Being Amber Rhea

He’s pissed because he doesn’t think about repercussions, he just thinks about action and then more action — he says something douchebaggy, he apologizes, there, done, move on, like there is no past, only now, he is in charge of the present. He can tell RKB to stop writing about him but not address his non-desire to censor HuffPo. He can call everyone a bitch and then apologize. Just as he’s entitled to drink as much as he wants and still expect privileges (I don’t know any woman who carries that kind of entitlement) like actually having girls around him. He’s entitled to being the king of the male sex blog-gods. He’s entitled to have everything just the way he wants it.

— Commenter riese on that ongoing thread

I’ve lost what little patience I had left.

The following words and phrases, as so often tossed about in the blogosphere, mainstream media - hell, most anywhere - by people sitting up on their high horses feeling so proud of themselves, get me steaming; and with rare exception (as I will always reiterate that context matters), are cues for me to stop listening, because I’ve better things to do than hop aboard the Bullshit Train for another trip round the Armchair Psych Ward.

• Can’t take a joke
• Credibility
• Criticism
• Critique
• Defensive
• Ethics
• Humorless
• Integrity
• Just disagreeing
• Race card
• Satire
• Sensitive
• 4:38 p.m., ETA: Thin-skinned
• Whiners

Congratulations, you’ve got a non-argument. How about a little originality, for once?

Everybody’s a damn expert. I’m sick of it.

12:16 p.m.: Edited to put in alpha order.

Haven’t we heard this before?

Rob Peters, a reporter from Vancouver, says:

Some difficult truths have been brought to light by the personal blogging blitz of the last few years. One such revelation is that most of us aren’t as interesting as we think. Waking up every day and jotting down some deep thoughts about breakfast is a difficult way to sustain any kind of readership.

I could not disagree more. What blogging brings to light for me - and I know I’m not alone in this - is that people are infinitely interesting.

Not every single person is going to be interesting to every single other person. But that’s not news; that’s a fact of human existence, and why would we hold blogging to ridiculous, unrealistic standards that we don’t apply to other aspects of life?

And anyway, why is anyone still publishing this recycled tripe? Every 6 months or so, some know-it-all writes a piece on the “death” of blogging, or how it’s causing Very Bad Things to happen, or how it’s lost its innocence, or whatever other cliché they’ve dredged up for the moment. I guess maybe it’s a guaranteed will-publish if you’re having a dry spell?

On a personal note, I’m not having the best day - in fact, someone on a blog just saw fit to inform me that they “don’t appreciate anything about [me].” Do I blame blogging, though? Give me a break. I think you know the answer to that one.

That reminds me - a post on civil communication is in the works, too.

Seriously. What the hell, people.

On that increasingly headdesk-inducing thread - where the word “strawman” would be applicable, but I loathe that word, so I’m refraining from using it for now - I said (double blockquotes are me quoting someone else):

Feminism is about standing up for women, all women, I agree. I do struggle with standing up for a woman who as First Lady would be part of implementing anti-women policies, but gotta do it anyway. Pretty far down on my list though. Really far down. Somewhere below “check out Laura Bush’s chili recipe” and “what is Phyllis Schlafly up to these days?”

I think you’re still missing the point. I didn’t read this post as a defense of Cindy McCain, or really anything specific to her at all - she was an example, of which there are countless others. The point I got was, it’s not okay to vilify women based on some perceived stereotypical external traits that we really know jack shit about. If we talk shit about a woman for being blonde and thin, we’re no better than the assholes we call out for talking shit about a woman being the opposite.

and:

But even if we DID prove that her policies were not egalitarian, which to me is unclear at this point, it STILL doesn’t give us license to call her a Barbie or “stupid hair” or Stepford.

And this is REALLY Feminism 101. How many of us have lamented the seeming inability of men to argue with us based on our views, and not bring our looks into it? Surely we’ve all noticed that attacks on a woman’s looks are de rigeur when one disagrees with her. We need to lead by example. You can absolutely HATE a woman’s position on certain issues, hell, her entire philosophy on LIFE - but that does not give you license to attack her looks. I cannot stand Ann Coulter - I think she’s a hateful person. But you’ll never hear me making cracks about her looks. Unfortunately the same can’t be said for other self-identified progressives. (”Man Coulter,” anyone?)

and:

But what does that boil down to, dismissing? Is it dismissive to not write laudatory blog posts about CMcC? Is it ok if I simply ignore her?

Seems like you’re arguing against an argument Octo (nor anyone else on this thread) did not actually make. It’s not about whether or not you like Cindy McCain. It’s about using sexist language to refer to her (or any other woman). That’s NOT OKAY no matter who the woman is. You can hate her guts, but if you start taking jabs at her looks or calling her a cunt or what-have-you, you’ve crossed a line into unacceptable territory.

and lastly:

Calling someone a Stepford isn’t so much an insult as naming her oppression.

Nope, what it’s doing is taking away her agency, much in the same way as this bullshit.

I do not see why this is a difficult concept.

You can hate Cindy McCain, but you cannot substitute critiques of her *looks* for critiques of her *political views* and expect the argument that sexist language is unacceptable to hold a whole hell of a lot of water elsewhere.

I fully support Ren declaring herself the god-emperor of Rome for the day.

Common sense, people. Let me show you it.

I do not understand that while there is no question that sexism affects everyone, there is such a refusal to see that there is a great difference between “slut” and “stud”. Or that cat-calling, honking, or otherwise making loud overtures towards a woman will, often, annoy the shit out of that woman and it is, generally, not something men have to deal with as often, if at all. I give a thumbs up to the idea that attraction is natural, but a thumbs down to “society expects/forces this behavior on us, thus I must”…the God Emperor of Rome believes in free will. And that both men and women are capable of employing it and using it to not do what society tells them to do all the time.

And seriously, I do not understand why more men are not, apparently, offended at the idea that they’re basically mindless automatons doing whatever society or “biology” (to which they often nebulously appeal) tells them to do. ‘Cause I’d be pretty offended if people were suggesting I’m incapable of making my own decisions. Oh wait, people are suggesting that, and yeah, I’m offended!

Sometimes my mind just boggles at the, well, mind-boggling stupidity of it all.

Which reminds me of the title of a post I need to write: “I am not a patient person.”

Ren has yet another anonymous commenter (a.k.a. troll) on her blog. He exhibits many of the characteristics on the Anti-Feminist BINGO card, as well as the follow-up version 2 of said card.

I don’t bother to engage w/ such people, and I recommend against anyone else doing so. But if you want a synopsis, here’s shorter (longer?) Anony:

“Yeah, I mean it sucks that a woman’s sexual history will be put on trial in a rape case and could determine whether or not the rapist is convicted, and if she has ever dared to admit to liking sex that must mean she likes it all the time, with anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances, so how could she be raped; and never mind if she’s a sex worker, and yeah it sucks that sex workers are often abused by law enforcement. I mean sure it sucks that men are congratulated for sexual ‘conquests’ while women are called sluts and their emotional wellbeing, physical health, mental health, competence as parents, competence in their jobs, etc. are called into question all because they dare to have sex on their terms; yeah it’s pretty crappy that women have had their children taken away from them and deemed to be unfit parents, or lost their jobs over sexual activity between consenting adults; yeah I guess it’s a pain in the butt that a woman’s entire self-worth is judged based on the state of her hymen; and it must be kinda annoying dealing with sexual harassment and having it written off as ‘just a joke’ or her being ‘too sensitive,’ and anyway didn’t she ask for it if she’s dressed that way, why doesn’t she want a little attention? Yeah it could suck not being able to walk around by yourself without people yelling comments, not to mention groped and having your physical space disrespected and having no recourse, that must be a minor inconvenience sometimes. ….

But men get made fun of if they can’t find sexual partners! So stop being sexist and talk about THAT! Why can’t you be rational and logical, just like ME!”

As I mentioned on Twitter yesterday, I am totally feeling Kim’s sentiment in this post. I could barely read the whole thing without breaking down in tears.

I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary (I voted for Obama) but it wasn’t because I actively disliked her. No matter what kind of irrational vitriol people spewed about her, I’ve always had a fondness for her. And it isn’t “just because she’s a woman” (which pisses me off that that’s dismissed with a just so much of the time) - I mean take a look at the nice round-up Octo has of HRC’s (can’t type that without thinking Human Rights Campaign) policies and such - a lot of which is stuff she did FOR WOMEN, which yes, matters to me a whole hell of a lot and I will not allow that to be trivialized. (But we’re so used to putting our needs last, as women… why should this be any different?)

