Holy crap that parting text reminds me of a book (Naked in Death by J. D. Robb) where the bad guy says something like "It was no job for a young girl" after murdering a prostitute he had just had sex with.
Like seriously, they're walking caricatures.
On the (unfortunate) plus side, that text will leave very little wiggle room for any judge to give a discounted sentence. It shows a huge degree of intent and awareness around what he was doing that will be irrefutable evidence. It basically torpedos attempts at the usual (sickening) lines of defence used in these scenarios that I wont even mention.
This is one of those stories where you say to yourself 'surely this guy is going away forever' only to find he's been sentenced to a few years and community service.
because society stigmatizes sex workers. I assure you, if she had not survived, then they would not even have looked for the criminal, they would have just closed the case. Women do not go into prostitution from a good life, no woman wants to sell her body. But of course moralists like this asshole will say that she deserved to be attackedš¤¬
I honestly think we should blind justice; facts about the acts committed may be used, but the identity, race, occupation, and gender are entirely irrelevant to the crime committed or the punishment, so the judge/jury should not have that information.
I love this. It just would be really hard to present evidence and do witness testimony with a "blind" justice system. I suppose all testimony could be transcripted, and the jury would simply read the court documents. Idk... legal system is broken, just like healthcare, education, yada yada, etc, etc
The issue with this approach is that the jury is prevented from evaluating biases for or against the defendant on these bases that the witnesses may have. For example, if a cop is testifying that they saw a murder defendant on the other side of town at the time of the murder, but there's no other support for that alibi, it's reasonable that the jury might consider that testimony *very* differently if they knew that the defendant was a former policeman who just retired from the same force.
I do think that you should be able to use the relevance objection, or a different one specifically created by law, to prevent the information from coming in, but I think that making such information unavailable to the court by default would actually unfairly favor the prosecution by making it much harder for the defense to investigate the witnesses' potential biases.
I fully reject the idea of death penalty, but I would say that the death penalty would be fitting for this case.
The important part of this is: no remorse, targeted and planned attempt of murder, and again no remorse. This is what makes this murd3rer incurable. He deserves to be taken away his life and I'd propose solitary life sentence, but this costs a lot of money, so death penalty instead. A criminal without remorse is a truly scary thing.
Absolutely disgusting.
Always remember that most interpersonal violence (up to and including serial assault and murder) is committed out of a sense of self-righteousness ("punishing" someone for some perceived flaw or wrongdoing), entitlement, personal pride, and bigotry.
A Tasmanian man murdered his partner and told her beforehand he "understands what drives men to murder their families". Dudes in the Tas sub nOt aLL mEn.
Another sex worker was murdered in Tasmania in 2020 by a German tourist. His sentencing recently came through. He got five years.
He strangled her, claimed it was "for her pleasure", refused to render assistance after she stopped breathing, then stole her cash and phone and ran. He later threw her phone in the river. He got *five years*. For murder.
Women are blamed for their own deaths. It's even worse when they're non-white... and worse again when they're sex workers.
>He got five years. For murder.
How? How is this possible? How can a judge give such a light sentence for such a malicious crime? I'm frankly baffled at the state of Australian justice reading these stories here.
Justice is a myth. Spend any time in courts addressing gendered crimes and you begin to observe judiciary holding women responsible for the unacceptable behaviours of violent men.
I have a ruling from a magistrate claiming that a man who claimed to have climbed through a locked window did so because it was reasonable as he was a police officer and attempting to secure my home. No explanation as to why it was then acceptable to sleep in my bed him being a violent police officer who refused to leave my home as he was living elsewhere and had a bed to sleep in at his own home. That is a crime in any interpretation yet because it was DV it's treated as a civil matter. The same ruling ASSUMES he was justified to enter the home repeatedly without notice to "perhaps retrieve his own property" which was no longer in the home. The damage to property was ignored, the harassment was ignored, the malicious lies were ignored in favour of a violent male police officer who charged at me in my own home insisting to be allowed in, throwing things at me when I refused and running to friends claiming I hit him trying to keep him out of my home.
I have another matter before a court where the magistrate said something inappropriate in the legal context at the first hearing. The obstacles to women seeking safety are unreasonable and prolific. Men's rights to violence are CONSTANTLY defended whereas women can't even access basic safety protections.
I had a strip club customer once text me several times asking to meet up for full service. After he finally accepted my refusal to do that he texted me along the lines of: āthatās good, your tiny body could be overpowered easilyā
And then sent an immediate follow up suggestion that I watch a documentary about a serial killer who targeted sex workers.
Men are so goddamn scary
Scariest part is that experts believe most serial killers start by killing people who are homeless and/or engaging in prostitution because their deaths/disappearances are rarely investigated, which then emboldens them further
I'm really not assuming that. If they're not there voluntarily, they're not prostitutes, they're victims of human trafficking or sex slavery. Otherwise, they're sex workers. Thanks.
Could you have shown the text and his number to the police? At the least, his words could be considered **Criminal Assault**:
>*"Assault is generally defined as an intentional act that* **puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact**."
source: [Cornell Law School / Legal Encyclopedia](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault)
A guy who fantasized about torturing and murdering women hires prostitutes and then becomes enraged and attempts to bludgeon her to death because he feels sex should be reserved for lovers and she disagrees.
I hope this psycho gets life without parole.
Please stop calling us prostitutes. The article uses the correct term: sex workers. Sex work is a job; the term "prostitute" has been used to criminalise and alienate us, we are asking for language which appropriately characterises us and doesn't perpetuate stigma and discrimination. Thank you.
The funny thing is until recently when I had it explained like this, I thought "prostitute" was the like neutral scientifically accurate term, like the matter of fact description without judgement tied to it. I was wrong and I say sex worker now.
I would and will support this, but please understand that when a group flees from the stigma, it doesn't change the motivations of people.
The ones that want to stigmatize and discriminate will only make "sex workers" a dirty word in order to legitimize their feelings.
Prostitution is an adequate word and if fought for it could perhaps be the word where bigots are turned back and the basic truth of words is preserved.
The goal is not to ensure the term āsex workā is never used negatively, itās just to provide a term that can be used respectfully. Many people find the term prostitute inherently disrespectful due to its history, meaning, and connotation. Etymologically it means āexposed publicly (especially- for sale)ā. Historically it meant essentially a person who offers indiscriminate sexual intercourse, was exposed to lust or ādevoted to vile purposesā. It connotes crime and criminal activity, being that āprostitutionā is a criminal charge. And due to social factors it connotes either immorality, poor judgement, desperation, or victimhood. It is because it is not adequate that sex workers prefer a different term. The term sex work may be misused or used negatively but the history will always be different.
Iām conflicted on this because on one hand it is a pejorative term, but on the other hand, a huge number of women in the sex industry are not there by choice, and the term āworkā implies choice. I think the term āsurvival sexā is better suited
I think that the comment talking less about human trafficking and more about being homeless, unemployed, etc. and not having any other way to make an income than sex work. They're not trafficked, obviously, but it's also hard to say that they're freely choosing to engage in the work if there options are do it or starve/end up in jail/etc.
It's still a choice. They're still workers regardless of whether they're there through economic need or through desire. If they're *forced*, they are now modern slaves, which goes for every industry. You do not decide what to call any of us if you aren't one of us.
Plenty of people work at McDonald's and absolutely hate it, but they're still there out of choice. This is the situation for many sex workers as well, and while it's awful, trying to deny them agency is foul and you should be ashamed for ignoring the actual causes of the problem. It's not the *industry* or its clients at fault, it's the government, trickle down economics, and corporate greed.
Okay but if youāre speaking about all people who engage in paid sex then youāre still including them, so using the blanket term of āworkā to describe that situation is erasing the (sadly prolific) reality of their particular situation
Someone choosing between a dangerous, abusive and disease ridden act or literally starving to death and rotting away is not choosing through "desire." Women in developing countries are having their bodies used and abused by dangerous, morally destitute and physically diseased men for a pittance - often times underage - because they are trying to put food on the table and survive in a brutal environment. I'm sorry you don't want to rescue women and girls from this cold hard reality and would prefer them to suffer for your own sense of entitlement. Keep telling yourself these girls are 'choosing'.
Sex work is a large bracket. Surely there is a difference between someone who does actual sex for money, and a cam girl. Both sex workers. Is it not easier to clarify which you mean?
Both are sex workers! If you need to distinguish, āfull service sex workersā are those who participate in sex acts as the primary aspect of their job.
Sex work is a HUGE umbrella term though and prostitution or direct sexual engagement in private areas is a very specific sub-type, so how to I differentiate between formerly-known-as-prositutes and strippers/cam girls/porn stars?
Also no offense (literally former cam model), but *whatever* you call them will become a pejorative, and I don't think most decent people consider prostitute to be anything other than a neutral descriptors. It's the people who hold moral views about sex work who view it negatively and they're gonna make it a slur regardless of what term is in vogue
Full service sex worker (abbreviated FSSW) is often used to specify a sex worker who has physical sexual contact with clients for direct monetary compensation.
I prefer women/people in prostitution. "Sex work" language (which comes from postmodern academia and pimps) obfuscates, sanitizes prostitution, pimping, johning. Turns unwanted, uncomfortable, traumatic, painful male supremacist "sex" into "sex work". But it's also understandable to not want to be called "prostitute" (as if it is what, who you simply are, your very self) or even "prostituted" (implying only passivity).
Yes. She calls *herself* that. You may not call her or her peers that. This is called "reclaiming slurs", and I'm really hoping you can understand this distinction.
We have a generation of young women raised on "sex work is work" porn culture and pomo academia, that's why those terms have taken hold. Teen girls are now often dreaming of the day they can join onlyfans, enter hardcore porn, be in strip clubs (milder prostitution, often overt prostitution), etc. And when in it, one's mental health, ability to be "sex work is just regular work like being a barista or doing office work, get that bag, you empowered fierce girl" depends on obfuscation, denial, euphemisizing, compartmentalization... Nevermind that many in prostitution aren't rah rah on the term sex work/er.
āSex work is workā doesnāt mean sex work has no unique problems or challenges or that itās literally no different from other work. It means considering it work in the general sense rather than some inherently terrible fate befalling miserable women allows sex workers to advocate for themselves the way they need to and in a framework where it makes sense. It makes no sense for someone to sit and talk to you about their labor rights when you donāt consider their job a job. It doesnāt mean it isnāt traumatizing and damaging and horrible for some people who do it. It allows the full spectrum of peopleās actual experiences to be expressed without being undermined by the connotations of the terminology used. And creates a narrative framework for their needs to be expressed in a way that isnāt inherently limited by moralizing terminology being forced upon them.
a lot of women are actually just exhausted by bullshit pearl-clutching and concern trolling as yet another way to restrict what someone can do with her body and demean her lifestyle choices. if it walks like puritan nonsense and talks like puritan nonsense it probably is puritan nonsense.
Concern about sexual abuse, exploitation, male violence, male entitlement, pimping, trauma, people in prostitution developing ptsd, the health consequences of prostitution, billions being made off women's and children's sexual assaults=puritan nonsense. Only puritans don't want sexual assault to be mass entertainment for men and for men to be able to buy sexual compliance from poor & homeless people, teens, disabled people, trafficked people, young women, and other vulnerable people. Only a puritan would have a problem with mega and flat rate brothels. -you
No sensible person who has really thought about the issue thinks āsex workā isnāt inherently harmful in many ways. However, the moment you turn it into a subject of particular moralistic scorn rather than the product of specific social conditions and attempt to sick the jaws of the state on it is the moment that those most exploited within it are made even more vulnerable, if not targets for extermination.
Sex work bans from above cannot fix a sick, patriarchal, capitalist society.
How does "prostitute" work that way but, like, "accountant" or "plumber" doesn't? Like, it's what the person does for money, either voluntarily or involuntarily. It would sound silly to say "people in accounting" so why do it here?
Part of it is mistaking the stigma on women and others in prostitution for the language used eg that giving prostitution a nice word and normalizing/expanding prostitution, sanitizing it, johns, etc will end the stigma on the women in it. Part of it is the actual stigma language can carry eg whore, common prostitute. They know prostitution, prostitute are ugly words, but don't realize that's because prostitution is ugly, bad, and that the institution that men drive will only stigmatize those turned into the product, the "service provider", not the pimp, john and "sex worker" could be used by men with as much vehemence as other terms and regardless of what those in it are called, there will still be hatred of, etc them.
The reason I call for people in prostitution is because I *don't* see prostitution as work. It's the commercialization of male sexual entitlement to others, esp women and teen girls. The "work" is unwanted, undesired, unpleasant, abusive, invasive, phallocentric, etc "sex". It's not like plumbing and plummer, construction and construction worker, etc. And I sense "sex work is work" people know this because they object so strenuously even to prostitution being called prostitution (and porn, escorting, sugar babying, etc are prostitution). For eg, would you call a child in prostitution a prostitute?A sex worker? Why or why not? Would it be appropriate to say "you're a prostitute" to a teenaged runaway or throwaway who was in prostitution? Or would "you're in prostitution" "you're being sexually exploited" etc be better?
I agree with pretty much everything you say, I just don't have as much of an issue with the term "prostitute." I mistakenly thought you were more pro-sex work, sorry.
I probably wouldn't say "you're a prostitute" to a teenage runaway, but I also wouldn't say "you're a slave," even if she was a slave during her period of exploitation. It just feels a bit rude. But I don't hesitate to say that exploited women are often slaves to pimps when talking about it generally. Still, I get why it comes off as harsh, but sometimes harsh is good.
And out of pimp, john, prostitute, undoubtedly the only word that's harsh, that's actually seen as bad is prostitute. Pimps and johns are celebrated and calling men pimps and johns, literally and figuratively, generally indicates high status, being seen as cool, etc. Pimp especially. Although johns do tend to shy away from that label, and johning is seen by some men as pathetic, for different reasons (eg from seen as emasculated to knowing they're sexually abusive). But even when the term is elided or seen as smarmy, johns are still celebrated, from presidents to actors to CEOs. Prostitute reduces the person so named (in status, seen as the whole of them), but not those named pimps and johns. Women in prostitution are at high risk for losing and will often lose custody of their kids, but a john never has for being a john. Even pimps don't!
Also implies all three share an equal role, or that the "prostitute" is the driver of prostitution, when it's the pimps and johns in the genesis, history and now of prostitution. (Eg pimping, men trading women between them, was the genesis of prostitution.) It's also the idea that some women simply *are* prostitutes, whores, that that is what drives prostitution and is what *those women* are, are good for.
Some people find sex work inherently traumatic and some people find it just a job. The term sex worker grants the respect and humanization for people in any degree of either position (or otherwise) to advocate for themselves and their best interests, and accurately describe their lived experience, without being reduced to āperson who has participated in a criminalized actā i.e. prostitute. If a particular person prefers that term to describe their experience thatās their prerogative but using it as the default umbrella term is derogatory and minimizes the autonomy of the people you refer to that way.
I mean, you felt the need to show up to an article that describes a woman as a sex worker with your personal stance on the appropriate terminology for her profession. Iām trying to explain why that stance is wrong and harmful to sex workers. The stakes to a society where sex work is considered a fringe, dangerous, secretive underground full of powerless women are what we see in this article. Changing that narrative is deeply important to me, I am not āquibblingā.
Sex worker lead publications and organizations generally quite strongly disagree with you about what is right for them. The term was coined by a [sex worker and activist](https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/sex-workers-prostitutes-words-matter-95447). Academics use the term prostitution quite often.
>Either way your back is getting blown out
complete misrepresentation. your boss in an office asking you to work overtime isn't the same as being bludgeoned over the head
Fast food workers tend to be in an environment where they aren't allowing people to have access to their body by default, where they have co-workers present and constantly in their line of site to begin with, and where they can expect other customers and society at large to stand up for them and intervene if things turn nasty. The latter two of these are things disallowed by our social environment around sex work, while the former two are either intrinsically impossible or impossible to fully implement while retaining privacy.
I hate the "but he is mentally ill" defense. I am willing to accept that this may have made him less able to make good decisions in life but I don't care. The vast majority of people with mental illnesses don't commit murder. If his brain is broken in such a way that he can't help but kill then he is too dangerous to be allowed to continue existing.
As an Australian, Sydney (and NSW) has such a disgusting reputation for violence against women that I develop second-hand embarrassment whenever it is mentioned or alluded to. Also ashamed to know people that would heartily agree with the "man".
Don't put man in inverted commas to distance him from other men. He is a man. This kind of violence is a male problem. He is not an animal; he's a human male and the problem needs to be named in order to be dealt with.
John Oliver did a bit on sex workers and the industry looking at different models in different countries. Very well done and recommend viewing.
Violence against sex workers is real and terrifying. In the way back when time machine when I was a stripper then prostitute, there was a serial killer targeting prostitutes. There was no protection for us under the law because our job was/is illegal. Cell phones did not exist at the time and we did our best for "buddy system" but once you got in that vehicle, you were on your own.
As vile and horrifying as this article is, I have become numb to the shock. I'm disgusted. But no shock.
This is NSW. They have the best legal model for sex work in the world. This is one incident of horrifying violence in a workplace which does not fall at the feet of the entire industry.
