Bawdy House of Commons

What is wrong with sex? Seriously! How is it magically different than other things we do?

Substitute any personally provided service for sexual service in the prostitution related criminal code and see if it still makes sense.

“advertisement of accounting services” means any material — including a photographic, film, video, audio or other recording, made by any means, a visual representation or any written material — that is used to advertise accounting services contrary to section 286.4.

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the accounting services of a person is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and a minimum punishment of, [...]

That being said, some of it makes sense: we should not force or coercion people of any age to engage in accounting services. We should not entice or coerce persons under the age of 18 to engage in accounting services? 

We are talking about making it non-criminal to sell accounting services but criminal to purchase accounting services. Does that make sense? I don't think so.

Lastly, I suspect we would find it contrary to public standards of decency to suggest that adults should be denied freedom of the person to have sex accounting with whomever they choose, provided it is agreed, consensual, and free from coercion.  If my suspicion is confirmed, Bill C-36 would make the House of Commons into a common bawdy-house.

(2) The definition “common bawdy-house” in subsection 197(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

“common bawdy-house” means, for the practice of acts of indecency, a place that is kept or occupied or resorted to by one or more persons;

And considering some of the other legislation being passed, I'd say those are some indecent acts.

Just thinking.

Sex is abuse?

So I saw this picture "Real men don't buy girls". This is a bold tactic against human trafficking. I don't think that people should be property. I believe it is our personal and societal obligation to protect our young and to not abuse the vulnerable.

STOP HUMAN TRAFFICKING!

That being said, I found this picture in a promotion for the website sextrade101.com. You should read it. There are some real concerns here. People should not hurt other people. The founder of the site, Natasha Falle, said, "Prostitution is the abuse of women plain and simple."

I think it is neither plain nor simple.

What is wrong with exchanging services for money? Lawyers do it. Factory workers do it. Computer programmers do it. Teachers do it. If you have a job, you are trading your services for money. Prostitution is the exchange of sexual services for money.

If lawyering, building, programming, teaching, etc. is not abuse, then the difference must be sex. So then sex = abuse.

That is messed up. Sure there is sexual abuse, but not all sex is abuse and not all abuse is sex.

I do not understand what is so wrong about sex. Why should it be illegal to offer to exchange sex for money (or vice versa, no pun intended)? Why should it be illegal to live off the money earned in exchange for sex?

What if the sex trade were unionized? It worked for coal miners and steel workers... just look at how much better protected those workers are under the law than in pre-union times. Not perfect, but better. Think of the income tax implications of adding all that additional self-employment income. Think of the opportunities for better support, health, education, and training. Think how the trade would not be forced into the shadows where people look the other way.

I hope sextrade101.com will help to make everyone safer and happier. If it starts to demonize sex, then maybe what we need to do is make it illegal to live off the avails of special interest propagandizing...

I'm just saying ..

So the criminal code of Canada states (in part) "202 (1) Everyone commits an offence who (d) records or registers bets or sells a pool" and that "(2) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and liable (a) for a first offence, to imprisonment for not more than two years"

It also states "213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view (c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."

Now why do we set up stings for summary conviction offences, but not prosecute indictable offences like football pools?

I'm just asking.