Being Amber Rhea

From Chris Hall at Sex in the Public Square (be sure to read the full post). Chris is a wonderful writer.

The real tragedy of [Palfrey’s] death, from where I’m standing, is not anything extraordinary about her story, but how common and familiar it is, to the point of being cliché. If the story of Deborah Jean Palfrey had been laid out in a novel or play or screenplay, I would be angry at having my time wasted by a writer who was unable or unwilling to rise above cheap hackery that was old and worn out in the days of the Victorian penny dreadfuls. But Palfrey was a real person, and it makes me sick and angry to think how often the lives of people who should live peaceful, untroubled lives are forced into old patterns.

When I heard that Palfrey had hung herself, one of the first things that I thought of was the story of Ida Craddock. Craddock was a freethinker and feminist who wrote several sexual education manuals and pamphlets in the late 19th century. She was hounded and pursued for over a decade by the moralists of the day, in particular the infamous Anthony Comstock. In 1902, she was finally convicted for sending obscene materials through the mail and sentenced to five years in prison. Craddock was 45 years old at the time of her conviction and didn’t think that she could survive her sentence; the night before she was supposed to report for incarceration, she slit her wrists. Comstock showed no signs of regretting her suicide; in fact, he commonly bragged that he had driven as many as 15 people to suicide in his crusade for public morality.

One hundred and six years later, I want Ida Craddock’s story to seem quaint and old-fashioned, like an aged relic of less enlightened times. But Deborah Jean Palfrey is dead, hung from the neck by a nylon rope; her former employee, Brandy Britton, went the same way. David Vitter is still in the Senate. So it goes.

In the eye of the media, Palfrey’s death was regarded almost without a blasé fascination, as if the urge for a woman who transgressed to hang herself in her mother’s shed was as natural and unavoidable as birds migrating. And it seems unbelievable that one hundred and six years after Ida Craddock, we have to work so hard to justify not only the course that she chose to make for her life, but that we also have to fight to make others see that her death was a stupid waste, and not the inevitable end to a badly-written melodrama.

What we do, all the blogging and writing and organizing sometimes can seem futile, especially with stories like Palfrey’s. The one thing that we can be grateful for, in a somewhat grim way, is that Palfrey had to do more than merely write about sex before she was hounded and shamed into her grave. That, at least, is something that we’ve accomplished in the one hundred years since Ida Craddock opened her veins with a straight razor. But it’s not enough.

And I’m crying, again.

Yeah, I’ve mentioned before that I can be pretty emotional, and cry at inopportune times. But this week, I think it’s appropriate.

Later this month, Rusty and I are going to Balticon. Yay! I’m looking forward to seeing Jenny (either at the con or just within Baltimore), hanging out with Regina Lynn, and being on some panels about sex, tech, and other related stuff. One of the panels I’m going to be on is called “Don’t Be That Guy: Advice From the Women of New Media.”

Serendipitously, Ren recently had a “don’t be that guy” open thread on her blog. It’s full of good stuff, including a damn perfect object lesson of someone being that guy. (I like and respect Ernest, but seriously, again with the “I believe in gender equality” line? Please. I wish I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that!) And then today, I came upon synecdochic’s post entitled Don’t Be That Guy, which is all about being a feminist ally.

Guys, read it and learn, especially if you consider yourself progressive, feminist-identified, not a troglodyte, etc. Here’s an excerpt:

If you consider yourself an ally, and you wind up doing or saying something that gets a really strong negative reaction, and you see one of your friends saying something along the lines of “it’s okay, he’s one of the good guys, it’s not like that”, that should be a warning sign that it’s time to immediately apologize. A real apology, not an “I’m sorry if you were offended” — because that kind of language isn’t an apology at all. You clearly did offend someone, or else the dogpile wouldn’t have happened. “I’m sorry that I offended you, and I’d like to make sure I understand why, so it doesn’t happen again; what I’m getting is that it was such-and-such, and I’m sorry I did that, and if that wasn’t it, I’d like to listen to anything else you have to say…”

If you hear a guy who says “I’m a feminist”, but who behaves in ways that trip women’s creepdar, call him on it. It is a very sad fact that nine times out of ten, people with privilege, who are exercising that privilege in a way that makes other people feel uncomfortable, will not hear the fact that they are making other people uncomfortable until it’s pointed out to them by someone with the same privilege. They literally will not process what people are saying. It happens all the time, and it is so subtle and pervasive that people don’t see it even when someone calls them on it. You can, however, use this for good in terms of pulling another guy aside and saying: dude, you’re being a creep. The sad fact is, that guy is way more likely to listen to you.