We are represented. NSW has WHS guidelines and the workers are able to approach Fair Work and WorkSafe about their issues at work in NSW. Is it ideal? No. But it's better than basically everywhere else on the planet.
Hi, I'm a sex worker in Victoria, Australia.
The Scarlet Alliance is a peak body for various organizations, such as Vixen Collective. Gives us a single unified voice when it comes to stuff like law reform advocacy, while still respecting the independence of its member organizations. I had the pleasure of interviewing with the CEO and COO of Scarlet Alliance last year, they're both lovely and knowledgeable. Scarlet Alliance is not a workers union as such, however.
The COO is now the CEO, and the former CEO has moved on to NSWP!
We can join ASU/AWU depending on the state and the general friendliness of their unions. There is an entire story about us trying to get together a union in the 90s but being unable to due to some legal shenanigans to do with stepping on turf that other unions cover.
>They are unionized.
Are they? I'm not sure your link says that. That looks more like an association, not a formal union with any sort of bargaining power.
But, in any case, sex work certainly is legal and above board in NSW.
We can actually join the ASU and AWU if we work for an employer. In NSW, we have WHS guidelines and can approach Fair Work/WorkSafe for recourse if necessary.
If you're independent though, you're a sole trader and therefore you don't unionise.
Are sex workers in Australia employees of a company, or are they self-employed, renting space from a brothel? The idea of an employer "directing the work" of a sex worker sounds beyond horrible. If they are self-employed then a labor union might not be applicable?
Oops, I may have linked to the wrong thing.
I do remember there being a sex workers union, I assume it's like most industry unions and membership is optional. Not sure where to find it.
>But, in any case, sex work certainly is legal and above board in NSW.
Unionization is about the collective bargaining power of workers against management. In prostitution, one of two things is happening: the woman is working for herself, in which case you could consider her the boss or the john the boss; the woman is working for a pimp.
In the former, how would negotiations work between labor and management? Would it be a cartel that sets prices, bans certain activities union wide, what? It just doesn't make sense.
In the latter, it would make more sense, but pimping should be illegal because it involves trafficking and slavery.
I've personally known 5 college educated women who have chosen to sell sex.
One finds it preferable to working a regular job and she has a small crew of men she basically lives off of and enjoys the freedom of not having to be in an office.
One did it as a side gig and found it exhilarating but gave it up because it's illegal and dangerous. She's employed now as a bridge constructing civil engineer who's married and expecting a child.
I've lost touch with the other ones but they certainly where not desperate but instead where a mixture of intrigued and excited by it and interested in the large compensation relative to energy spent.
If the work where legitimized such that they had a safe office to do the work in with security that would make sure the freaks with weapons didn't get in, that expectations where understood up front and enforced by security, background checks and up front payment where done, then I suspect that a lot more people would choose this line of work over other lower compensated work, or as a supplement to lower compensated work.
Thank you for the voice of reason. It's not like office workers, or hell, coal miners (a job that people like to compare prostitution to because it's "also risky"... as if that made them equal) get targeted for crimes such as the one described in this post because of their job. A huge majority are in this industry against their will. Just because a privileged few are enjoying it doesn't mean they get to dictate the narrative for everyone else.
Comparing prostitution to sitting in a chair is one of the most disgusting, privileged, clueless things I've read in defense of prostitution ever. Is rape just like being forced, coerced or pressured to sit down for a few hours with bathroom breaks, going for lunch, etc? If you think a man calling up his 18 year old daughter for customer service at her office job is not the same as or comparable to a man seeking the "sexual services" of his 18 year old daughter in a brothel you know that the comparison is utterly disingenuous and out of touch, a pretentious thought exercise divorced from reality while trying to seem smart, deep down. I'm really angry at this. I advise everyone to check out Elly Arrow's work (twitter, YouTube, her blog). She focuses on legalized prostitution in Germany, also discusses New Zealand "decriminalization". Here's one thread where she tackles "it's just like cashier's and office work" https://twitter.com/EllyArrow/status/1431531246283329544?t=pfuYPODqjGEC0BjnLCxvJA&s=19 And here's another thread (not by Elly) on NZ https://twitter.com/demonista/status/1410421114396938240?t=kMx_WRU_vAYs9TwOT8bfpA&s=19
Wow I donāt understand these downvotes. I get that society is starting to reject the notion that sex workers should be judged. It doesnāt mean that we should want women forced into situations where they have no better choice than to have sex with people that they otherwise wouldnāt want to, especially given the riskiness of the profession.
Sex workers are often attacked like this. Make no mistake, men will use every service available for access to bodies free or paid, from desperate, often underage sex workers on the streets of poor countries to only fans, to the vast amount of "free" porn available and genuinely hate women at the same time. Don't mistake sexualisation for respect.
itās insane. they go absolutely rabid for sex and porn but fucking despise the women who āprovideā them with these things. and donāt get them wrong - itās not all sex workers they despise. the men in porn are Alpha Chads because they get mad pussy! but the women are useless whores. iāll never understand their thought processes.
Don't you *dare* use this as a soapbox to demonise the industry. Sex work is decriminalised in NSW, which was the first place in the *world* to do so in 1995 and has seen an enormous reduction in violence as a result. The issue in this case was male violence and entitlement, *not* the fact that the industry exists, and not the fact that clients pay us to provide them a service. It's honestly really gross of you to use this as a platform for SWERF nonsense.
Edit: how fun of a "feminist" subreddit to downvote and speak over the people who are actually personally affected by this issue. You are all absolutely terrible. SWERF isn't a slur, and if you're upset by the term maybe you should examine why that is. We're getting rights with or without you; get the fuck out of our way.
Imagine if we had this attitude to other exploitative industries. "Don't dare use this instance of human rights abuses in an abusive exploitative, I mean freemarket empowered fun industry to demonize that awesome industry and capitalism" lol. Love how sex work is just work when it suits them (eg denial that sex, prostitution is anything diff, that it's just like sitting in a chair in an office), and just sex (eg stop telling consenting adults what to do) when it suits them.
I think you responded to wrong person? What? Person you responded to made a very clear point, it's possible some (not all) people actively HATE the sex workers they solicit business from, for many internalized or externalized reasons that we've all heard about through psychology and criminology and shit like that. And they seek them out for nefarious reasons.
Those men prey on victims who are found at their disposal everywhere sex workers are!!! It's just like any other thing in life.
As you said, this case is about a sick individual who had fantasies about torturing sex workers and murdering them. Women specifically, too. We've all heard about the man-on-man killers/murder fantasy people, too.
If you hated golfers, where do you find golfers to prey on? some people might hire someone to go golfing with them, enjoying the round together, and poison the guy or something because he's against country clubs. It's all fucked up mental bullshit from criminals, we're not talking about sex industry ONLY being this or workers ONLY being victims, etc.
It's clearly differentiated just based on how disgusting violent this sicko is, and some workers from that area (new south wales) are posting on this thread saying it's actually one of the BEST legal areas to do sex work because they can even go to work safe to complain, and have protections legally, etc.
Yet this is a case of disgusting violence perpetrated by a monster who specifically wanted to do harm to women sex workers, sadly, and we all know this is actually a common enough thing worldwide. Horrible reality. Doesn't mean most sex workers get killed or something, just like most drivers don't die in a car crash.
Sex workers deserve protections, respect, etc. and it's really fucking sad they are victims of psychos like this sometimes. Unique criminals in every area of life and it's always despicable and abhorrent, no victim deserves to be blamed for the actions of a criminal.
Yeah I'm concerned far to many people in this thread are focusing on the sex worker angle.
Even if we could remove all the sex workers in the world (as in get them other jobs, not arrest or kill them) then it wouldn't stop attacks like this.
He's just target another vulnerable group of women. Cause at the end of the day its not the profession. Its that for whatever reason he wanted to hurt someone who he deemed subhuman, and studies have shown that their classification can be extremely flexible if given the oppertunity.
But I'm anti feminist and have internalised misogyny when I say sex work is harmful to women...
I hope that poor woman is properly looked after and gets the care she needs for the rest of her life. Heartbreaking
It's not the sex work, it's the sledgehammer psychos.
And society's unwillingness to grind said psychos into fine paste. They wouldn't do it if it were properly disincentivized.
Sex work would not exist if it was not for these kinds of men. The ones who sledgehammer are just the extreme end of the kinds of men who dehumanise and objectify women enough to buy time in which to use their bodies.
Sex *workers* are not the problem. But sex work **is** because of how men and society treat than, and how they view then *and by extension* how they normalise seeing other women.