I will vote for Obama in the general election, of course; and I cannot comprehend the faulty logic of Democrats/progressives/non-Republicans/whatever who say they will vote for McCain as a protest against Hillary not getting the nomination.

BUT.

It will be hard - impossible, I’m sure - to forget all the bullshit that went down in this primary season. The blatant sexism on display with hardly anyone calling it out - and those who did dare to call it out getting ridiculed and shouted down.

Same as it ever was, right talking heads?

It will be very, very hard to ignore the way this all burned inside of me such that I didn’t even want to blog about it, because it felt, as so many things that never make their way to this blog do, too raw. Not coincidentally, that’s the same word Kim used.

And all this, coming from me, who typically feels disinterested in electoral politics! (Although I always vote, of course.) This whole brouhaha has reaffirmed for me why I don’t get heavily involved in political stuff or watch cable “news.”* It’s not just because I find it utterly boring to speculate on who will get what nomination and blah blah blah.

Side note re: cable “news:” To quote something Rusty said the other night as we watched Jon Stewart interview Scott McClellan… “Can you imagine what it would be like if the actual media asked the hard questions Jon Stewart asks?” To which I replied, “I think he can only get away with it because he can use the defense of being a comedy show, not real news. That’s how fucked up we’ve gotten with the media and our concept of news.”

Anyway.

Pre-emptive note, btw, to commenters… I don’t need anyone to lecture me about why BHO is a better candidate than HRC, why HRC sucks, or any of it. That’s not what this post is about, and such comments will be deleted. I think they both would have made great candidates - great Presidents, I should say - and I think they both have their pros and cons in terms of policies and politics.

But that’s never what it’s been about, of course. And accordingly that’s not what this post is about.

All I can end with is, well… the same thing I started with… *sigh*.

I recently had to ban another commenter. He left two bizarre, assholish comments. And I had no idea who he was, even though he claimed to have met me. (It wasn’t until after I’d banned him that I recollected who he was, thanks to a Twitter reminder from a mutual acquaintance… but I won’t go into that, out of respect for said mutual acquaintance [whom I consider a friend, actually]).

His work can be seen here and here.

After noticing he’d been banned, he sent me the following email, with the subject line “pardon me”:

Apologies for, apparently, shitting on your blog. Whatever it was that pissed you off was unintentional.

have a nice life

This, dear readers and generally sane people of the world, is what we call a NON-APOLOGY.

Not to mention the nearly unfathomable obtuseness of it all. Whatever it was that pissed me off? As if it’s just so difficult to imagine just what that might have been. No clue, really! I must be off my gourd, because seriously, what could it have been!

And then, the clincher… the trademark of non-apologies…

“It was unintentional.”

Well whoopdy-freakin’-do! That makes everything okay, then!

You know, I really do not understand why so many people use the “I didn’t mean to!” thing as some kind of shield. Why do they think that matters?? You didn’t mean to. Okay, great - so you’re not a complete sociopath. And? The act is done. The impact is made. You’ve gotta deal with the fallout caused by YOUR action - intentional or not.

I keep coming back to this post.

All kinds of people do this. Hell, I’ve done it myself, on occasion. And I do think there are rare (I repeat, rare) occasions where clarification of intent does matter. But those are the exception, not the rule, and the ones I can think of would all involve people who know each other really well.

The non-apology. It’s a perennial non-favorite.

Excellent video:

Please repost!

(Via Derek.)

Last night, Jen and Tony were kind enough to give me the dubious gift of a copy of the latest issue of The Sunday Paper. The cover story is (in huge pink letters), “ATLANTA’S HOOKER SCHOOL.” Then in smaller letters, the subhead: “New Program Aims To Make Prostitution A Risky Business For Johns.” (Okay, so it’s not really a hooker school at all, is it, dumbasses? It’s a johns school. But that won’t grab readers by the throat the way “HOOKER SCHOOL” will.)

Now, for those of you who aren’t in Atlanta, The Sunday Paper is a pretty worthless rag. It always has sensationalistic, overblown headlines, especially in the cover stories (I remember one with a big explosion on the cover, and something like “Countdown to Armageddon” - and they were totally serious) and generally includes some of the worst writing I’ve seen in a print publication. They try to publish “controversial” stories with the most watered-down, trite mockery of point/counterpoint you can imagine. And here’s how I think they go about writing features: they have a template, and they drag and drop various talking points from a database, maybe some clip art as well (e.g., in this case: photo of fishnet-clad legs and high heels, standing in a dark alleyway; Julia Roberts 20 years ago), and click “Generate story.” Voila! Your next issue is complete.

