Canada: "Strict laws protect women"

On principle, anyway, when the law prohibits, say, the sale of marijuana, both parties to the deal are breaking the law. The buyer can claim he or she is an addict but still violates the law. The dealer can hardly make such a claim that he or she is a victim unless they are appealing to some other reason-- the dealer is a dealer because they need to support their habit and dealing makes them money to do so? But if so, is that even relevant?

Point is, if a transaction is illegal, whether we think it ought to be or not, isn't the standard rule of law that it is illegal for both parties to engage in it knowingly, all other things being equal (e.g.: age ruled out as a factor, likewise mental competence, etc)?

A Conservative Christian calling prostitutes victims. I'm seeing little important difference between conservatives and liberal feminists. Common theme is that women aren't accountable for what they do when a man can be blamed, and its all about the woman.

Why are they a victim for what they choose. "living lives filled with drugs, sedatives, physical and sexual abuse and suicidal thoughts." None of that excuses male criminals; criminals typically have bad lives.

Shouldn't a Christian view prostitution as harmful to men too. Its an aberration from normal healthy intimacy all the while the mans desire is being exploited for money. To her he is a walking hard on with money. So how is she a victim in that exchange.

Let me get this straight, she has no real value (and doesn't try to give herself value), puts some Guy in a position to be fined or jailed, takes money from him, and she is the one being exploited...

I just don't follow the logic that doing something valueless (thus derogatory) and then making money for it makes you a victim.

Feminists enjoy any exploitation of men. It becomes doubly exploitive when she sells with no threat of law but he buys with that danger as in Sweden.

One last thing.

Notice that the article does not mention disease. Why not?!? That is one of the prostitutes hardships; she mentioned all their other problems. Oh wait, That would imply prostitutes can harm men and men can't be harmed...

As I read the article, I understood the author to be AGAINST the recent Canadian ruling of decriminalizing prostitution for women. If she is against the ruling then she is in favor of both men and women being punished for prostitution. Did I misunderstand?

Law makers need to make up their minds as to wether prostitution is illegal or not. If it is illegal then it needs to be dealt with equally by arresting and/or prosecuting both genders regardless of whom is the buyer and who is the seller.

I believe prostitution to be harmful to society which is made up of men and women. However, since it will never go away I would like to see whatever laws would make it a rare occurrence and safe for everyone involved in the transaction. (But if I had to choose between making it rare or making it safe, I would choose rare)

For those promoting the decriminalization of prostitutes for the sake of the women's safety and need for basics, I would remind them that jail is an extremely safe place for women. They can receive medical care, food, shelter and counseling. Allowing them back on the street is probably the most dangerous to them.

I have very mixed feelings about prostitution and possible solutions go against my core beliefs. If anyone has paid attention to my core beliefs, I am all about not interfering with laws of nature which always seem to promote survival of the human species (creating families is the key to a healthy species) . I also want what is best for society with the least amount of government interference.

Prostitution is the one issue that I will make an exception for as I believe it to be harmful to society yet should probably be legal and regulated by the government. (I wouldn't mind if someone could talk me out of this position). Prostitution will never be non-existent and there are so many sub-issues surrounding it, that I believe accepting it and regulating it, is the lesser of two evils.

When it involves women doing crime we gotta make an exception, no wait, make it legal and safe.

When its just men doing crime who cares. Anyways, I believe when men do crime it tends to be very safe for the criminals and those around them. If I happen to be wrong about that point, who cares, its men and they reap what they sow!

Men are better off in jail; drugs, robbery, false accusations... I have heard before that a fairy gets its wings every time a man is put in jail.

fondueguy, I am not sure if your post is directed at me and my comment above.

But in case it is, I want to point out that when I mention making prostitution safe I refer to everyone involved in the transaction which includes the dude. "Regulated" includes STD checks, which again, keeps everyone safe (well safer), also reduces the buyers chance of getting ripped off (or worse). Also there are quite a few male prostittutes that need the same consideration.

Regulation would go along with decriminalizing prostitution for the buyer and seller so no crimes would be committed by either gender.

No special treatment to women is indicated in my post above. Either prostitution is a crime and both genders get treated/punished equally or prostitution is not a crime and it is safe and regulated for the safety of both the buyer and seller.

I am in no way making a big push for the decriminalizing of prostitution. I just want lawmakers to make up their minds.

"If she is against the ruling then she is in favor of both men and women being punished for prostitution. Did I misunderstand?"

Indeed she is against the ruling. But she is in favor of women not being punished but men being punished. So yes, you did misunderstand.

OK, I get it now. The author is in favor of strict prostitution laws and she is against the new ruling because, even though lenient on women, it does not help them enough.

A little confusing.

Thanks for the clarification.

The striking down of these laws shows precisely what is wrong with society in general today. Women are not being held to be responsible for their actions and men are routinely and harshly punished for theirs. Prostitution in Canada is not illegal in Canada. However, soliciting prostitutes is. Women are routinely let walk while "sting" operations are set up to capture men. In some provinces and states the government routinely publishes the names and/or pictures of men (johns) caught paying for sex. How wrong is that? This is a violation of virtually every other law in existence. If I'm caught smoking drugs I may or may not get a small fine, but if I'm producing or trafficking in drugs I get severely punished. Whereas if I'm caught using the services or product of a prostitute I am severely punished, but if I am a prostitute (offering the product) I rarely get punished and frequently get social help. Why do we have this double standard (female chauvinism is obviously the answer to my somewhat rhetorical question)?

Canada needs to not only continue to make soliciting illegal, but make it illegal to BE a prostitute. Until that time women will continue to take this way out as a career path. Yes, I've heard all the arguments about how if men didn't offer to buy the product their would be no market, but unfortunately with the way society is, there will always be a market.

I don't buy the "women only do this when they are 'forced' into doing it" argument made by some. I once lived across the road from a prostitute and this was in a middle class neighbourhood. She had worked at a hospital, but lost her job. Instead of going out and finding a different job she chose to run a brothel (albeit just her) out of her house. Good money if you enjoy the work (although disgusting).......

The only way to stop it is to make the product or service illegal. If women know that they will go to jail if they start offering themselves out (yes, I know communicating is already illegal) and if society gets tough on offenders instead of coddling them and blaming men, then things will start to change.