Read the whole post, seriously.

It’s like I was saying to Rusty earlier today… one thing that bugs the shit out of me is when guys try to ingratiate themselves with feminists but clearly have no idea what the fuck they’re talking about, and then when someone calls them on sexist/assholish behavior, they get all petulant and sulk away with their tail between their legs, or trot out the old tried-and-true “YOU’RE the sexist one!” trope.

I think I’ll have plenty to talk about at Balticon!

Update: Check out this object lesson, as if on cue!

I first read this amazing, powerful, inspirational post by Jill Brenneman a few weeks ago, but I rediscovered it this morning while combing through my feed reader.

It’s hard to find a portion to quote, because the it’s imperative that you read it in its entirety. Here is an excerpt, but please, read the whole thing.

But we are fighting for social justice, we are fighting against oppression, we are fighting for human, civil and labor rights for reasons and those are often being missed by the media or the messages are being hijacked by the prohibitionists and their misguided conflagrations and stereotypes. Prohibitionist researchers who were never sex workers and know little about them other than their 2 hour interviews with loaded questions slanted for desired results. I’ve been to the big prohibitionist conferences and the biggest topics tend to be the number of stars of the hotel rating, how disappointing the eggs were at the continental breakfast or that their hotel suites had bad color schemes. I’ve been to their conferences and been given the list of prohibited words, phrases and ideologies that will be stricken from the record if used and/or lead to expulsion from the conference. These are some of the reasons I left that movement in 2002. I’ve never seen that kind of garbage at sex worker rights meetings conferences, events, even if those same events are nothing more than a meeting at an unheated, poorly lit space that some other org is letting us borrow, with no meal service other than what we bring for ourselves, but we are there because we are working on issues, social change and fighting oppression. Not because we are being funded by the USDOJ to stay in Washington DC Hotels after having to suffer the “indignity” of flying in coach because the Government wouldn’t agree to pay first class as some of the suffering prohibitionists did in 2002.

I’ve never known a more passionate, tolerant, empathetic, and authentic group of people than I have met in the sex worker rights movement. There is a great amount of humanity in our movement. Let’s make sure media sees that. Yes I suffered in the sex industry and as a child. But I want to choose my own path, my own career choices, and determine the propriety of my own experiences not have them reframed as some prohibitionist based projects would do for me. We don’t need to be rescued, we need fucking rights and the people who best know this are the sex workers themselves, not the politicians, not the researchers, not the media.

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 far I’ve been too busy to write anything, but Ren has a great post that everyone should read, because it talks about something that I think a lot of people fail to consider in the discussions of decriminalization and destigmatization.

How’s my credit? Well, what credit? I have one, exactly one, credit card that I use for emergencies and travel (air miles). It is paid off on time, because oddly enough, while many credit card companies will bend over backwards to give you a credit card, somehow that changes if your occupation is “stripper”. So I try to keep the thing paid off. I have primarily for years used cash for everything: down payments, daily living, medical expenses- cash in full often- because it is easier often to hand over x amount of dollars for a dental visit or a car or any number of things when on all those little forms they ask name, age, occupation, job title, company…and your answers include stripper, porn performer, or god, goddess and all the little deities…an illegal aspect of the sex industry- a job you cannot write down at all. In the case of the window fellow…I handed him cash for the down payment, did not answer any of those little questions, and Mr. E is the one whose occupation, job title, and credit information went on those little forms…

You see, cash works for us, because you hand cash over and take your purchase. Qualifying for a car loan, a home loan, a home equity loan, a line of credit period, getting approved for an apartment or rental property, even if you do make good money in the sex biz? In many parts of the US, and the world in general, no easy task. Nor is getting insurance of any sort, or any other manner of little things a lot of people take for granted. And not only do you often not get those things, you get to deal with the looks, questions, and speculations of the people who you are filling out those little forms for. It’s lovely, really.

