It is a debate. We are debating and presenting two sides of the debate while answering the question except that we are providing different answers. Someone quoted me directly in his post that H & K doesn't want to admit that dancers are sex workers and I am just giving my side of response as why I don't!!!!!!. And we have been respectful in our debates without making personal attacks except when you come in and make it uncivilized as per your nature and the grudge you are carrying from the other site. So we are different in our views. Get over it. It is normal.
Basic questions about strip clubs
- Thread starter nothingtolose
- Start date
I don't think C36 explicitly defines dancers as sex workers though you are correct in stating that lap dancing is illegal. That said IF you agree with C36 that is a good law (which in my view is a the worse prostitution law doing harm to all by generalization and not distinguishing between consenting paid sex and other types of paid sex and giving a way out to pimps as drivers and security guards) then you can quote it and use it as a proof of your side of debate. As a proof of my side please answer this: If you ask nude dancers to come to your home and do what sex workers do how many percent do you thing will agree to this??? If you really believe a good majority will do it then you are correct in your statement that dancers are sex workers.
You said it WIR very well above and the word is "some". That is what we differ in our debates that SOME may fall into category of sex workers by what they do and not all and I think that your side of debate is ignoring this fact. BEFORE initiating advances and expecting anything the patron HAS to find out or know the dancer or ASK and don't assume or regard her as a sex worker at the beginning.
1. What difference does it make if C36 is a "good" or "bad" law? It's the law.
2. If you ask massage attendants to your home and ask them to do what service providers do, the response would likely be similar.
3. Anyone acting in a way that makes a stripper, massage attendant or service provider uncomfortable is in the wrong. Arguably, strippers are quite vulnerable compared to many other sex workers, since they're surrounded by drunks and the clubs generally don't care beyond liability issues.
2. If you ask massage attendants to your home and ask them to do what service providers do, the response would likely be similar.
3. Anyone acting in a way that makes a stripper, massage attendant or service provider uncomfortable is in the wrong. Arguably, strippers are quite vulnerable compared to many other sex workers, since they're surrounded by drunks and the clubs generally don't care beyond liability issues.
I was saying that one uses something as a proof of his side of debate when he fully agrees with it that it is a good thing. Does this makes sense?
2 - I don't know the answer to this as never used massage providers. So if you ask dancers to give BJ in the CR or fingering what percentage would agree? If they are sex workers then they will have n issue with sex work right?
3 - I agree completely with the first part. Well said. I believe escorts too have to on occasions deal with drunks and in an outcall they are in more danger than dancers and their pimps don't care except covering his own behind.
Btw, I am referring to dancers in Canada. I assumed it goes without saying. I know that overseas (Germany, South America, South East Asia) dancers are sex workers too and they join dancing knowing this fact well unlike here that most choose the profession not having sex work in mind. I am beginning to wonder if there is a misunderstanding as per few posts that some receiving sex work from dancers (experiences many times over as I recall) totally opposite to my personal 20 year strip bar experience having seen thousands of dancers. Are we debating the same thing here?
2 - I don't know the answer to this as never used massage providers. So if you ask dancers to give BJ in the CR or fingering what percentage would agree? If they are sex workers then they will have n issue with sex work right?
3 - I agree completely with the first part. Well said. I believe escorts too have to on occasions deal with drunks and in an outcall they are in more danger than dancers and their pimps don't care except covering his own behind.
Btw, I am referring to dancers in Canada. I assumed it goes without saying. I know that overseas (Germany, South America, South East Asia) dancers are sex workers too and they join dancing knowing this fact well unlike here that most choose the profession not having sex work in mind. I am beginning to wonder if there is a misunderstanding as per few posts that some receiving sex work from dancers (experiences many times over as I recall) totally opposite to my personal 20 year strip bar experience having seen thousands of dancers. Are we debating the same thing here?
The content of WIR's post #28 in this thread above exemplifies the breathtaking breadth and range (at least potentially, if the code were to be enforced to the letter and upheld against any subsequent challenges in the courts) of this legislation.
If a server or bartender or dancer became aware that some (or even one) dancers were providing "sexual services", she/he (and indeed all employees) would be engaged in a criminal activity simply by virtue of being employed at the establishment. While I understand that such charges are highly unlikely in practice, the scope of this seems to suggest an overly broad law. To say nothing of the notion that lapdancing has been criminialized.
My understanding is that many interested parties feel that this law really needs to be tested in the courts either to see if it will withstand a constitutional challenge overall or at least so that the judiciary might render some case law to more narrowly define the broad sweep of the definitions contained in the legislation.
Law in which an intrinsic vagueness of definition allows for a (potentially) sweepingly broad interpretation strikes me as contrary to fundamental rights and should be "reined in" in order to make sure that the legislation fulfils the function of protecting against potential harm while not abrogating basic rights. As the legislative process did not seem able to accomplish this, I guess we now await adjudication in the court system to refine or replace this code.
If a server or bartender or dancer became aware that some (or even one) dancers were providing "sexual services", she/he (and indeed all employees) would be engaged in a criminal activity simply by virtue of being employed at the establishment. While I understand that such charges are highly unlikely in practice, the scope of this seems to suggest an overly broad law. To say nothing of the notion that lapdancing has been criminialized.
My understanding is that many interested parties feel that this law really needs to be tested in the courts either to see if it will withstand a constitutional challenge overall or at least so that the judiciary might render some case law to more narrowly define the broad sweep of the definitions contained in the legislation.
Law in which an intrinsic vagueness of definition allows for a (potentially) sweepingly broad interpretation strikes me as contrary to fundamental rights and should be "reined in" in order to make sure that the legislation fulfils the function of protecting against potential harm while not abrogating basic rights. As the legislative process did not seem able to accomplish this, I guess we now await adjudication in the court system to refine or replace this code.
Last edited:
