NOW Magazine takes a stand; will continue to generate revenue through prostitution advertisements

In a touching love letter to capitalism, Alice Klein, editor of NOW, a magazine whose survival depends, in large part, on revenue from prostitution advertisements, proclaims the publication will boldly go where everyone has gone before and continue to profit from the exploitation and objectification of female bodies.

Klein writes:

NOW supports its feisty independent journalism by selling advertising. It has run ads for sexual services throughout its history, because as a publication that stands for human rights and free expression, NOW has refused to discriminate against sex work and sex workers while allowing advertising from other less stigmatized businesses.

Canada’s new prostitution legislation, which came into effect on December 6, prohibits third party advertising for sexual services. This means that prostitutes can still advertise for their own services, but that others cannot advertise the sale of bodies that are not their own. This portion of the legislation is exists as part of the larger goal to target exploiters and constitutes an attempt to discourage third parties from profiting off of the prostitution of women.

“We will hold those who are advertising — not the prostitute themselves, but those who are advertising these services either through papers or online — also to criminal account,” Justice Minister Peter MacKay said last July.

Klein makes a concerted effort to pretend she is supporting marginalized women with her brave decision to continue profiting from the ads, despite the new legislation, writing, “We are mindful of the fact that advertising benefits independent sex workers in particular, as it offers a much safer and more secure way to connect and do business with clients. For many, the alternative to access to advertising is street-based prostitution.” But women are already totally within their rights when they advertise their own services. It appears as though Klein is trying to manipulate readers into believing that she is sticking up for women’s rights when she is actually concerned about revenue-loss were she to comply with the new law.

She complains that “NOW Magazine has also paid and continues to pay for resisting the hypocritical moralism that would like to sweep the conversation about human sexual diversity under the rug, and the age-old practice of sex work into back alleys,” but the opposite is true. NOW hasn’t “paid” any price for their support and promotion of prostitution — rather they have profited. Prostitution doesn’t promote “human sexual diversity,” it promotes old-fashioned, rigid ideas about sex and sexuality, reinforcing the notion that men are the aggressors when it come to sex and that women are the passive objects sex simply happens to, that men have irrepressible desire, that it is women’s duty to satiate said desire, and that women exist for men — as entertainment and consumable objects.

Klein writes:

With costs and benefits on both sides of the ledger, NOW has made a principled choice to stand against discrimination and further marginalization of sex workers. As a publication in print and online, NOW stands for sexual freedom between consenting adults and for the normalization of the reality of sexual diversity.

NOW is making a principled choice to continue to support capitalist patriarchy, but frame their choice as one that supports marginalized women. If only every capitalist were so principled! To choose the most profitable choice, at the expense of the most marginalized! Oh wait…

The easiest way to sell anything is on the backs of women; Klein knows this, to be sure. But can you imagine, for example, Carl’s Jr. making the same claim? “We at Carl’s Jr. are making the principled choice to continue to support women’s freedom to writhe on the hoods of cars while eating our burgers, because that is the best and easiest way for us to make a profit.” Or maybe if Dov Charney had told us, “American Apparel is taking a stand on behalf of marginalized people everywhere by having women sell retro sport socks by posing naked and spread-eagle on a bed.” In what other scenario would progressives fall for such a farce?

Profiting from ads that objectify and sell women has nothing to do with human rights.

Klein has tried this on us before, presenting johns as an oppressed sexual minority. Now she is pretending that prostitution itself is some kind of sexual expression or sexual orientation.

“This is the same struggle that the LGBTQ community has waged for full human rights despite sexualities some have deemed unacceptable, immoral and exploitative,” she writes.

This is both dangerous and confusing territory. If prostitution is a sexual orientation, then are there some women who are biologically inclined to be prostitutes? If prostitution is simply a sexual expression women engage in of their own free will, why charge? Certainly they must be enjoying themselves if this is a part of their sexuality? Is there a particular class of women who are better suited to be prostitutes? A particular race, perhaps? Are “college girls” simply more sexually liberated than all other women?

Screen Shot 2014-12-08 at 11.44.26 PM

Why is it that so many ads for prostitution are so very racist, playing on stereotypes about “exotic” women, for example? Are Asian women more “sexual” than other races? If we are to look at ads for sexual services online and ask questions about why marginalized and racialized women are overrepresented in prostitution and why the majority of women enter into the industry when they are girls, we couldn’t possibly take Klein’s arguments seriously — unless we are prepared to move backwards into the days when it was acceptable to view people of colour as “savages” who are more “sexually voracious” than white people and unless we are prepared to believe that 14 year old girls just really love having sex with strange, older men.

This was the very first ad that came up in the Classifieds section at NOW, in the “Escorts” section.

Are we really expected to believe that these racist, sexist, objectifying ads have anything whatsoever to do with female sexuality or human rights? Is “Hot Asian Nurse” a “sexual orientation?”

These very same ads existed as hundreds of Aboriginal women and girls were going missing across Canada, yet Klein implies that, somehow, the existence of these ads would have saved them.

Klein’s arguments are not only untrue and dangerously sexist and racist, but they naturalize prostitution — pretending as though the industry somehow exists outside of capitalism and patriarchy, as a “sexuality” or sexual orientation. This is an odd argument because it’s clear that Klein wouldn’t include advertisements in her magazine unless she profited from the ads and unless the third parties placing the ads were profiting from the sale of the women in the ads she is now being pressured to stop running (Klein says she plans to continue running — and profiting from — ads placed by the “sex workers” themselves). Do people choose a sexual orientation because it’s profitable? Are women’s orgasms are dependent on capital? It seems clear that neither sexual orientation or female sexuality have anything to do with the sex industry or with Klein’s choice to continue to advertise for prostitution in NOW.

“There is a high price to be paid for resisting the norms of stigmatization and sexual shaming,” Klein writes. But in this case, the “high price” is her ability to make a living from and run NOW magazine.

Klein and NOW are not taking a stand against anything. If she simply admitted that the magazine needed the revenue it gained from prostitution advertisements, that would be one thing (not that I feel that would justify it), but it’s quite another to pretend as though you are choosing that source of revenue  as some kind of stand against “discrimination” or as a political show of support for human rights and sexual freedom.

Meghan Murphy
Meghan Murphy

Founder & Editor

Meghan Murphy is a freelance writer and journalist. She has been podcasting and writing about feminism since 2010 and has published work in numerous national and international publications, including New Statesman, Vice, Al Jazeera, The Globe and Mail, I-D, Truthdig, and more. Meghan completed a Masters degree in the department of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies at Simon Fraser University in 2012 and lives in Vancouver, B.C. with her dog.

Like this article? Tip Feminist Current!

$
Personal Info

Donation Total: $1

  • It seems like more often than not, activism becomes corrupted when organized on a large scale.

  • derrington

    Paedophiles also present their abuse of children as a freedom to express their sexuality human rights issue. Next we’ll have the pro murder group saying that anti murder laws are an infringement of their personal liberties. Thatcher once said there is no such thing as society and neo liberalism is hell bent on delivering her wish with the largest predators eating the smallest all over society – watch out babies, children, the disabled, women, people of colour and anyone else not deemed white, male or valuable as a commodity. This is truly psychopathic.

    • Morag

      “This is truly psychopathic.”

      It is!

  • “NOW supports its feisty independent journalism by selling advertising.”

    Klein needs to look up the definition of “independent”. Either that or she has failed to grasp the basic fact that money is power and those who contribute economically to the creation of a piece of media have influence over its content.

    She never actually states what horrible persecution her business has had to endure as a result of being pro-prostitution. Is she talking about people publicly expressing disapproval regarding the prostitution ads in the magazine and thus deciding not to buy it, because that is not persecution. No business has ever been able to please every possible consumer. As for the government disapproving of their activities, that is not persecution unless the government actually enforces the laws it creates against such activities. The fact that the magazine is still being published proves that this has not occured.

    • Jim in Toronto

      “She never actually states what horrible persecution her business has had to endure as a result of being pro-prostitution. Is she talking about people publicly expressing disapproval regarding the prostitution ads in the magazine and thus deciding not to buy it, because that is not persecution”

      Notwithstanding that I think Now is the Fox News of the left, and that I agree wholeheartedly that this is naked opportunism on Alice Klein’s part… both you and Meghan Murphy are being utterly dishonest here. First, Klein didn’t say she was being “persecuted” — that’s you putting words in her mouth. Second, Klein *did* state the price Now pays for being (inconsistenly) pro-prostitution: other advertisers decline to do business with Now because it runs ads for sex work. So yes, her choice has a measurable financial cost, albeit I’d suggest that Klein is being disingenuous by neglecting to mention that the costs of running prostitution ads are far outweighed by the profits.

      However, Meghan Murphy is being equally disingenuous by not including that part of the article here. The rest of the article makes a very effective case, but it’s totally undercut by the shameless distortion of facts that are apparent just by reading the linked article. Looks like Now has competition for the title of “Fox News of the left” after all.

      • Meghan Murphy

        I honestly don’t understand what it is you are accusing me of being ‘dishonest’ for? The entire article is linked to for anyone to read and I have no idea what part of the article you think I should have included in order to to have avoided being ‘dishonest?’ She obviously chooses to use sex work ads because they are the most profitable ads. Otherwise she wouldn’t publish them. That’s the point.

        • And it’s not like there is any real loss of revenue involved in this “price” for running sex work ads.

          Sex workers pay a huge premium on ad space, way more than non-sex ads cost. This premium covers the actual ad fee, while also recovering whatever revenue might have been gained from advertisers who pulled out. Since there is a finite amount of space in the paper, having sex workers pay for their own ads plus the “lost” potential ads is like getting to sell the same ad space twice.

          • Meghan Murphy

            Thanks for that info, sarah. I didn’t know that!

          • So Klein really is being dishonest about their “losses”.

            I seriously would like to know which businesses boycott NOW’s ad space because it profits from the sex industry/trafficking.

      • Right you are! Klein did not use the word “persecution”. She just said: “NOW Magazine has also paid and continues to pay for resisting the hypocritical moralism that would like to sweep the conversation about human sexual diversity under the rug”, which is NOTHING like persecution, right?? (Here’s the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persecute). You really are projecting in your accusations of “dishonesty”.

        You claim that the publication has had to withstand “a measurable financial cost”, although there is no concrete information as to the actual cost of losing advertisers who take their business elsewhere because NOW profits off of prostituted and trafficked women (Please see comment in this thread from Bridget – https://feministcurrent.com/10051/now-magazine-takes-a-stand-will-continue-to-generate-advertising-revenue-through-prostitution-advertisements/#comment-223338). Are you confident that such a cost exists “measurably” or are you just so pleased with yourself for coming up with the not-particularly-clever label “Fox News of the left” that you’ll use the most untenable criticisms just to publish it online?

        I would love to know which businesses do boycott NOW for that reason, (and would advertise there otherwise), if such exist, as I would like to offer them my support.

      • I took a brief look at the NOW magazine website and I think calling it the Fox News of the left is giving it too much credit. NOW does not strike me as a political magazine, it is mostly a lifestyle magazine with sections on fashion, restaurants and what junk to buy during the holidays. Shoving consumerism and trivial nonsense down people’s throats does not strike me as leftist.

        They might occassionally publish an article with intellectual merit, but the same can be said about other lifestyle and consumerism oriented magazines. Even some of their news articles are trivial like “Pet pics with Santa at the Humane Society’s Holiday Bazaar”, how totally newsworthy (not). I will give them credit for including an pro-Nordic model letter in their “Letters to the Editor”, but they also including a letter titled “Where can I get cover girl’s white dress?”. I am sure women everywhere were dying to know and that the editors did not receive a single letter more worthwhile of inclusion (*sarcasm*).

        I would not call such a vapid magazine “leftist”, especially when the political articles featured in the magazine are so moderate in their “leftism”. They treat the notion that ticket inspectors on trams should carry batons as if it could a legitimate idea, when I see such a thing as laughably absurd and oppressive. Compare their outrage at the thought that the Nordic Model may lead to police abusing prostituted women, with the calmness and nuance with which they discuss the implications of having to regularly encounter baton-carrying inspectors, who may use “excessive force”, whenever one boarded the tram. This tells me more than I need to know about NOW’s “leftism”.

        You can say I put words in her mouth if you want, I call it paraphrasing. “There is a high price to be paid for resisting the norms of stigmatization and sexual shaming” sounds a lot like “we are being persecuted for our sex liberal beliefs” to me. Besides, if the economic benefits of running the ads outweighes the costs than the statement “we are being persecuted” is actually less dishonest than the claim that they are paying a high price for featuring pro-prostitution advertisements. The latter statement actually reverses the truth. The claim that they are being persecuted is at least true to an extent, because they are being discriminated against for their pro-prostitution stance, but in my view the discrimination is too minor to be considering “persecution” and also totally legitimate.

        And Meghan is not obligated to include every minor fact from the original article in her article, especially when the fact in question ultimately turns out to be irrelevant. If they are getting more money from promoting prostitution than they are losing, then what Meghan says is ultimately right. They are benefiting economically from their decision to include sex industry advertisements in their magazine, who cares if a few businesses look down on them.