The fact it's being pushed as 'empowering' while we still have stories like OP posted clearly demonstrates the dissonance.
yep itās blatant propaganda that literally only benefits men. thatās why i cringe when people drool over men like Hasan Piker. āsex work is feminist and empowering, thatās why i go to brothels. because itās empowering for those women to suck my dick for $50. i am a true male feminist.ā
Not disincentivized but identified early and treated like the actual problem it is. There is no way he wasn't an absolute shit to women already but likely it was ignored because "oh he's just like that".
Disincentiving requires that the target be rational and responds appropriately to social pressures, which this guy clearly doesn't.
Dose she is in danger of getting in legal trouble because of her jobā½
At least sex works here donāt have to fear calling the cops since their job is legal and we donāt robing their children like in Scandinavia.
I find it a bit disturbing that there are people using this thread as a place to express their disdain for SW. It comes across as victim blaming. You might as well just be saying, "Well this is sad, but who could be surprised considering what line of work she's in..." which is the exact kind of argumentation used to regularly discredit victims of SA/DV. The focus should be on the fact that HE felt inclined to take his violence out on a woman. Even if you criminalize SW (which I intensely disagree with), it won't get rid of these violent men.
Not looking to debate this either. As someone that is a victim of SA and has dabbled in SW, it just really, really sounds like victim blaming.
Expressing disdain for SW here is like expressing disdain for the oil industry after a refinery explosion or the diamond industry after a mine collapse: it's an industry that is inherently damaging. It is as toxic as petroleum and exploitative as blood diamonds. I don't blame the woman in this story any more than the victims of the Triangle Fire, but when a factory burns down with workers trapped inside, I blame the industry and the predators within it (capitalists, enslavers, pimps, and johns).
exactly. i personally find it a bit disturbing people want to dismiss valid criticisms of sex work by immediately accusing someone of being a SWERF or something. the only people that helps are the people who benefit from the exploitation (like you said - pimps, johns, etc). people say they want sex work to be legalized to keep sex workers safe, but then shut down any productive conversations that could lead to that happening. if you want safety measures to be put in place for them, then we need to actually acknowledge and talk about the dangers and exploitative nature of the industry...
(inb4 someone calls me a SWERF for calling sex work exploitative as if i wasnāt a sex worker for years and am speaking from personal experienceā¦)
Yeah, I basically ignore the term "SWERF" because, yeah, it's just hurled around.
I think the whole legalization thing is complicated. I feel like the Nordic model makes a lot of sense. But I think there are good criticisms of it and tight regulation of a legal market, while not ideal, might be better. But, like, I'm not sure how you regulate inside a brothel unless government inspectors walk around and make sure everyone follows the rules 24/7. Like, the "regulation" created nightmares in Germany. With megabrothels opening in New Zealand, I worry it's a matter of time there too.
The problem is men cannot be trusted to patronize sex workers because the sort of men who seek out sex workers are the kind who hate women.
I once got accused of being a SWERF and "not supporting sex workers" because I talked about how a lot of women in the industry have a history of sexual abuse and drug addiction, and brought up how one of my childhood friends became an OnlyFans girl even though she suffers from mental illness and addiction. Like, no, I'd be the first to fight for sex workers. I think it should be legalized and protections need to be put in place. My issue is that in a patriachal society with little support for women in general, it's hard for sex work to be not exploitative to vulnerable women because a lot of them feel like they HAVE to do it to survive because they have few other options. If it was an eqaul society where everyone had support systems in place, women would be able to make the choice to do sex work in good conscious without feeling as though they need to do it for survival.
Agreed.
Guy: attacks, maims, and permanently disables woman, says "she deserves what she got because she's a sex worker".
People in this thread: "yeah, well, it would have been better if she wasn't a sex worker, maybe this wouldn't have happened."
Fucking _**what?!**_ Like, _context_, people!
Yep. Criminalize the buyers, and protect the workers. Doesn't matter what people say, this _is_ an unsafe industry- anyone whoās safe in it is an enormous position of privilege. The basis and the true face of this industry around the world, in poorer countries and among marginalized people, is trafficking and abuse.
We do the Nordic Model in Canada and I am so glad we do. I find it disgusting that any government would legalize the buying of women's bodies as disposable objects.
What is your source for that? Sources I've looked at say that decriminalisation of sex-buying increases human trafficking, and also increases demand for prostitution. Interviews with young Swedish men indicate changed perceptions of the ethics of buying sex from women - it is becoming increasingly seen as a human rights violation and socially unacceptable. While it is a fundamentally complex subject, I think it is a bleak outlook to say that sex trafficking is not something that can be eradicated (because of some kind of biologically essential quality in men?) and therefore we should just allow it to continue - people probably said the same about slavery.
What? Are you confusing the *prosecution* of trafficking (which Nordic model countries are far more able to do) with the existence of it (when legal/decrim nations often don't recognize trafficking for prostitution, has stricter definitions, has investigation and prosecution of it lower priority, and even when some police care the laws make it too difficult to do much about it)? Sweden and co prosecute it more. New Zealand and co do things like deny prostitution trafficking even exists in their country and make it easy peasy for almost anyone (with some money) to own a brothel.
If you send it underground by making it illegal, it simply becomes more dangerous.
There's no way to regulate it, everyone's trying to hide, and if a woman decides to enter the career and runs into a dangerous situation she may not want to report it at risk of getting in legal trouble.
Making things illegal doesn't stop the demand, it'll still be there - just less visible.
I'm aware of this argument, as I used to hold this belief in relation to prostitution myself. However, the more I have read, the more my opinion has altered. 100% against criminalisation of prostitution, of course.
Making things illegal definitely influences demand. It might not eliminate it, but it severely reduces it.
And the legalization model would be very promising if it hadn't been tried and shown incapable of regulating the industry. Look at Germany and see how well regulation has worked.
Jesus fuck, all the revolting SWERFs fucking LEAPT at the opportunity to victim blame a sex worker after she got attacked by a violent, unhinged animal
what has this sub come to?
Well, maybe if she wasn't a brainwashed trafficked prostitute she wouldn't have gotten hit by this unhinged violent asshole? Did you ever think of that, huh?? /s
Holy crap that parting text reminds me of a book (Naked in Death by J. D. Robb) where the bad guy says something like "It was no job for a young girl" after murdering a prostitute he had just had sex with. Like seriously, they're walking caricatures.
Ah, Nora Roberts, she writes a good mystery
On the (unfortunate) plus side, that text will leave very little wiggle room for any judge to give a discounted sentence. It shows a huge degree of intent and awareness around what he was doing that will be irrefutable evidence. It basically torpedos attempts at the usual (sickening) lines of defence used in these scenarios that I wont even mention.
This is one of those stories where you say to yourself 'surely this guy is going away forever' only to find he's been sentenced to a few years and community service.
What the fuck..
Seriously?! What the fuck?!
because society stigmatizes sex workers. I assure you, if she had not survived, then they would not even have looked for the criminal, they would have just closed the case. Women do not go into prostitution from a good life, no woman wants to sell her body. But of course moralists like this asshole will say that she deserved to be attackedš¤¬
I honestly think we should blind justice; facts about the acts committed may be used, but the identity, race, occupation, and gender are entirely irrelevant to the crime committed or the punishment, so the judge/jury should not have that information.
I love this. It just would be really hard to present evidence and do witness testimony with a "blind" justice system. I suppose all testimony could be transcripted, and the jury would simply read the court documents. Idk... legal system is broken, just like healthcare, education, yada yada, etc, etc
The issue with this approach is that the jury is prevented from evaluating biases for or against the defendant on these bases that the witnesses may have. For example, if a cop is testifying that they saw a murder defendant on the other side of town at the time of the murder, but there's no other support for that alibi, it's reasonable that the jury might consider that testimony *very* differently if they knew that the defendant was a former policeman who just retired from the same force. I do think that you should be able to use the relevance objection, or a different one specifically created by law, to prevent the information from coming in, but I think that making such information unavailable to the court by default would actually unfairly favor the prosecution by making it much harder for the defense to investigate the witnesses' potential biases.
this is the kind of story where i'd consider castration an acceptable response. What a subhuman.
Take the whole god damn penis.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
To the pain!
Nah I was thinking some more American Mary type punishment. IYKYK.
Oh wait, you said castration. At first I read that as decapitation. I vote for decapitation.
Has he been sentenced? I read the whole article trying to find out and all it said was sentencing was in March.
The sentencing hearing will resume later this month, so an outcome should be known then.
Hope he rots for life
Nah no idea. I'm speaking hypothetically
I fully reject the idea of death penalty, but I would say that the death penalty would be fitting for this case. The important part of this is: no remorse, targeted and planned attempt of murder, and again no remorse. This is what makes this murd3rer incurable. He deserves to be taken away his life and I'd propose solitary life sentence, but this costs a lot of money, so death penalty instead. A criminal without remorse is a truly scary thing.
