims' inability to negotiate.

I apologize if I have offended you. And same goes for Raven.

Sincerely,
Andrew

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:47 PM, susan davis <susan.1968 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> so, i have to interject here...this is empirical...completely
> empirical...and these researchers are representing hundreds of sex workers
> who took part in these projects...and representing them correctly/
> truthfully in my opinion. i have been on many advisory boards for research
> through the years....
>
> i do not think its useful to undermine the voices of sex workers because we
> personally do not relate to those experiences.
>
> to say that its easy to refuse a client or unsafe service does not reflect
> the experiences of all sex workers. many sex workers report its harder and
> harder to refuse unsafe sexual services for example like bbbj....if you
> don't do it, its harder to make money....that applies across the
> board...indoor/outdoor.....
>
> also, if you are dope sick and need money, its harder again to refuse unsafe
> services or services a worker might not normally provide.
>
> while i understand that people may not understand the choices of others, we
> also should not try to erase those experiences.
>
> especially for workers who have not worked in a long time and who may not
> understand the current context of the experiences being expressed.
>
> as a current worker and a person who was aware of many of the researchers
> work while it was happening and can say with confidence that the letter does
> represent the experiences of canadian sex workers.
>
> especially the communicating law. people do jump in without screening,
> especially when cold and/ or dope sick....or if they feel the police are
> conducting a sweep....
>
> i sometimes have a hard time hearing the experiences of other sex workers
> which conflict with my own observations/ experiences.
>
> i especially have a hard time with discussions of sexual abuse of youth and
> numbers of sex workers who experience it....but some workers do experience
> it. so how do we talk about it..?
>
> we have to believe each other, no one else ever does.
>
> these researchers have represented their work and the people who took part
> in the most ethical way possible.
>
> i for one appreciate that they have taken this step towards forcing
> inclusion of evidence based data in any decisions or actions moving forward.
>
> love susie
>
>
>
>> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 13:01:18 -0700
>> From: a.sorfleet at gmail.com
>> To: raven1 at mail.ubc.ca
>> CC: swaf-potluck at lists.resist.ca
>
>> Subject: Re: [SWAF-Potluck] Problem with the Nordic Model
>>
>> 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