  • corvid

    I have no idea how Ms. Klein reconciles the blatant, extreme racism and misogyny that occurs in NOW’s back pages (and often in their content as sex-industry support pieces) with her commitment to “human rights.” The argument that prostitution on both sides of the transaction is a sexual identity on par with LBGTQ has got to stop. The prostituted are abused and murdered not by “stigma”, but by MEN. Other workers in “under-the-table” jobs are not treated with remotely the same violence and contempt. Why? Prostitution exists because men want a class of women (and sometimes other men) to take out their entitlement on. This doesn’t stop with full decrim or legalization, as we have seen. The reality of this situation becomes extremely obvious when you listen to what exited women say, when you look at the demeaning, racist, misogynistic advertising and attitudes of men.

  • pisaquari

    Where is Klein’s ad for her sexual services?

  • Reader

    “She complains that “NOW Magazine has also paid and continues to pay for resisting the hypocritical moralism that would like to sweep the conversation about human sexual diversity under the rug, and the age-old practice of sex work into back alleys,” but the opposite is true. NOW hasn’t “paid” any price for their support and promotion of prostitution — rather they have profited. Prostitution doesn’t promote “human sexual diversity,” it promotes old-fashioned, rigid ideas about sex and sexuality, reinforcing the notion that men are the aggressors when it come to sex and that women are the passive objects sex simply happens to, that men have irrepressible desire, that it is women’s duty to satiate said desire, and that women exist for men — as entertainment and consumable objects.”

    That is totally it! Twisting things and dressing it up in progressive language when it is the same old exploitation of women – and why? So their publication can make money. Excellent commentary, Meghan – you tell it like it is!

  • Survivorthrrver

    I subscribed to MS starting in 1976. I quit supporting them when Gloria Steinem spoke on her fundraising tours and was very public about her boyfriends – seemed more interested in her boyfriends than feminism.

    I think greed takes over. Agreed Miep, power corrupts. Golden handcuffs bind the leaders – can’t rock the boat or the next big vacay gone, huh?

    MS magazine should be ashamed of the public promotion of female subordination and paid rape.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Do you mean to say that NOW magazine should be ashamed?

  • What a vile, sick, disgusting article by NOW magazine. I’m hearing from a survivor that NOW advertised her when she was underage. I hope she’ll come here to comment.

    “Is “Hot Asian Nurse” a “sexual orientation?”” <– no fucking kidding!

    • corvid

      Another thing that really burns about this is that otherwise progressive people automatically drop their ersatz feminist views as soon as the words “sex work” are uttered. Like in what other context would self-described feminists think it reasonable to refer to Asian women as “sexy Asian nurses” or any of the other euphemisms that get written into these ads? Pimps and johns continue to get away with heinous misogyny while people hem and haw because they feel they can’t criticize “sex work.” The saddest and most disturbing implication of this is that it exemplifies this ingrained idea about the prostituted operating under different standards than the rest of us, i.e., not worthy of respect or humanity.

      • C.K. Egbert

        Exactly. Ostensibly “progressive” people might be in favor of sexual harassment law (managers cannot ask for sexual favors from employees in order to get or keep their jobs). And yet when economic coercion becomes most extreme, when it becomes a matter of life and death, suddenly it becomes “liberating” (just like when sexual abuse becomes most violent–BDSM–it becomes liberating too).

        So it’s not about the type of coercion that they disagree with (if they are genuinely in favor of sexual harassment protections). It’s about the type of woman and the context in which she is protected (mostly white, middle class, and educated women who have “regular” jobs in the “public sphere”), which leaves most women in most contexts unprotected from male violence and exploitation.

        • Lola

          You are so right!

      • Morag

        “The saddest and most disturbing implication of this is that it exemplifies this ingrained idea about the prostituted operating under different standards than the rest of us, i.e., not worthy of respect or humanity.”

        Oh my god, yes. This is why people, in general, don’t care about the prostituted. They are applying a different standard than they would apply to themselves. They are applying a much lower standard of human dignity to those who are prostituted. This is an insidious form of victim-blaming: they are dehumanized FOR having been dehumanized.

        That’s what all the “choice” and “empowerful” talk is about: to support the lowly person in her lowly status–in other words, to keep her down there, so that others may have higher status in comparison –while, at the same time, covering up the crime of her dehumanization.

        People who support “sex workers” (i.e., not to escape, but to do “sex work”) actually have nothing but contempt for them. And these supporters of sex work must cover up their contempt and dehumanization of prostitutes by projecting their own crimes onto the very people who are working to humanize and protect the prostituted (e.g., exited/activist girls and women and feminist activists like Meghan Murphy).

        • Especially insightful and eloquent comment, Morag.

    • I would seriously love for someone to ask her if she supports the racism and misogyny in those ads. She will probably fumble in the dark for her “sex-positive cards” and just sew a paragraph together using those cards.

      • Morag

        Yeah. What would she sew together? Here are some possibilities:

        – it’s just fantasy

        – it’s just playful

        – sex workers are reclaiming racial slurs

        – sex workers are reclaiming sexist slurs

        – it’s sex workers’ choice

        – sex workers make their own ads — not little ol’ me

        – sex workers are free to advertise as they please

        – sexual diversity! — ain’t it grand?

        … and probably a lot more that I’m forgetting.

  • Codi Johnson

    They can count on never having support from me.

  • Bridget

    Now magazine never once ask me or the girls who I worked with under a pimp how old we were they just happily took our money and posted our ads most of us were between the ages 14-17 and we were all trafficked!

    • Meghan Murphy

      How principled!

  • The most genuinely principled decision would be to refuse to take any ‘sex worker’ money and suck up the costs of running the ads for free as if they were part of the paper’s own non-advertisement content. NOW would be within the law (I think) and prostituted women would get to keep the money the editor recognizes they so desperately need.

    If Klein cared for women more than she cared for the loss of prostitution ad revenue, this would be her course of action.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Right! If this were simply about supporting marginalized women, she could simply let the women post their ads for free.

      • This. Access to online advertising DOES make the difference between working from a hotel and working on the street, at least for some sex workers, and that does affect things like relative safety, relative comfort and level of income.

        But the sale of advertising is about making money off sex workers’labour, without having to actually sell sex themselves (I’ll bet paper money that Klein doesn’t come from the kind of poverty that I do, so she doesn’t need to empower herself by giving $80 blowjobs).

        To pretend otherwise is beyond nonsensical. It’s insulting.

        I have supported decriminalization for years, but while doing so I have been asking, over over, often to a response questioning the sex positiveness of my politics, wtf kind of world everyone expected the sex industry to decriminalize into.

        Why should I support leeches who make their wealth on my back? Why should I pretend the people who exploit me are somehow my comrades, when they would sell me out in a heartbeat if that would make them better money? Because they’re the only people who will approve of all my dirty sex….?? Funny how that stigma is suddenly working in favour of me handing my hard earned cash over to someone else.

        If NOW had principles, the ads would have been free all along. It frustrates me so much that I’m supposed to celebrate a business that exists to take sex workers’ money just because they claim to be the only ones who aren’t judging me for being a whore.

      • Martin Dufresne

        Even having free ads from prostituted women would be a way for third parties such as NOW and exploitive websites to attract more male readers and advertisers catering to their tastes – as do pornography magazines and bars that advertise specials for ladies’ nights.

        • Morag

          Agreed, Martin. Free or not free, these advertisements lead to profit for NOW Magazine. And, free or not free, these ads still exist to maintain male privilege and to maintain an underclass of women for men to exploit. NOW cannot let down its readers

          Also: how else can we be always sure that women belong to the less-than-human sex-class? Women’s sexual/racial subordination MUST be graphically depicted everywhere, and at all times. It is required. Lest we forget.

  • ArgleBargle

    I had been counting down the days when I could open up NOW magazine and turn to the back pages and no longer see female torsos being offered up for anal, oral and vaginal penetration to any strange man with enough cash and no soul.
    Very disappointed but, really, not surprised at all that Ms Klein is gearing up for a legal fight, because, you know, the money.

  • aladywrites

    What about Kathleen Wynne? Another example of the way that women who rise to the top of very male-dominated fields tend to be as sexist or more so than the men? Or just that she’s been gullibly bamboozled by the sex-pozzies? Or a bit of both? Perhaps following orders from Justin’s team? In any case, pathetic.

    Coming on the heels of the many prominent supposedly progressive and feminist women who reflexively took Jian Ghomeshi’s side initially, this is disappointing but not surprising.

    I find that less educated, less privileged women often have the most solid feminist values and analysis, much more so than those I encountered at leftist grad school. It seems like higher education and mainstream success are often about training women to internalise misogyny.

    • I think Wynne has been “gullibly bamboozled by the sex-pozzies.” They’re the only ones getting media attention from any publication other than Feminist Current.

      • ArgleBargle

        Kathleen Wynne is a smart politician. She knows about lobby groups and she knows how to research. Anyone who researches the issue of men prostituting women, men and children for even a short while will quickly come upon survivor accounts detailing the physical and emotional harms they were subjected to. A quick search brings up research studies about the incidence of violence in the trade and the percentage of those prostituted now struggling to overcome the PTSD caused by having to deal with so many men raping them day after day.

        Evidence is also readily available regarding the harm caused all women and girls who must live in a society that accepts that it is OK to have a class of women available for men to rape and degrade in person and on film.

        Just recently, Kathleen Wynne announced that the government was developing new initiatives to encourage more victims of sexual assault to come forward and report. Yet she ignores the voices of the many in her own province who report that their experience of prostitution was of men paying to rape and abuse them.

        Ms Wynne is making a choice not to see, which is, as Morag pointed out, not hard to do once you choose to see women in prostitution as something other than vulnerable human beings like yourself.

  • Meh

    OOMMGGG this is too ridiculous for me to absorb. The way that these arseholes justify their transparently abusive behaviour is just amazing.

    I laughed my fucking arse off at the notion of “Hot Asian Nurse” being a new sexuality LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!

    I’m trying to convince myself that this is just evolution, and that the fucktards at NOW are the weak link in the chain (and therefore, won’t continue multiplying). We can only hope.

  • marv

    NOW is an ‘indicator species’ of our social environment: “A species whose presence, absence, or relative well-being in a given environment is a sign of the overall health [or sickness] of its ecosystem.”
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indicator+species

    NOW is one indication of the widespread neoliberal virus in our milieu. It’s the business model of social development where rational profit-seeking individuals provide advertising space to market products/women to boost sales and customer base. Green organizations are doing it too under the euphemism of biosphere sustainability. Feminist socialism is the antidote.

    • Meh

      “neoliberal virus” – YES!

  • Rebel Nana

    These new laws are a start in the right direction – but the issues run deep – and will continue until marginalized and at-risk women are afforded more resources i.e. free post-secondary education, free day care, no-wait times for free counselling, and simply more choices. Sadly today in Toronto an escort is robbed and assaulted – http://www.cp24.com/news/suspects-sought-after-violent-sexual-assault-robbery-at-etobicoke-hotel-1.2140048

    But this type of male entitlement to women is increasing – many organizations and campuses have programs and workshops for women on how to be safe such as safe walk programs, emergency call buttons, rape crises units (albeit after the fact) – where in the hell are the programs geared towards teaching men not to be violent – where are the workshops to teach mean that they are not entitled to women’s bodies. And lastly what has happened to advertising censorship – can we not force the capitalists to stop sexually objectifying girls and women. As bell hooks says “There should be billboards; ads in magazines; ads on buses, subways, trains, television commercials spreading the word, letting the world know more about feminism.” Enough with the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.

    • Rebel Nana

      Allow me to reiterate: Sadly today and Everyday women the world over are assaulted and robbed of their dignity to be just humans.

  • Martin Dufresne

    I am not giving up on PM Wynne at this stage. She has merely expressed concern and asked her Attorney General for an assessment of the constitutionality of C-36. The sex industry is of course eager to present this as an unqualified win. Let’s not concede it to them.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Well considering she’s only *just* developed this sudden interest in Canada’s prostitution law, it’s likely she doesn’t have all the information and is simply being manipulated by the decrim camp.

  • Morag

    “In a touching love letter to capitalism, Alice Klein, editor of NOW, a magazine whose survival depends, in large part, on revenue from prostitution advertisements, proclaims the publication will boldly go where everyone has gone before and continue to profit from the exploitation and objectification of female bodies.”

    I love the opening of this essay.

    ” … boldly go where everyone has gone before … ” — exactly. Alice Klein has done a real reversal of reality here, hasn’t she? She’s a coward, but she calls herself brave. She makes money by exploiting women, but calls herself a defender of the marginalized. She allows race to be sexualized and commodified in her magazine, and calls this “feisty.” It’s all gas-lighting. What contempt Alice has for her readers. Almost as much as she has for exploited women.

  • Ellesar

    What I would like to know is WTF has prostitution got to do with ‘human sexual diversity’?! As you say prostitution is in NO WAY progressive. Women’s sexual diversity has NOTHING to gain from prostitution.

  • FormerLurker

    Has anybody even talked about NOW since the ’70’s? Maybe they should change their name to THEN.