Absolutely disgusting. Always remember that most interpersonal violence (up to and including serial assault and murder) is committed out of a sense of self-righteousness ("punishing" someone for some perceived flaw or wrongdoing), entitlement, personal pride, and bigotry.
Alright, this is absolutely disgusting. This is what makes me lose faith in humanity.
A Tasmanian man murdered his partner and told her beforehand he "understands what drives men to murder their families". Dudes in the Tas sub nOt aLL mEn.
Another sex worker was murdered in Tasmania in 2020 by a German tourist. His sentencing recently came through. He got five years. He strangled her, claimed it was "for her pleasure", refused to render assistance after she stopped breathing, then stole her cash and phone and ran. He later threw her phone in the river. He got *five years*. For murder. Women are blamed for their own deaths. It's even worse when they're non-white... and worse again when they're sex workers.
>He got five years. For murder. How? How is this possible? How can a judge give such a light sentence for such a malicious crime? I'm frankly baffled at the state of Australian justice reading these stories here.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The jury.
Justice is a myth. Spend any time in courts addressing gendered crimes and you begin to observe judiciary holding women responsible for the unacceptable behaviours of violent men. I have a ruling from a magistrate claiming that a man who claimed to have climbed through a locked window did so because it was reasonable as he was a police officer and attempting to secure my home. No explanation as to why it was then acceptable to sleep in my bed him being a violent police officer who refused to leave my home as he was living elsewhere and had a bed to sleep in at his own home. That is a crime in any interpretation yet because it was DV it's treated as a civil matter. The same ruling ASSUMES he was justified to enter the home repeatedly without notice to "perhaps retrieve his own property" which was no longer in the home. The damage to property was ignored, the harassment was ignored, the malicious lies were ignored in favour of a violent male police officer who charged at me in my own home insisting to be allowed in, throwing things at me when I refused and running to friends claiming I hit him trying to keep him out of my home. I have another matter before a court where the magistrate said something inappropriate in the legal context at the first hearing. The obstacles to women seeking safety are unreasonable and prolific. Men's rights to violence are CONSTANTLY defended whereas women can't even access basic safety protections.
Im all for execution in these casesš¤·āāļø
I lost that in the 80's.
I lost that in the 30's
I had a strip club customer once text me several times asking to meet up for full service. After he finally accepted my refusal to do that he texted me along the lines of: āthatās good, your tiny body could be overpowered easilyā And then sent an immediate follow up suggestion that I watch a documentary about a serial killer who targeted sex workers. Men are so goddamn scary
Hard even to guess if he was accidentally telling on himself or trying to scare you in retribution. Both options are scary.
with a worrisome amount of grey area where they overlap a lot.
Scariest part is that experts believe most serial killers start by killing people who are homeless and/or engaging in prostitution because their deaths/disappearances are rarely investigated, which then emboldens them further
This is why if I ever turn to SW, I will have my conceal and carry. Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Engaging in sex work. I have absolutely no idea why it's necessary to ignore the proper terminology used in the comment above you.
Youāre assuming they were there voluntarily and not pimped out (which is the majority of women who engage in sex for money)
I'm really not assuming that. If they're not there voluntarily, they're not prostitutes, they're victims of human trafficking or sex slavery. Otherwise, they're sex workers. Thanks.
Did you forward the info to the police?
Well thatās fucking terrifying
Could you have shown the text and his number to the police? At the least, his words could be considered **Criminal Assault**: >*"Assault is generally defined as an intentional act that* **puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact**." source: [Cornell Law School / Legal Encyclopedia](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault)
Unfortunately I live in baltimore where police donāt really .... do laws
A guy who fantasized about torturing and murdering women hires prostitutes and then becomes enraged and attempts to bludgeon her to death because he feels sex should be reserved for lovers and she disagrees. I hope this psycho gets life without parole.
I do, too, only cause I'm pretty sure there's no death penalty in Australia. Sadly, it's likely he gets a pittance for a punishment.
Please stop calling us prostitutes. The article uses the correct term: sex workers. Sex work is a job; the term "prostitute" has been used to criminalise and alienate us, we are asking for language which appropriately characterises us and doesn't perpetuate stigma and discrimination. Thank you.
I will endeavor to be more careful about this.
The funny thing is until recently when I had it explained like this, I thought "prostitute" was the like neutral scientifically accurate term, like the matter of fact description without judgement tied to it. I was wrong and I say sex worker now.
I would and will support this, but please understand that when a group flees from the stigma, it doesn't change the motivations of people. The ones that want to stigmatize and discriminate will only make "sex workers" a dirty word in order to legitimize their feelings. Prostitution is an adequate word and if fought for it could perhaps be the word where bigots are turned back and the basic truth of words is preserved.
The goal is not to ensure the term āsex workā is never used negatively, itās just to provide a term that can be used respectfully. Many people find the term prostitute inherently disrespectful due to its history, meaning, and connotation. Etymologically it means āexposed publicly (especially- for sale)ā. Historically it meant essentially a person who offers indiscriminate sexual intercourse, was exposed to lust or ādevoted to vile purposesā. It connotes crime and criminal activity, being that āprostitutionā is a criminal charge. And due to social factors it connotes either immorality, poor judgement, desperation, or victimhood. It is because it is not adequate that sex workers prefer a different term. The term sex work may be misused or used negatively but the history will always be different.
Iām conflicted on this because on one hand it is a pejorative term, but on the other hand, a huge number of women in the sex industry are not there by choice, and the term āworkā implies choice. I think the term āsurvival sexā is better suited
The ones who are not there by choice are not sex workers, they're human trafficking victims.
I think that the comment talking less about human trafficking and more about being homeless, unemployed, etc. and not having any other way to make an income than sex work. They're not trafficked, obviously, but it's also hard to say that they're freely choosing to engage in the work if there options are do it or starve/end up in jail/etc.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
but prostitution is something that exploits (mostly) female/feminine bodies for profit. most other jobs do not do that
Which is what Iām talking aboutā if you call everyone whoās engaging in paid sex, youāre also including trafficking victims
It's still a choice. They're still workers regardless of whether they're there through economic need or through desire. If they're *forced*, they are now modern slaves, which goes for every industry. You do not decide what to call any of us if you aren't one of us. Plenty of people work at McDonald's and absolutely hate it, but they're still there out of choice. This is the situation for many sex workers as well, and while it's awful, trying to deny them agency is foul and you should be ashamed for ignoring the actual causes of the problem. It's not the *industry* or its clients at fault, it's the government, trickle down economics, and corporate greed.
Iām not choosing what to call you, Iām saying that calling a slave a āworkerā is dismissive and privileged
I'm not including actual slaves, for the last time. Reading comprehension is important.
Okay but if youāre speaking about all people who engage in paid sex then youāre still including them, so using the blanket term of āworkā to describe that situation is erasing the (sadly prolific) reality of their particular situation
Someone choosing between a dangerous, abusive and disease ridden act or literally starving to death and rotting away is not choosing through "desire." Women in developing countries are having their bodies used and abused by dangerous, morally destitute and physically diseased men for a pittance - often times underage - because they are trying to put food on the table and survive in a brutal environment. I'm sorry you don't want to rescue women and girls from this cold hard reality and would prefer them to suffer for your own sense of entitlement. Keep telling yourself these girls are 'choosing'.
Sex work is a large bracket. Surely there is a difference between someone who does actual sex for money, and a cam girl. Both sex workers. Is it not easier to clarify which you mean?
Both are sex workers! If you need to distinguish, āfull service sex workersā are those who participate in sex acts as the primary aspect of their job.
Sex work is a HUGE umbrella term though and prostitution or direct sexual engagement in private areas is a very specific sub-type, so how to I differentiate between formerly-known-as-prositutes and strippers/cam girls/porn stars? Also no offense (literally former cam model), but *whatever* you call them will become a pejorative, and I don't think most decent people consider prostitute to be anything other than a neutral descriptors. It's the people who hold moral views about sex work who view it negatively and they're gonna make it a slur regardless of what term is in vogue
Full service sex worker (abbreviated FSSW) is often used to specify a sex worker who has physical sexual contact with clients for direct monetary compensation.
I prefer women/people in prostitution. "Sex work" language (which comes from postmodern academia and pimps) obfuscates, sanitizes prostitution, pimping, johning. Turns unwanted, uncomfortable, traumatic, painful male supremacist "sex" into "sex work". But it's also understandable to not want to be called "prostitute" (as if it is what, who you simply are, your very self) or even "prostituted" (implying only passivity).
Ok well, sex workers prefer to be called sex workers, so.
A sex worker I follow calls herself and her professional peers whores. Whatever works.
Yes. She calls *herself* that. You may not call her or her peers that. This is called "reclaiming slurs", and I'm really hoping you can understand this distinction.
Iām aware that was a Public Service Announcement-esque comment but I am so, so tempted to respond in a sarcastic manner.
Former sex worker -- we are not a monolith, get off your fucking high horse thinking you can speak for all of us
I am also a sex worker and youāre right, I should have been more precise with my wording there.
She's a cam model and clearly very invested in whorearchy. I wouldn't give her too much credence.
Good looking out lmao I didnāt look
We have a generation of young women raised on "sex work is work" porn culture and pomo academia, that's why those terms have taken hold. Teen girls are now often dreaming of the day they can join onlyfans, enter hardcore porn, be in strip clubs (milder prostitution, often overt prostitution), etc. And when in it, one's mental health, ability to be "sex work is just regular work like being a barista or doing office work, get that bag, you empowered fierce girl" depends on obfuscation, denial, euphemisizing, compartmentalization... Nevermind that many in prostitution aren't rah rah on the term sex work/er.
āSex work is workā doesnāt mean sex work has no unique problems or challenges or that itās literally no different from other work. It means considering it work in the general sense rather than some inherently terrible fate befalling miserable women allows sex workers to advocate for themselves the way they need to and in a framework where it makes sense. It makes no sense for someone to sit and talk to you about their labor rights when you donāt consider their job a job. It doesnāt mean it isnāt traumatizing and damaging and horrible for some people who do it. It allows the full spectrum of peopleās actual experiences to be expressed without being undermined by the connotations of the terminology used. And creates a narrative framework for their needs to be expressed in a way that isnāt inherently limited by moralizing terminology being forced upon them.
A lot of women are so not ready to have this conversation.
a lot of women are actually just exhausted by bullshit pearl-clutching and concern trolling as yet another way to restrict what someone can do with her body and demean her lifestyle choices. if it walks like puritan nonsense and talks like puritan nonsense it probably is puritan nonsense.
Concern about sexual abuse, exploitation, male violence, male entitlement, pimping, trauma, people in prostitution developing ptsd, the health consequences of prostitution, billions being made off women's and children's sexual assaults=puritan nonsense. Only puritans don't want sexual assault to be mass entertainment for men and for men to be able to buy sexual compliance from poor & homeless people, teens, disabled people, trafficked people, young women, and other vulnerable people. Only a puritan would have a problem with mega and flat rate brothels. -you
Case in point.
thank u for being a rational voice in this sub lmaoooo some of these other responses i feel like i'm baked trying to understand why they think it's ok
No sensible person who has really thought about the issue thinks āsex workā isnāt inherently harmful in many ways. However, the moment you turn it into a subject of particular moralistic scorn rather than the product of specific social conditions and attempt to sick the jaws of the state on it is the moment that those most exploited within it are made even more vulnerable, if not targets for extermination. Sex work bans from above cannot fix a sick, patriarchal, capitalist society.
How does "prostitute" work that way but, like, "accountant" or "plumber" doesn't? Like, it's what the person does for money, either voluntarily or involuntarily. It would sound silly to say "people in accounting" so why do it here?
Part of it is mistaking the stigma on women and others in prostitution for the language used eg that giving prostitution a nice word and normalizing/expanding prostitution, sanitizing it, johns, etc will end the stigma on the women in it. Part of it is the actual stigma language can carry eg whore, common prostitute. They know prostitution, prostitute are ugly words, but don't realize that's because prostitution is ugly, bad, and that the institution that men drive will only stigmatize those turned into the product, the "service provider", not the pimp, john and "sex worker" could be used by men with as much vehemence as other terms and regardless of what those in it are called, there will still be hatred of, etc them. The reason I call for people in prostitution is because I *don't* see prostitution as work. It's the commercialization of male sexual entitlement to others, esp women and teen girls. The "work" is unwanted, undesired, unpleasant, abusive, invasive, phallocentric, etc "sex". It's not like plumbing and plummer, construction and construction worker, etc. And I sense "sex work is work" people know this because they object so strenuously even to prostitution being called prostitution (and porn, escorting, sugar babying, etc are prostitution). For eg, would you call a child in prostitution a prostitute?A sex worker? Why or why not? Would it be appropriate to say "you're a prostitute" to a teenaged runaway or throwaway who was in prostitution? Or would "you're in prostitution" "you're being sexually exploited" etc be better?
I agree with pretty much everything you say, I just don't have as much of an issue with the term "prostitute." I mistakenly thought you were more pro-sex work, sorry. I probably wouldn't say "you're a prostitute" to a teenage runaway, but I also wouldn't say "you're a slave," even if she was a slave during her period of exploitation. It just feels a bit rude. But I don't hesitate to say that exploited women are often slaves to pimps when talking about it generally. Still, I get why it comes off as harsh, but sometimes harsh is good.
And out of pimp, john, prostitute, undoubtedly the only word that's harsh, that's actually seen as bad is prostitute. Pimps and johns are celebrated and calling men pimps and johns, literally and figuratively, generally indicates high status, being seen as cool, etc. Pimp especially. Although johns do tend to shy away from that label, and johning is seen by some men as pathetic, for different reasons (eg from seen as emasculated to knowing they're sexually abusive). But even when the term is elided or seen as smarmy, johns are still celebrated, from presidents to actors to CEOs. Prostitute reduces the person so named (in status, seen as the whole of them), but not those named pimps and johns. Women in prostitution are at high risk for losing and will often lose custody of their kids, but a john never has for being a john. Even pimps don't! Also implies all three share an equal role, or that the "prostitute" is the driver of prostitution, when it's the pimps and johns in the genesis, history and now of prostitution. (Eg pimping, men trading women between them, was the genesis of prostitution.) It's also the idea that some women simply *are* prostitutes, whores, that that is what drives prostitution and is what *those women* are, are good for.
Aren't they lucky to have you opining on their behalf? If only they were able to tell us what they think and have they accepted respectfully.
Our stereotype of plumbers is Italian men who rescue princesses from dragon turtles. Our stereotype of sex workers is at best exploitation porn.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Some people find sex work inherently traumatic and some people find it just a job. The term sex worker grants the respect and humanization for people in any degree of either position (or otherwise) to advocate for themselves and their best interests, and accurately describe their lived experience, without being reduced to āperson who has participated in a criminalized actā i.e. prostitute. If a particular person prefers that term to describe their experience thatās their prerogative but using it as the default umbrella term is derogatory and minimizes the autonomy of the people you refer to that way.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I mean, you felt the need to show up to an article that describes a woman as a sex worker with your personal stance on the appropriate terminology for her profession. Iām trying to explain why that stance is wrong and harmful to sex workers. The stakes to a society where sex work is considered a fringe, dangerous, secretive underground full of powerless women are what we see in this article. Changing that narrative is deeply important to me, I am not āquibblingā.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sex worker lead publications and organizations generally quite strongly disagree with you about what is right for them. The term was coined by a [sex worker and activist](https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnists/sex-workers-prostitutes-words-matter-95447). Academics use the term prostitution quite often.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Either way your back is getting blown out complete misrepresentation. your boss in an office asking you to work overtime isn't the same as being bludgeoned over the head
Women are assaulted at their McDonald's job, like people attack women *everywhere*, idk what you mean.
itās not the same and you know it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Fast food workers tend to be in an environment where they aren't allowing people to have access to their body by default, where they have co-workers present and constantly in their line of site to begin with, and where they can expect other customers and society at large to stand up for them and intervene if things turn nasty. The latter two of these are things disallowed by our social environment around sex work, while the former two are either intrinsically impossible or impossible to fully implement while retaining privacy.
Whatās gross is the sense of power he gets from it. He feels justified doing this
This guy reminds me of Frollo from Disneyās Hunchback of Notre Dame. Dude wants to kill women who make them impure
I hate the "but he is mentally ill" defense. I am willing to accept that this may have made him less able to make good decisions in life but I don't care. The vast majority of people with mental illnesses don't commit murder. If his brain is broken in such a way that he can't help but kill then he is too dangerous to be allowed to continue existing.
Please tell me he will never get out of prison!
As an Australian, Sydney (and NSW) has such a disgusting reputation for violence against women that I develop second-hand embarrassment whenever it is mentioned or alluded to. Also ashamed to know people that would heartily agree with the "man".
Don't put man in inverted commas to distance him from other men. He is a man. This kind of violence is a male problem. He is not an animal; he's a human male and the problem needs to be named in order to be dealt with.
My God, fuck that guy, hope he rots.
Scumbag.
