Gender bigots at the heart of the Canadian prostitution debate

Three women—Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch, and Valerie Scott—waged a legal battle to effectively legalize prostitution in Canada. These women claimed that the laws surrounding the buying and selling of sex violated the Canadian Charter. The courts agreed and gave the Canadian government one year to fix the problem. The government has currently been working on Bill C-36, implementing the Nordic model of prostitution, which is the brainchild of gender bigots known as feminists. Under this model, it is legal to sell sex but illegal to buy it. The justification for this lunacy is the feminist myth of patriarchy. According to feminists, prostitution is something that men do to oppress women. Feminists believe that women cannot choose to engage in prostitution because the patriarchy forces them into selling their bodies for money. Basically, feminists view prostitution and sex slaves as the same thing.


Sex slavery and sex trafficking are part of the larger problem of human trafficking. We like to think that we live in a society that is free from slavery. Unfortunately, this isn’t reality. Men, women, and children are forced to work in many different industries through coercion in every civilized nation in the world. To say that this is a problem is an understatement. To use this situation to advance an ideology is unthinkable to most people.

Feminists have some weird ideas about prostitutes and prostitution. In their minds, prostitute = women, clients (or “Johns”) = men. Not surprising to MHRAs and anti-feminists/non-feminists, the truth bares little to no resemblance to the feminist dogma. Both men and women engage in prostitution on both sides of the equation. Take, for example, this young man at Columbia University and his female clients: Keep in mind that he is “marketed” by a madam. This little tidbit of information will become relevant later.

Then, there are lesbian prostitutes: These women offer their services to other women who want to experience lesbian sex with no strings attached and without the hassle.

A simple Google search reveals a whole host of escorts who offer services to couples. Of course, there are also many specialty services that are too numerous to mention.

The point being that the feminist idea that prostitution is “women are the prostitutes” and “men are the Johns” is willful ignorance, to say the least. But feminists need to continue perpetrating this lie to the public to keep up the “women are victims of men” hysteria. See, according to feminists, prostitution is a form of “male” violence. Violence has a gender? That’s a topic for another day.


According to feminists, the patriarchy forces women into prostitution by denying them options. Let’s set aside for a moment the fact that many women who become prostitutes have options and often willingly chose prostitution. For now, though, let’s pretend that all prostitutes are women, and these women are prostitutes because they have no other choice. Okay, then shouldn’t we be giving them choices? Shouldn’t feminists be working to set up programs to help these women get education and/or work placement so that they will have more options for employment? And shouldn’t this be accompanied by programs for women who use prostitution to feed their drug addictions? But that’s not what feminists are doing. Instead, feminists are working to remove the only option that these women have to make a living. How is that supposed to help? To understand this, you must remember that in the minds of feminists, destroying the patriarchy will solve women’s problems, including prostitution.



Now back to reality. Are all prostitutes forced into it? Are all prostitutes helpless victims of men? To start with, forced prostitution does happen. Take this case as an example:

Notice anything odd? The female victim was forced into prostitution by men and women. She didn’t have a pimp. She had a madam.

A madam is most often a prostitute who has started her own escort business or brothel. She is the boss and prostitutes work for her. It’s a common business relationship that can be found in many industries. The madam provides the prostitutes with safety, steady work, and in the case of a brothel a place to do business in exchange for a percentage of the profits. There are many famous madams.

Esperanza Brooks was a cheerleading coach for prep school who ran an escort service on the side.

Xaviera Hollander was a famous madam and author of The Happy Hooker. From her website: “In 1968, she left her job as the secretary of the Dutch consulate in Manhattan to become a call girl, where she made $1,000 a night. A year later she opened her own brothel called Xaviera’s Happy House and soon became New York City’s leading madam.”

Bobbi Davis, the owner of The Shady Lady Ranch, successfully lobbied to legalize male prostitution in Nevada.

Then there is the notorious and despicable Hong Tang, who, according to court documents, used children in her business.

Let’s not forget that the occupation of madam isn’t new. Since prostitution is the world’s oldest profession, it stands to reason that the madam isn’t far behind. Take Polly Adler, for instance: “Her career began at the dawn of the anything-goes Jazz Age and continued into World War II. Broadway stars, baseball heroes, literary lions, gangsters and politicians all flocked to her house of ill repute.” Madams have been a part of American history since the Old West.