I said that at the table last night, and Kim brought up a good point, that if she were still working at a newspaper and getting paid $8.00 an hour, she wouldn’t exactly pour her heart and soul into researching every story in-depth and writing a thought-provoking, well-rounded piece. Can’t say I blame her. And The Sunday Paper is a free weekly, so who knows what those writers are getting paid. This is a topic that isn’t discussed much in all the various rants about the mainstream media and why they suck so badly. So maybe new media and independent media (often the same thing, but not always) can fill the void? But that’s a tangent for another time.

I’m always torn on stories like this. One the one hand, they’re such pathetic, rehashed tripe, that it feels like a waste of time and energy to address them at all. But then I think, that kind of rationale might make sense in some other situations, but when it comes to sex workers’ rights advocacy, we are dealing with an issue that is literally (yes, literally!) life and death for many people, mostly women; and it’s an issue fraught with layers and layers of bullshit, where all of a sudden everybody thinks they’re a damn expert, and everybody loves to hear themselves talk except they can’t be bothered to listen to the people who are actually affected by all the laws and stigma and such; and the silence is rather deafening when it comes to calling bullshit.

So, I feel compelled to call bullshit, yet again. And I just hope that if people keep on calling it out whenever they see it, whether on 20/20 or in some piddly little hometown rag, maybe progress can slowly be made.

Kim actually read the article before me (I didn’t read it last night when we were at Manuel’s), and afterward, she said, “Yeah, you’re going to need your meds after reading this.”

The article starts off talking about how “hookers” are portrayed on film (because that’s so relevant), and how it’s in stark contrast to “the truth.” (Yeah, the truth which includes sex workers being talked about but not talked with, and called “hookers.”) From there it’s just a matter of marking off the various Bingo squares. It includes the phrase “selling their bodies” and refers to them being “victims of abuse.” (No sources are cited, of course, but why bother? I mean we all just know this is true.) And oh of course there’s that whole thing about how “john’s schools” don’t work, but why get sidetracked with that annoying little piece of information?

They do include a quote or two from Carol Leigh (a.k.a. Scarlot Harlot) representing SWOP, which is more than most articles of this type do. But I’m not giving them a cookie. No, they don’t get a gold star for doing what should be the bare minimum in anything purporting to call itself a journalistic endeavor.

One thing that I really hate about bullshit articles like this is that they reinforce the idea in so many people’s minds that “sex worker” == “street prostitute.” Hell, that’s what I thought until I was 18 or 19. In fact, street workers account for only 10%-20% of all prostitutes/escorts/courtesans (not using the term “sex workers” here since that term encompasses many other types of work).

And once again, they don’t give a shit about actually helping sex workers, or any of it. (I know The Sunday Paper certainly didn’t come right out and say, “We care about sex workers!” but with all the victim language and talk about the “johns,” that’s what the superficial message clearly is - even if it falls miserably flat with its condescending, pearl-clutching tone.) They make bank on perpetuating the very stereotypes and stigma they dramatically wring their hands about in articles such as these. It’s so transparent it’s pathetic. Sex workers aren’t people after all… they’re just an easy way to move some papers!

Here’s an IM conversation I had with the lovely SakuraSarashi mere minutes ago:

[11:18] sakurasarashi: just got an interesting comment on my blog
[11:20] AmberATL30309: interesting how?
[11:20] sakurasarashi: its SUPER long
[11:20] sakurasarashi: and its from an ex creepy guy
[11:20] sakurasarashi: on the entry i made after being harassed that night
[11:21] AmberATL30309: oh wonderful, one of THOSE
[11:21] AmberATL30309: one word… DELETE
[11:21] sakurasarashi: i approved it… he took a lot of time writing it
[11:21] AmberATL30309: fuck him
[11:21] sakurasarashi: and made some interesting points
[11:21] AmberATL30309: you don’t owe him shit
[11:21] sakurasarashi: and was very respectful
[11:22] AmberATL30309: well, it’s your call. but i used to be all concerned about the delicate fee-fees of assholes on blogs, and then i realized, why? they have no right to my space. they got somethign to say, they can say it on their own blog.
[11:22] sakurasarashi: oh yeah, i have deleted disrespectful comments
[11:22] sakurasarashi: but i dont mind this one… just thought it was interesting
[11:23] AmberATL30309: i’m reading it. he sounds like an asshole.
[11:23] AmberATL30309: classic “Nice Guy”
[11:23] sakurasarashi: haha
[11:23] AmberATL30309: he should read the Don’t Be That Guy post i linked to last night
[11:23] sakurasarashi: i am SO going to link that
[11:23] AmberATL30309: seriously, anyone who makes a statemetn like “Guys are assholes” and leaves it at that? FUCK THEM
[11:23] sakurasarashi: in reply to him
[11:24] sakurasarashi: he has some hella WMP too
[11:24] AmberATL30309: WMP?
[11:24] AmberATL30309: “It’s taken me years of hard work to reduce my creepiness.” - bwahahaha!! oh really, dear, do tell!
[11:24] sakurasarashi: white male privilege
[11:24] AmberATL30309: uh, yeah, he’s kind of drowning in it
[11:25] AmberATL30309: clue phone is ringing… guess what dude… you are STILL CREEPY
[11:25] sakurasarashi: haha
[11:25] AmberATL30309: i’m sorry (actually, i’m not) but guys like this make me sick
[11:25] AmberATL30309: all tiny violin and male privilege
[11:25] sakurasarashi: i can tell
[11:26] sakurasarashi: lol
[11:26] AmberATL30309: i’ve just seen it so many times that it’s SO not funny anymore
[11:26] sakurasarashi: yeah
[11:27] AmberATL30309: anyway, like i said, your call. if it were me, i’d either delete the comment, or repost the comment with the FAIL stamp on top of it
[11:27] sakurasarashi: i was ALREADY in the process of the fail stamp thing
[11:27] sakurasarashi: hahahaha
[11:27] AmberATL30309: lol!!!
[11:27] AmberATL30309: GMTA
[11:27] sakurasarashi: I KNOW!
[11:27] sakurasarashi: can i quote you on the “clue phone ringing thing?
[11:28] AmberATL30309: indeed
[11:28] AmberATL30309: and now to get super meta, can i blog this whole damn IM convo?
[11:28] sakurasarashi: yes
[11:28] AmberATL30309: awesome

Here is the comment in question. It is an EPIC FAIL, as you will see from the number of stamps it required. (It actually could’ve used a few more, but my stamp pad ran out of ink.)

[Click for larger image version, if you're so inclined.]

I’m not saying where this came from, but I hate headlines like this: “Quick Breakfasts That Kids and Dads Can Prepare.”

Kids, sure. But dads? Come on. Way to infantilize grown men.

It’s so simple! Even dad can do it! Because he’s not much smarter than a trained monkey!

(If I had a screenshot of the headline, it would get the FAIL stamp.)

Perfect example of male privilege, from a commenter on Jenny’s blog:

I said something about how it’s evident to me that sexism still exists in our society because women get cat-called and belittled and judged on their looks by strangers, and he said…

“Can’t you just yell back at them? There’s nothing stopping you from yelling back at them! You can do it too!”

:|

I cannot tell you how many times I have had a similar exchange with some dude. My reaction has gone from flustered to outraged to nonplussed and now to a feeling I can describe only as, “Would you prefer to be kicked in the pants, or the head? Here, just sign on the dotted line.”

So here’s the long and short of it. This coming Monday, Ren was supposed to be involved in a forum at William and Mary College about porn, sex work, and feminism. She and Jill Brenneman were going to debate John Foubert, the W&M professor who had a conniption fit about the Sex Workers Art Show coming to the campus, and renowned friend to women everywhere (seriously you guys, she loves women, now shut your stupid face about it before she sics her minions on you) Sam Berg, whose accomplishments include popularizing the portmanteau “pornstitution” and refusing to leave a beaten horse good and dead.

I was all set to write a post about it and encourage anyone within driving distance of W&M to head up there to witness the dressing down of John and Sam this historical meeting of the minds.

But now it seems, Ren has been “uninvited” to the forum. If you said “WTF??” to that, you’re not alone.

Apparently Ms. Berg is “uncomfortable” being in the same room as Ren. (She’s got the sex pox cooties, ya know!)

Seriously y’all… give me a fucking break!