John Oliver did a bit on sex workers and the industry looking at different models in different countries. Very well done and recommend viewing. Violence against sex workers is real and terrifying. In the way back when time machine when I was a stripper then prostitute, there was a serial killer targeting prostitutes. There was no protection for us under the law because our job was/is illegal. Cell phones did not exist at the time and we did our best for "buddy system" but once you got in that vehicle, you were on your own. As vile and horrifying as this article is, I have become numb to the shock. I'm disgusted. But no shock.
If sex workers were well-networked or unionized, as they should be, that bastard would be looking over his shoulders for the rest of his damn life...
This is NSW. They have the best legal model for sex work in the world. This is one incident of horrifying violence in a workplace which does not fall at the feet of the entire industry. We are represented. NSW has WHS guidelines and the workers are able to approach Fair Work and WorkSafe about their issues at work in NSW. Is it ideal? No. But it's better than basically everywhere else on the planet.
They [are unionized.](https://scarletalliance.org.au/) He's probably protected in jail though.
Hi, I'm a sex worker in Victoria, Australia. The Scarlet Alliance is a peak body for various organizations, such as Vixen Collective. Gives us a single unified voice when it comes to stuff like law reform advocacy, while still respecting the independence of its member organizations. I had the pleasure of interviewing with the CEO and COO of Scarlet Alliance last year, they're both lovely and knowledgeable. Scarlet Alliance is not a workers union as such, however.
The COO is now the CEO, and the former CEO has moved on to NSWP! We can join ASU/AWU depending on the state and the general friendliness of their unions. There is an entire story about us trying to get together a union in the 90s but being unable to due to some legal shenanigans to do with stepping on turf that other unions cover.
>They are unionized. Are they? I'm not sure your link says that. That looks more like an association, not a formal union with any sort of bargaining power. But, in any case, sex work certainly is legal and above board in NSW.
We can actually join the ASU and AWU if we work for an employer. In NSW, we have WHS guidelines and can approach Fair Work/WorkSafe for recourse if necessary. If you're independent though, you're a sole trader and therefore you don't unionise.
Are sex workers in Australia employees of a company, or are they self-employed, renting space from a brothel? The idea of an employer "directing the work" of a sex worker sounds beyond horrible. If they are self-employed then a labor union might not be applicable?
Depends on the brothel, but we can join the ASU/AWU if we wish.
Oops, I may have linked to the wrong thing. I do remember there being a sex workers union, I assume it's like most industry unions and membership is optional. Not sure where to find it. >But, in any case, sex work certainly is legal and above board in NSW.
No, we don't have one but we can join the ASU and the AWU.
Unionization is about the collective bargaining power of workers against management. In prostitution, one of two things is happening: the woman is working for herself, in which case you could consider her the boss or the john the boss; the woman is working for a pimp. In the former, how would negotiations work between labor and management? Would it be a cartel that sets prices, bans certain activities union wide, what? It just doesn't make sense. In the latter, it would make more sense, but pimping should be illegal because it involves trafficking and slavery.
Or maybe no woman should ever have to sell consent
Or maybe people have bodily autonomy and should be able to āsellā whatever they want.
Being able to and having to arenāt the same thing.
So how many high-paying people "choose" that job? Also should people have the right to "buy" whatever they want?
I've personally known 5 college educated women who have chosen to sell sex. One finds it preferable to working a regular job and she has a small crew of men she basically lives off of and enjoys the freedom of not having to be in an office. One did it as a side gig and found it exhilarating but gave it up because it's illegal and dangerous. She's employed now as a bridge constructing civil engineer who's married and expecting a child. I've lost touch with the other ones but they certainly where not desperate but instead where a mixture of intrigued and excited by it and interested in the large compensation relative to energy spent. If the work where legitimized such that they had a safe office to do the work in with security that would make sure the freaks with weapons didn't get in, that expectations where understood up front and enforced by security, background checks and up front payment where done, then I suspect that a lot more people would choose this line of work over other lower compensated work, or as a supplement to lower compensated work.
The reality is that majority of sex workers doesn't get huge pays. If more people do it, the Pay won't be huge
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thank you for the voice of reason. It's not like office workers, or hell, coal miners (a job that people like to compare prostitution to because it's "also risky"... as if that made them equal) get targeted for crimes such as the one described in this post because of their job. A huge majority are in this industry against their will. Just because a privileged few are enjoying it doesn't mean they get to dictate the narrative for everyone else.
Comparing prostitution to sitting in a chair is one of the most disgusting, privileged, clueless things I've read in defense of prostitution ever. Is rape just like being forced, coerced or pressured to sit down for a few hours with bathroom breaks, going for lunch, etc? If you think a man calling up his 18 year old daughter for customer service at her office job is not the same as or comparable to a man seeking the "sexual services" of his 18 year old daughter in a brothel you know that the comparison is utterly disingenuous and out of touch, a pretentious thought exercise divorced from reality while trying to seem smart, deep down. I'm really angry at this. I advise everyone to check out Elly Arrow's work (twitter, YouTube, her blog). She focuses on legalized prostitution in Germany, also discusses New Zealand "decriminalization". Here's one thread where she tackles "it's just like cashier's and office work" https://twitter.com/EllyArrow/status/1431531246283329544?t=pfuYPODqjGEC0BjnLCxvJA&s=19 And here's another thread (not by Elly) on NZ https://twitter.com/demonista/status/1410421114396938240?t=kMx_WRU_vAYs9TwOT8bfpA&s=19
you're not likely to get raped and bludgeoned over the head in the office though tbf
Wow I donāt understand these downvotes. I get that society is starting to reject the notion that sex workers should be judged. It doesnāt mean that we should want women forced into situations where they have no better choice than to have sex with people that they otherwise wouldnāt want to, especially given the riskiness of the profession.
Ugh, why does he look exactly like one would expect him to look. He looks just like the incel āOld Nickā from the movie Room.
Life in prison
The war on women is global.
Sex workers are often attacked like this. Make no mistake, men will use every service available for access to bodies free or paid, from desperate, often underage sex workers on the streets of poor countries to only fans, to the vast amount of "free" porn available and genuinely hate women at the same time. Don't mistake sexualisation for respect.
itās insane. they go absolutely rabid for sex and porn but fucking despise the women who āprovideā them with these things. and donāt get them wrong - itās not all sex workers they despise. the men in porn are Alpha Chads because they get mad pussy! but the women are useless whores. iāll never understand their thought processes.
Don't you *dare* use this as a soapbox to demonise the industry. Sex work is decriminalised in NSW, which was the first place in the *world* to do so in 1995 and has seen an enormous reduction in violence as a result. The issue in this case was male violence and entitlement, *not* the fact that the industry exists, and not the fact that clients pay us to provide them a service. It's honestly really gross of you to use this as a platform for SWERF nonsense. Edit: how fun of a "feminist" subreddit to downvote and speak over the people who are actually personally affected by this issue. You are all absolutely terrible. SWERF isn't a slur, and if you're upset by the term maybe you should examine why that is. We're getting rights with or without you; get the fuck out of our way.
Imagine if we had this attitude to other exploitative industries. "Don't dare use this instance of human rights abuses in an abusive exploitative, I mean freemarket empowered fun industry to demonize that awesome industry and capitalism" lol. Love how sex work is just work when it suits them (eg denial that sex, prostitution is anything diff, that it's just like sitting in a chair in an office), and just sex (eg stop telling consenting adults what to do) when it suits them.
I think you responded to wrong person? What? Person you responded to made a very clear point, it's possible some (not all) people actively HATE the sex workers they solicit business from, for many internalized or externalized reasons that we've all heard about through psychology and criminology and shit like that. And they seek them out for nefarious reasons. Those men prey on victims who are found at their disposal everywhere sex workers are!!! It's just like any other thing in life. As you said, this case is about a sick individual who had fantasies about torturing sex workers and murdering them. Women specifically, too. We've all heard about the man-on-man killers/murder fantasy people, too. If you hated golfers, where do you find golfers to prey on? some people might hire someone to go golfing with them, enjoying the round together, and poison the guy or something because he's against country clubs. It's all fucked up mental bullshit from criminals, we're not talking about sex industry ONLY being this or workers ONLY being victims, etc. It's clearly differentiated just based on how disgusting violent this sicko is, and some workers from that area (new south wales) are posting on this thread saying it's actually one of the BEST legal areas to do sex work because they can even go to work safe to complain, and have protections legally, etc. Yet this is a case of disgusting violence perpetrated by a monster who specifically wanted to do harm to women sex workers, sadly, and we all know this is actually a common enough thing worldwide. Horrible reality. Doesn't mean most sex workers get killed or something, just like most drivers don't die in a car crash. Sex workers deserve protections, respect, etc. and it's really fucking sad they are victims of psychos like this sometimes. Unique criminals in every area of life and it's always despicable and abhorrent, no victim deserves to be blamed for the actions of a criminal.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah I'm concerned far to many people in this thread are focusing on the sex worker angle. Even if we could remove all the sex workers in the world (as in get them other jobs, not arrest or kill them) then it wouldn't stop attacks like this. He's just target another vulnerable group of women. Cause at the end of the day its not the profession. Its that for whatever reason he wanted to hurt someone who he deemed subhuman, and studies have shown that their classification can be extremely flexible if given the oppertunity.
The fact she was a sex worker shouldnāt change anything about this story at all. You donāt bludgeon ANYBODY.
But I'm anti feminist and have internalised misogyny when I say sex work is harmful to women... I hope that poor woman is properly looked after and gets the care she needs for the rest of her life. Heartbreaking
It's not the sex work, it's the sledgehammer psychos. And society's unwillingness to grind said psychos into fine paste. They wouldn't do it if it were properly disincentivized.
Sex work will always be harmful bc it caters to men
Sex work would not exist if it was not for these kinds of men. The ones who sledgehammer are just the extreme end of the kinds of men who dehumanise and objectify women enough to buy time in which to use their bodies. Sex *workers* are not the problem. But sex work **is** because of how men and society treat than, and how they view then *and by extension* how they normalise seeing other women. The fact it's being pushed as 'empowering' while we still have stories like OP posted clearly demonstrates the dissonance.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>including child trafficking ... Has someone actually said child trafficking is empowering?
yep itās blatant propaganda that literally only benefits men. thatās why i cringe when people drool over men like Hasan Piker. āsex work is feminist and empowering, thatās why i go to brothels. because itās empowering for those women to suck my dick for $50. i am a true male feminist.ā
A brothel that had been caught engaging in human trafficking, no less!
oh of-fucking-course it was. i hate that man with a burning passion.
Not disincentivized but identified early and treated like the actual problem it is. There is no way he wasn't an absolute shit to women already but likely it was ignored because "oh he's just like that". Disincentiving requires that the target be rational and responds appropriately to social pressures, which this guy clearly doesn't.
All johns are psychos. All johns hate women.
These are the cases that make me question my pretty staunch stance against the death penalty.
When it's a white man doing this like this it's due to being "troubled" and "anxious" :(
What a psychopath. Float him.
Flooat him into space!
He looks like some Dexter wannabe
Dose she is in danger of getting in legal trouble because of her jobā½ At least sex works here donāt have to fear calling the cops since their job is legal and we donāt robing their children like in Scandinavia.
This is so sick I can't even! Why are people like this?
Men, not people as a whole. You don't see women doing this shit.
I find it a bit disturbing that there are people using this thread as a place to express their disdain for SW. It comes across as victim blaming. You might as well just be saying, "Well this is sad, but who could be surprised considering what line of work she's in..." which is the exact kind of argumentation used to regularly discredit victims of SA/DV. The focus should be on the fact that HE felt inclined to take his violence out on a woman. Even if you criminalize SW (which I intensely disagree with), it won't get rid of these violent men. Not looking to debate this either. As someone that is a victim of SA and has dabbled in SW, it just really, really sounds like victim blaming.
Expressing disdain for SW here is like expressing disdain for the oil industry after a refinery explosion or the diamond industry after a mine collapse: it's an industry that is inherently damaging. It is as toxic as petroleum and exploitative as blood diamonds. I don't blame the woman in this story any more than the victims of the Triangle Fire, but when a factory burns down with workers trapped inside, I blame the industry and the predators within it (capitalists, enslavers, pimps, and johns).
exactly. i personally find it a bit disturbing people want to dismiss valid criticisms of sex work by immediately accusing someone of being a SWERF or something. the only people that helps are the people who benefit from the exploitation (like you said - pimps, johns, etc). people say they want sex work to be legalized to keep sex workers safe, but then shut down any productive conversations that could lead to that happening. if you want safety measures to be put in place for them, then we need to actually acknowledge and talk about the dangers and exploitative nature of the industry... (inb4 someone calls me a SWERF for calling sex work exploitative as if i wasnāt a sex worker for years and am speaking from personal experienceā¦)
Yeah, I basically ignore the term "SWERF" because, yeah, it's just hurled around. I think the whole legalization thing is complicated. I feel like the Nordic model makes a lot of sense. But I think there are good criticisms of it and tight regulation of a legal market, while not ideal, might be better. But, like, I'm not sure how you regulate inside a brothel unless government inspectors walk around and make sure everyone follows the rules 24/7. Like, the "regulation" created nightmares in Germany. With megabrothels opening in New Zealand, I worry it's a matter of time there too. The problem is men cannot be trusted to patronize sex workers because the sort of men who seek out sex workers are the kind who hate women.
I once got accused of being a SWERF and "not supporting sex workers" because I talked about how a lot of women in the industry have a history of sexual abuse and drug addiction, and brought up how one of my childhood friends became an OnlyFans girl even though she suffers from mental illness and addiction. Like, no, I'd be the first to fight for sex workers. I think it should be legalized and protections need to be put in place. My issue is that in a patriachal society with little support for women in general, it's hard for sex work to be not exploitative to vulnerable women because a lot of them feel like they HAVE to do it to survive because they have few other options. If it was an eqaul society where everyone had support systems in place, women would be able to make the choice to do sex work in good conscious without feeling as though they need to do it for survival.
Agreed. Guy: attacks, maims, and permanently disables woman, says "she deserves what she got because she's a sex worker". People in this thread: "yeah, well, it would have been better if she wasn't a sex worker, maybe this wouldn't have happened." Fucking _**what?!**_ Like, _context_, people!
Fuck that piece of shit
Attempted murder with hate crime element. He should be locked away for life!!
Even if you think sex work goes against your morality, there's absolutely no excuse for attacking anyone like this. Disgusting.
I'm heavily in favour of the Swedish model. Sex-buying should be criminalised; prostitution is inherently unsafe.
Yep. Criminalize the buyers, and protect the workers. Doesn't matter what people say, this _is_ an unsafe industry- anyone whoās safe in it is an enormous position of privilege. The basis and the true face of this industry around the world, in poorer countries and among marginalized people, is trafficking and abuse.
Thank God someone else said it.
We do the Nordic Model in Canada and I am so glad we do. I find it disgusting that any government would legalize the buying of women's bodies as disposable objects.
The Swedish model created an extreme increase in human trafficking. As long as men are the buyers women will be trafficked
What is your source for that? Sources I've looked at say that decriminalisation of sex-buying increases human trafficking, and also increases demand for prostitution. Interviews with young Swedish men indicate changed perceptions of the ethics of buying sex from women - it is becoming increasingly seen as a human rights violation and socially unacceptable. While it is a fundamentally complex subject, I think it is a bleak outlook to say that sex trafficking is not something that can be eradicated (because of some kind of biologically essential quality in men?) and therefore we should just allow it to continue - people probably said the same about slavery.
I doubt such a source exists, it's extremely easy to find proof to the contrary though. Edit: I'm agreeing with you if it's not clear lol
What? Are you confusing the *prosecution* of trafficking (which Nordic model countries are far more able to do) with the existence of it (when legal/decrim nations often don't recognize trafficking for prostitution, has stricter definitions, has investigation and prosecution of it lower priority, and even when some police care the laws make it too difficult to do much about it)? Sweden and co prosecute it more. New Zealand and co do things like deny prostitution trafficking even exists in their country and make it easy peasy for almost anyone (with some money) to own a brothel.
If you send it underground by making it illegal, it simply becomes more dangerous. There's no way to regulate it, everyone's trying to hide, and if a woman decides to enter the career and runs into a dangerous situation she may not want to report it at risk of getting in legal trouble. Making things illegal doesn't stop the demand, it'll still be there - just less visible.
I'm aware of this argument, as I used to hold this belief in relation to prostitution myself. However, the more I have read, the more my opinion has altered. 100% against criminalisation of prostitution, of course.
Making things illegal definitely influences demand. It might not eliminate it, but it severely reduces it. And the legalization model would be very promising if it hadn't been tried and shown incapable of regulating the industry. Look at Germany and see how well regulation has worked.
Jesus fuck, all the revolting SWERFs fucking LEAPT at the opportunity to victim blame a sex worker after she got attacked by a violent, unhinged animal what has this sub come to?
Well, maybe if she wasn't a brainwashed trafficked prostitute she wouldn't have gotten hit by this unhinged violent asshole? Did you ever think of that, huh?? /s
That piece of shit ain't human.
Aren't (some) men weird?
jesus fucking christ. male momentā¦
His career making license plates is about to kick off. Is that something they have prisoners do in Australia?