If you look at the money these women made, it’s no wonder that women choose to go into prostitution. But, as this study suggest, money isn’t the only reason: “The findings suggest that these [educated and affluent] women are not forced into the prostitution market but rather choose to enter it for many of the same reasons that people enter the conventional job market — money, stability, autonomy and even job satisfaction.”

Feminists like to cite women’s safety as a reason to criminalize the purchasing of sex. Let’s think about that for a moment. Who’s safer: a woman who is working in a brothel with bouncers and security guards or a woman who has to do her business under the cover of darkness and in hiding? Brothels are like strip clubs; they have security to protect their employees from anyone who gets out of line. What if the owner of the brothel is abusive? We already have laws against abusive employers, and since everything is out in the open, reporting him or her is a lot easier and is legal. The average streetwalker doesn’t have such safety and comfort. They have to hide to do their business and can’t go to the cops, not even if the selling of sex is legal. If a prostitute turns in one of her Johns, word will get around and her clients will disappear. If a woman in a brothel gets one of her clients thrown out or arrested for being violent or abusive, the brothel will still be able to attract clients like nothing ever happened. Why? Because the guy who got arrested wasn’t arrested for buying sex but for being an asshole. Brothels also offer better health and safety for both sides. In the U.S., condoms are mandatory, the Johns are examined for physical signs of STDs, and the workers are regularly tested. You can’t get much safer than that. But if feminists have their way, prostitutes will have to hide to do their work and never have access to this level of safety and security. Even if only the buying of sex is criminalized, this will push prostitution further underground. Back into the shadows and the cheap motels the women will go, and more than a few of them will be assaulted, contract diseases, and some will end up dead.


We have seen that feminist ideas about prostitution are not based in reality. Prostitution is not men oppressing women. Prostitution is a choice that some women make. Criminalizing the buyers is dangerous to prostitutes. So, why are they trying to do this?

While you’re thinking about that, consider this:

The feminist movement is split over the issue of prostitution for the very reasons I mentioned above and other very logical reasons:

The proposed legislation denies women’s right to bodily autonomy, a core concept, enshrined in law, of any feminist or anti-violence strategy, and most obvious in Canada’s abortion legislation. It infantilizes grown women who are sex workers, and locates them as damaged victims, in need of rescue only, versus adults capable of exercising choice (good or bad) and an ability to act in their own best interests. Bill C36 conflates women and children, trafficking and prostitution, when it is clear that they are separate and distinct populations. Combining them results in inadequate service for all and willfully ignores current strong and internationally praised Canadian legislation regarding children and trafficked persons.

What is it that the anti-John feminists of @WantMore4Women hope to accomplish? The answer is in the phrase that I used. The feminists who are in control of this group know that their ideas will have an extremely negative impact on the lives of prostitutes. They simply don’t care. They are programmed with the myth of the patriarchy and will stop at nothing to destroy it. If some collateral damage must take place in order to achieve their objective, then so be it. These feminists hate men to the point that they are working to pass legislation that would throw other women under the bus just to discriminate against men. They ignore all evidence, even the fact that not all buyers of sex are male. They want the decriminalization of female prostitutes only:

The objective of this campaign is to have prostitution recognized as a practice of inequality and to bring forward a legislation similar to the Nordic Model in Canada, namely a legislative model that decriminalizes prostituted women while maintaining the criminalization of those who prostitute them (pimps and johns). The Nordic Model also encompasses social measures, the promotion of equality and resources for women who are or have been prostituted.


Here are the some of the other supporters of this highly bigoted campaign:

Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres

Landing Page

National Women’s Association of Canada


Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies



Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter

All of this was started a while back by three female sex workers who exposed a rift in the feminist community. We have long wondered which group carried the most weight in the feminist movement, thereby driving public policy in our respective governments. As Bill C-36, which would impose the Nordic model onto the Canadian people, continues to work its way through Parliament, I think we now have an answer.

Recommended Content

Skip to toolbar