So presumably, the forum will go on, and will consist of a bunch of people who are not sex workers opining loudly, vehemently, and at great length on the evils of porn (with plenty of salacious details and X-rated language, no doubt), and the ins and outs of the ritual whippings that take place on every porn set in America, and the secret chip that’s implanted in the neck of every sex worker who says she enjoys her job… and all the other various top-secret info only they have access to, being super-special Select Feminists™, of course.

God forbid Sam have to actually spew her hateful tripe directly in the face of a living, breathing sex worker. That would make things too difficult; it might threaten the One True Path! In that case, I can’t say I blame her for not wanting Ren there… you know, a sex worker who isn’t a walking embodiment of a stereotype (which, btw, the caricatures of sex workers as drug-addicted, self-loathing victims of untold travesties is totally not patriarchal, no, not at all).

Update: Ren clarifies that she hasn’t officially been uninvited yet. Apparently one of the students organizing the forum (the same group of students, btw, who brought the Sex Workers Art Show to W&M and had to deal w/ Foubert’s ensuing brouhaha) is trying to talk some sense into Sam Berg. We’ll see how that goes… I really, really hope they don’t let her walk all over everyone.

Once again, file under “Typical.”

She describes it perfectly…

As smart, sensitive and educated as this good man is, he still has difficulty really understanding the female experience. That’s how insidious misogyny is in our culture; men just can’t see it. And when it’s pointed out, it makes them uncomfortable & defensive. “Hey, not all men say/think/do that… I don’t!”

As if that’s what I am saying when I point out the crap; as if I am blaming him personally.

Then there’s the, “If it’s not everyone, then don’t worry about it,” and the looks that say, “Oh, gawd, there she goes again…” as if I’m “one of those foaming at the mouth feminists” because I won’t just sit there silently and take it.

This is what I was trying to describe to Rusty the other night, about a certain asshole commenter who used to come around my blog all the time until I banned him, and even though he was an intelligent person he would ALWAYS try to find ANY other explanation for an obviously sexist situation than, well, sexism. It’s like, if YOU’RE “not like that,” then why are you so fucking afraid of admitting that YES, sexism exists, and calling it out when it does??

Oh wait, because maybe you are “like that.” That’s the ugly truth.

So frustrating!

Commenter “Could Be Your Sister” on Bound, Not Gagged:

There are a number of things that I simply do not discuss openly because of my activism for sex workers rights.

If I say I was never sexually abused or never worked the streets or never had a drug problem, then I automatically become some exception.

If I am an abuse survivor or did street-work or ever used drugs, then I instantly prove their theories.

It’s too often a no-win situation, where my truth is not welcome.

(Yes, I give them a ton of pingbacks… because they deserve ‘em! People, if you’re not reading BNG, you really need to start.)

In the past two days, the media has been increasingly clamoring to talk to sex workers and sex workers’ rights activists (who are often one in the same). Late last night there was an influx of media requests, but I had to go to sleep.

Take a gander at some of the requests Dacia received, for example.

A sampling from my inbox and phone queries today:

From Fox News:
“I am trying to find someone to explain how credit card payments work with escort services. Specifically, how do you make sure the name of the escort service does not show up on a credit card bill. If anyone can explain that I would be very grateful.”

“Good Morning America is looking for anyone who has ever worked in high-end prostitution as a madam or sex worker for their coverage of the Gov. Spitzer scandal. Their preference is def someone along the lines of Heidi Fleiss (have interviewed tons of times and don’t want to call on again).”

From an Italian news channel:
“I need a prostitute to describe what it is like to meet with men, how she selects them, what they do in the meeting.”

And this:
“We need someone familiar with the political, social, legal and economic issues that affect sex workers to comment on this story. Someone who advocates for sex workers is preferred.”

Oh wait, I made that last one up. Because it doesn’t exist.

Ren received similar requests.

I thought maybe it might be an opportunity to bring some light to issues such as sex workers rights and the hypocrisy shown by fellows like Spitzer. However, that is not what the media is interested in. That’s not what they want. They want to know how one goes about hiring a “high-end” escort, how prevelant is it, what goes on, do the working girls care if the men are married? What else do they spend money on when with the woman? They want the scandal, the titilation, the naughty little thrill….but nothing too dirty. Nothing about the women on the streets. They don’t want to hear about the truly unseemly side of the biz. They want to hear about the men…the rich and powerful men who spend the money on “high-end” girls. They want to hear how the men will fly in to see a girl, or fly her in, spends thousands on her and on the dinners and events and everything else. They want to know how he likes it. Sure enough, men do this sort of thing. I’ve been paid 2000$ to spend an evening with a New Jersey business man at a boxing match then do a strip show for him. No actual sex involved. He bought an expensive dinner and a bottle of Dom to go with it, and tipped me an extra 600$. Why? Because he could, and in this case, he did not even have to worry about the actual act of sex for money. This is one such story in my experience, and one such story in the countless experiences of women like me. And that’s the stories the media wants. They don’t care how we feel about legalization, or rights, or men like Spitzer building careers and policy on us, let alone about the women working on the streets. Those politics and dirty tales don’t sell.

Last June, at the Atlanta Press Club panel on new media, several audience members, but in particular Susan Capeluto(sp?) from Georgia Public Broadcasting, were practically jumping out of their seats talking about how bloggers lack “credibility” and “journalistic integrity” and are (this was the real “WTF” moment) obsessed with Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan.

Wait, what?

Have these people turned on any national TV news program lately?

Fox News has “The Daily Britney,” for fuck’s sake. CNN and MSNBC cover Britney, Lindsey, and other celebrities’ antics like it’s going out of style.

Are there blogs that cover this stuff? Sure. There are blogs that cover pretty much anything you can think of. But saying “bloggers” when what you really mean is Perez Hilton, Pink Is The New Blog, and Gawker is like simply saying “television” to refer to cable news channels.

I hear these lines, as if rehearsed, again and again from mainstream media folks and I just have to wonder what planet they’re on.

Mainstream media, are you willing to actually LISTEN and become worthy of the adjectives you say bloggers don’t deserve but you do?

So, media folk, show us your stuff. Spend more time on our needs and wishes in the media- portray us honestly and not just sensationally, take us seriously when we speak, and we’ll be much more willing to talk to you.

(link)

In growing numbers, there are sex workers and allies of sex workers who have a critical and political take on how our bodies and our labor are legislated. Not to mention, we are well aware of and constantly struggling with the ways our stories and our work are grossly exploited by the mainstream media in an attempt to get a juicy story. You want to talk about exploitation of women, media? Look at your own goddamn questions, the exposure you ask us to engage in, the personal questions you want us to answer. Look at the sexy container you put us in, all sultry bad girl secret story, no room for brains with the boobs. We don’t want to tell you our naughty secrets. What’s in it for us? You won’t give us the space and air time to talk about issues that matter to us, we won’t give you the dirt.

Sex workers aren’t represented in the media because the media does not create space for us to talk intelligently about the issues that face us. Like I said in my post last night, we are being cast into roles, roles that are nearly impossible to break. We’re afraid of being abused and manhandled by a media that has no interest in our well being, only in our cunts and the details of how we got to be so bad.

Mainstream media, if you’re so concerned about the exploitation of sex workers - stop perpetuating the exploitation with your own tools.

(link)

Via thoughts of an erotic laborer:

A third assumption made in the media that I find especially troubling is the unchallenged double standard between prosecuting prostitutes, and letting clients walk. So on the one hand, they are saying that Spitzer did something beyond the pale of morality, that calls into question his ability to be part of a family unit, and on the other they are saying that what he did generally doesn’t even merit prosecution. No big deal. Unless you happen to be a prostitute, in which case you deserve to go to jail.

So everybody knows about this Eliot Spitzer bullshit by now. Of course, I have plenty to say about it.

There’s the obvious point that the problem in the Spitzer situation is not “OMG he paid for sex!!1!1″ but the utter hypocrisy of it, given his history of prosecuting prostitution cases. There’s also the fact that he’ll get off with a ruined political career (if even that), while the women whose services he paid for will possibly be arrested on felony charges, jailed, and for any who are not U.S. citizens, deported; and the real-life hardships of these women will go unacknowledged by the media except as objects to be used for moral grandstanding or sophomoric titillation.

But for now, I want to talk about language. Because, as I’ve mentioned before, words matter.

Yesterday on the way home from work, Rusty and I were discussing the terminology the mainstream media - hell, pretty much all media - uses when discussing sex work. In particular, we were dissecting the terms “high-class hooker” and “high-priced” hooker. Both of those terms carry a mountain of assumptions and implications.

“High-class hooker” automatically sets up the person in question as an exception. Jen said that she doesn’t think describing someone as high-class necessarily implies that everyone else is low-class, but rather “just average.” Well, of course it doesn’t imply that everyone else is low-class, but it does set up the need for a low-class corollary. And more importantly, it sets up a hierarchy of high, average, low - and who defines what constitutes criteria for each class? It’s a nasty, divisive, insidious tactic. It’s classic classism… because of course no one would ever want to be considered “low class.” (Queer Dewd has written about this phenomenon much more extensively/intelligently, so check her blog for more.)

Making a point to designate a particular sex worker as “high-class” serves to differentiate her from most people’s idea of what a prostitute is: a street worker. Street workers may in fact be the most visible element of prostitution - often because they are associated with other problems such as drug use, violence, and more - and the media certainly does nothing to dispel the popular impression of “prostitute” as analogous to “street prostitute.” However, street workers constitute only about 20% of all prostitutes. So yet again, the media reinforces a stereotype and popular assumption that is false.

Rusty said that while “high-class hooker” is total bullshit, he could see how someone could make a case for “high-priced hooker” being apt. I can see how someone could make a case for it - but the case would be faulty and laden with unquestioned societal assumptions.

First of all, the hooker herself is not for sale, as is implied by applying the adjective “high-priced” to her. Using the term “high-priced hooker” reinforces the rhetoric about sex workers “selling their bodies,” which is so often used by both conservatives and radical feminists. The fact that so many people simply accept this idea of sex workers selling their bodies is indicative of a deeper sexual more in our society: for a woman, having sex with a man constitutes at transfer of ownership. (Look at Purity Balls for a particularly creepy example of this belief in action.)

It’s bullshit, of course. A prostitute is no more selling her body than is a seamstress, a massage therapist, a professional athlete, a mechanic, a pianist… you get the point. A sex worker provides a service. (We do live in a service economy, after all.) Clients pay for that service. They do not own the worker. They do not, to use an analogy Ren has used, buy her like you’d buy a car and then drive her home and park her in their garage. That is ownership. Exchanging money for sexual services is nowhere close.

Finally, “high-priced hooker” carries the assumption that the worker in question is somehow over-charging, or charging more than most other workers. I don’t really know what’s going on with that assumption… should she charge less? Is she slightly more respectable because she charges more? But the bottom line is, it’s bullshit anyway, because nine times out of ten the people described as “high-priced hookers” aren’t charging rates out of the ordinary; they’re charging a competitive market rate. It makes me wonder, what the hell do people expect to pay?

More later, when I get time.

Fucking mainstream media. Oh, who am I kidding, why be so specific… fucking mainstream society.

The MSNBC request came through Seal Press, the publisher of Naked on the Internet. I said I would talk to the show’s producer and possibly do the show if I could talk about sex worker rights, politics, and trafficking. They were casting for someone who had been a sex worker to talk about the mechanics of hiring a prostitute, and the producer I talked to point blank asked me the question that is the title of this post, though then he quickly backtracked and said, “I’m sorry if I’m not using the right terminology,” and I told him that no indeed he was not. When asked if I have had sex for money, I told him I had been a fetish worker and sensual masseuse (I’ve briefly been an escort too, though for a fraction of the time of the other jobs) - which seemed to disappoint him, and he said things like, “So you weren’t a real… you didn’t have sex…”

MSNBC was only interested in having a woman who had been a prostitute talk about the mechanics of hiring a sex worker - a little salacious how-to on national television, gotta love it. They told me flat out that they weren’t interested in discussing the political interests of sex workers or the issues around sex trafficking as it is today. And while I am not ashamed that I was a sex worker, and I know sound bites are short and cannot be anywhere near as complicated as my shit is, I don’t want to be MSNBC’s whore on television. It does nothing for me personally and nothing for the movement I’m part of for me to be boiled down to the essence of “will fuck for cash. here’s how.”

Read Dacia’s full post here.

I may have to ignore the internet tomorrow just so I don’t stumble onto blogs/tweets/etc. talking about the Spitzer thing. Because I just can’t fucking take the stupidity and the teeming assholes anymore.

This is all I have to say about tomorrow night’s Nightline special:

Seriously, again with this??

If you are pro-pornography or pro-prostitution, you are not a feminist. The concept behind feminism is equality for women and girls, and the eradication of violence against women. The sex industry in all its forms exists as a tool of violence against women and more than that, a tool to keep women subjugated and ‘in their place’. If you support a system which for the overwhelming majority destroys women and girls, you are not a feminist.

For. Fuck’s. Sake.

*headdesk*