How about when you apply for a second straight job, or leave the sex biz for a straight job? Invariably, potential employers want to know what your other or previous line of work is/was…and my my, can’t that be interesting! Sure, in some fields, no one really cares. It’s easy enough to grab a gig in retail, or as wait staff, or a bartender, even as an office hand in various businesses, but a real office position? In a “straight” industry? Even if it is a job a trained monkey can do? You lie. You don’t tell other people what your other/former job is. You make up previous employment if you have too, and hope they don’t bother to check references. How about school? Well, I can tell you both professors and fellow students look at you oddly if sex work is paying the bills. And sure, sometimes one can hide what job they are in…in fact…most people can for a time, but sooner or later, people find out. And they talk.

And I suppose I don’t need to go over the just generalized opinions people have about sex workers again, do I?

She says “it’s the little things,” but I would argue that this stuff is BIG.

This is the stuff that folks in the middle-class “straight” world take for granted. You buy a new car and write down your occupation on the loan application… no big deal, right? It doesn’t get a second thought. See, the fact that this is almost never discussed - because it’s never thought of to begin with - is the very definition of privilege. And all of us who don’t work in the adult industry have that privilege.

What Lux said: (yes, I’m quoting the whole damn thing)

We live in a sex-soaked world. Star-studded sex tapes flood the channels of media, mainstream blogs publish pornographic spreads, self-proclaimed whores offer sex commentary on tech gossip sites. So all this sex must mean we live in a sex-positive culture, right? It must mean we have healthy attitudes towards sex, that we’re comfortable discussing sexuality, that sex is viewed as just a normal, every day part of life, right? Right?

Yeah, not so much.

The media is all too happy to cover sex when it’s sensationalistic, when there’s a scandal, when they can cluck their tongues about what this world is coming to while simultaneously showing us Paris Hilton’s goodies for our masturbatory pleasure.

Bring on your sex toy busts, your celebrity sex tapes, your teen sex scandals: the media will eat it up and serve it back to us on a platter.

But try discussing sex in a healthy, rational way: try talking about sexuality in a rational, intelligent matter, giving the topic the sensitivity and insight it deserves. Suddenly you’re perverted, you’re sick, you’re unmarketable.

When the mainstream media shows us the latest celebrity sex tape, when it invites us to check out the latest Lindsay Lohan upskirt shot, it’s not a sign of progress. It’s not a sign that we’ve suddenly become okay with sex, that we can talk about sex — no, it’s just another iteration of the age old madonna/whore complex. It’s just another example of sex as the tempting, tantalizing bait that’s dangled in front of us; only to be snatched away when we try to examine it, try to talk about it, try to treat it as something more than the next cheap thrill.

Oh, and for that matter, what Figleaf said, too:

So yesterday during a brief lecture on what was meant by “sex-negative” culture, our professor presented a very cool statement about food:

Try to imagine the following world: Accurate information about food is freely available and exists for all ages in appropriate ways. Talking about what sorts of food you like and negotiating with a dinner partner is a simple and relaxed experience. Different preferences, whether personal or cultural, are important for the information they provide and are no more or less important than hair color or family history, unless people are trying to figure out what to eat together. Some people prefer to eat with the same person indefinitely, others prefer to eat in a group and still others eat with a variety of partners as the mood suits them and nobody is ever forced to eat anything or with anyone. Each person is an expert in their desires and needs around food and their choices are respected.

Now what was missing from the presentation was the source of that quote. Once I got home and started Googling around I’m pretty sure the source must have been The Language of Sex Positivity, by Charlie Glickman, from Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 3, July 6, 2000. It contains the preceding paragraph and adds a nice follow-up…

While there are many examples of how our world is different from this food-positive one (as anyone who becomes vegetarian in a family of meat eaters knows,) it isn’t too hard to imagine this place. Now go back through the last paragraph and substitute “sex” for “food” and “have sex” for “eat.” How much more difficult is this world to imagine? How much more work would it take to make this happen?

On the other hand, our professor’s version contained a modified version of the first that didn’t require us to imagine…

Try to imagine the following world: Accurate information about sex is freely available and exists for all ages in appropriate ways. Talking about what sorts of sex you like and negotiating with a sex partner is a simple and relaxed experience. Different preferences, whether personal or cultural, are important for the information they provide and are no more or less important than hair color or family history, unless people are trying to figure out what kind of sex to have together. Some people prefer to have sex with the same person indefinitely, others prefer to have sex in a group and still others have sex with a variety of partners as the mood suits them and nobody is ever forced to be sexual or have sex with anyone. Each person is an expert in their desires and needs around sex and their choices are respected.

Our professor suggested that for all of society’s bragging about this or tisk-tisking about that, the fact that the two versions of the paragraph have highly different implications suggests that we have a sex-negative society. And *I* would add that the simple fact that we’d consider making the comparison in the first place is evidence of the same thing.

There has been talk lately about “semantics” and “picking [news stories] apart word by word.” These things are said in a fairly derisive way, as if “arguing semantics” is bad or pointless.*

But you know what?

WORDS MATTER.
Because words carry implications.

Anyone who makes their living as a writer should know that words are important, and should be mindful of the words they choose, with everything they write. They should know better than anyone that words can be loaded, and the implications can go way beyond the dictionary definition, and that in the end it’s not just the dictionary definition that matters.

For example, “running a high-class call girl ring” is not factually inaccurate. But it’s sloppy reporting, and sex workers were rightly pissed. Because each of those words is pretty loaded. They carry with them assumptions that are embedded in the societal consciousness, which most people don’t even think about.

Another example: Violet Blue’s column entitled Kink.com and Porn Hysteria: The Lie of Unbiased Reporting, wherein she writes,

Steve Rubenstein and Jesse McKinley are reporters, and so we require that they report and not serve us with opinion, instead. In both articles, slanted phrases such as “dirty movies” were slipped in like a hostess silently sliding a coaster under your drink — blink and you don’t even notice it’s part of the judgmental scenery — when a more accurate term like “adult” could serve better. Rubenstein’s piece went the distance, making Kink’s employees into “manacled performers.”

But the most interesting example was the presentation of unchallenged material in the form of quotes from people on the street as anti-porn pundits — with no weigh-in from pro-porn pundits. Protesters were quoted as saying, “This neighborhood is already plagued with enough violence and prostitution as it is” and “Kink degrades the neighborhood, degrades women and offers ‘dead end’ jobs that no decent person would want.” Such statements bracket the piece — with no counter-opinions about pornography — and are presented in such a way that readers could interpret opinions as fact. Kink.com was indeed quoted — but only about their use of the space.

If the only yardstick we had for media were “Is is factually inaccurate?”, then no one would have grounds to complain about anything. Errors of omission and the connotations of specific words would be unimportant. The public would be effectively silenced.

We should hold our media accountable; we should hold them to a high standard. (One would think they would want to be held to a high standard by their readers.) Criticism of media is healthy and important, and should be constant. Or are we supposed to operate from a lowest common denominator perspective?

Speaking dismissively about “semantics” undermines the media/editorial process criticism so many of us in this conversation profess to stand for. So which is it? Is criticizing media and exposing biases a good thing, or a bad thing? Should we hold them accountable to tell our stories fairly and accurately, or just accept whatever we’re handed?

Part of the solution is to use new media to tell our own stories, without the filters of mainstream media; but that does not mean we should accept anything less than the highest quality reporting from mainstream media. After all, not everyone has access to new media tools yet (though access is improving on a daily basis).

So yes, I will gladly pick news stories apart word by word. Because those words are everything.

* I can’t link to the one conversation that is really sticking out in my mind, because Rusty removed the post where it took place. Similar conversations have gone down in other places, though. In fact, it’s becoming a bit of a blur at this point.

From Bound, Not Gagged:

So we told them how the blog started. We told them about long, teary, angry all-hours-of-the-night phone calls that Melissa and I shared while as sex workers we were sitting in our own isolated worlds watching the media tell our stories through the lens of the “DC Madam Scandal.” That we desperately needed a space to respond and share our own opinions, to tell of our own exploits and scandals and to confront the stigma and harassment that we experienced with every twisted, slanted and salacious ‘hookers-to-the-elite’ story emailed out over our various list-serves.

And yes, “semantics” do matter. And I will happily pick news stories apart word-by-word, because it’s important.

From Brown Betty comes the most excellent Primer on Privilege. An excerpt:

Privilege is not: About you. Privilege is not your fault. Privilege is not anything you’ve done, or thought, or said. It may have allowed you to do, or think, or say things, but it’s not those things, and it’s not because of those things. Privilege is not about taking advantage, or cheating, although privilege may make this easier. Privilege is not negated. I can’t balance my white privilege against my female disadvantage and come out neutral. Privilege is not something you can be exempt from by having had a difficult life. Privilege is not inherently bad. It really isn’t.

Privilege is: About how society accommodates you. It’s about advantages you have that you think are normal. It’s about you being normal, and others being the deviation from normal. It’s about fate dealing from the bottom of the deck on your behalf.

Almost everyone who is reading this had some form of privilege. If you are a member of three marginalized groups, in ill health, and poor, you’re still on the internet, and literate, which confers some privilege. (Unless this is being read to you by a text reader in which case… uh. My very bad. I apologize.)

Some privileges are easy to demonstrate: Can you go into a random restaurant and order food? That’s not something that those with food allergies, diabetics, celiacs, or a range of other conditions can count on. It’s not something people whose religious convictions include following Kosher, Halal or other faith-based dietary restrictions (there are Christians, Buddhists and others to whom this applies) can count on in western society either.

Some privileges are harder to demonstrate: If you get a job, to what extent was that based on the way you look, your gender, your accent, your connections? How can you tell?

Read the whole thing.

Doesn’t that clear things up a bit?

December 17th is the 5th annual International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. This event was created to call attention to hate crimes committed against sex workers all over the globe.

Originally thought of by Dr. Annie Sprinkle and started by the Sex Workers Outreach Project USA in 2003 as a memorial and vigil for the victims of the Green River Killer in Seattle Washington, International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers has empowered workers from over 30 cities around the world to come together and organize against discrimination and remember victims of violence.

During the week of December 17, 2007, sex worker rights organizations will be staging actions and vigils to raise awareness about violence that is commonly committed against sex workers. The assault, battery, rape and murder of sex workers must end. Existing laws prevent sex workers from reporting violence. The stigma and discrimination that is perpetuated by prohibitionist laws has made violence against sex workers acceptable. Please join in drawing attention to this injustice around the world with the 5th annual International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers.

Please check out the new DEC 17 web site.

If you or your organization are holding an event, please email your info.

If your organization would like to help sponsor an event in your local area, please send your contact info.

Please go to the web site for Dr. Annie Sprinkle’s ‘10 Things You Can Do for International Day to end Violence Against Sex Workers.’

We encourage participants to carry red umbrellas on December 17 as a symbol of international solidarity for sex workers’ rights!

***Please post widely***

So, this.

Stupid Comcast has the worst timing. My cable was out all last night, meaning I couldn’t participate in the virtual rally about which I had helped spread the word. Dammit.

Today, there’s a lot of catching up to do. Lots of good blog posts to read; the folks who participated last night kicked some serious ass. You can find a lot of the posts via Technorati; and of course, the epicenter of the action was Bound, Not Gagged. I’ll be waiting to hear the results of the election in Pennsylvania today, to see if Judge Teresa Carr Deni still has her job.

Speaking of jobs…

In the blog posts I’ve had time to read (and there are many more I haven’t, yet), some people are expressing shock that this happened.

Really?

I’m sorry, but how can you be shocked? Outraged, yes. Fired up and motivated to take action, absolutely. Disgusted with the abject injustice of it, of course.

But shocked?

This is nothing new. Sex workers are treated like shit in our society. And so, rape isn’t rape, depending on what your job is.

I’ll be honest - this is why I never became a sex worker. I considered it, with varying degrees of seriousness, for many years. But ultimately, what stopped me from taking the definitive step and actually doing it was fear. Fear of harm at the hands of a client, partly; but to a much greater degree, fear of harm (mental, physical, emotional) by law enforcement, the judicial system, and society at large.

This has been a pattern throughout my life, in many situations. Fear stops me cold in my tracks, while other people move forward. This isn’t always a bad thing. For example, fear kept me from doing a lot of the stuff my peers did in middle school and high school, like sneaking out of the house. In retrospect that was a wise decision, and it certainly didn’t leave me with long-term negative consequences; if anything, the opposite is true. But the point is, this is a pattern I’ve recognized. And when the paralyzing fear is having negative effects - stopping me from fully realizing a goal or a part of my being - I’ve tried in recent years to push through it. Pole dancing is the biggest example of me being successful at this, and there are many other, “smaller” examples, some of which are known only to me.

As far as pursuing sex work as a job, though, I never was able to push through the fear. I guess it’s that part of my brain that just won’t stop being pragmatic, or… something. Maybe that’s not the best word. I don’t know. Anyway, a fairly loud part of my mind kept telling me that while it’s good to push through fear and not let it define my life, there’s a difference between confronting the fear of being laughed at by my peers, and confronting the fear of being thrown in jail, brutalized, and denied justice.

And so I have immense respect for people who do sex work even in the face of all the odds stacked against sex workers.

I urge everyone to check out Bound, Not Gagged. And speak up. As inspiring as these voices in the blogosphere have been, there has also been a deafening silence from the rest of the blogosphere, not to mention the mainstream media. As far as I’ve seen, the so-called “A-List” progressive political blogs haven’t touched it.

I’ll close with words of wisdom from Octogalore:

It may be tempting for those of us who are not prostitutes to sit this one out. After all, this isn’t about us, right?

Wrong.

If it is not rape to be forced to have sex, at gunpoint, after refusing, just because you’d previous agreed to have unforced sex for money, then who is next?

Maybe they’ll come for those who agree to have sex with a friend of the guy who rapes them? That’s not rape, it’s identity switching.

Or those who agreed to have sex in the past and then are forced to do so at a later point? That’s not rape, it’s time discrepancy.

Or those of us who are or have been strippers? We were willing to do sex-related stuff for money, so this isn’t rape it’s just forced inflation of services.

What if we at one point had sex with a boyfriend as a fun way to settle a bet? Then we ARE prostitutes and it’s back to theft of services.

What if we can be demonstrated to have sex with our husbands in exchange for material security? Then there’s no spousal rape.

What if we are deemed to be dressed too slutty? Then we can be argued to have been willing to exchange sex for money, and cannot be raped.

Per wiki, rape is “where one individual forces another to have sexual intercourse against that person’s will.” This kind of decision says that prostitutes aren’t, in fact, people. Their consent or lack thereof is meaningless.

And guess what? If they aren’t, then we may not be either. This is about all of us.

Don’t forget to go to Bound, Not Gagged at 5:00 p.m. EST today to join in the conversation and support of the sexual assault victim whose case was reduced to “theft of services” by Judge Teresa Carr Deni. And if the spirit moves, write your own blog post on the subject, too! Sex workers are people just like everyone else, and this kind of bullshit MUST stop. Please spread the word!!

Who: Sex workers, allies and supporters
What: Live blog action
Why: To oust Judge Teresa Carr Deni in PA
When: Monday, November 5th, 2007 - 5pm Eastern / 2pm Pacific
Where: http://www.BoundNotGagged.com

Calling all sex workers and supporters! On Monday November 5th the Desiree Alliance will host a virtual rally to stand in solidarity with the sexual assault victim in PA whose case was reduced to ‘theft of services’ by Judge Teresa Carr Deni. We support the efforts of local activists in Philadelphia to raise voter awareness about Judge Deni and to encourage voters to vote ‘No’ to retain her in Tuesday’s elections. Please join us by sharing a personal story, reflections, art/poetry or any other messages/images that you feel are important or relevant. New contributors are welcome at the blog! If you’re not already an author at Bound, Not Gagged and you’d like to be, send an email to: BoundNotGagged@gmail.com.

We encourage contributors to make a post either over the weekend or before 5pm Eastern on Monday, then join us at the blog on Monday at 5pm to comment on other people’s posts, add more content, ask/answer questions, etc. Thank you for supporting our efforts to raise awareness about violence against sex workers! If you have any questions, please contact stacey@desireealliance.org.

—

More information at Bound, Not Gagged. Please forward far and wide, and please participate!!

Last night was the PoleLaTeaz student showcase, and I was one of seven students in the show. I’m still reeling today! On one hand, I can hardly believe I actually did it; on the other, it seems like, “Yeah, of course I did it; why wouldn’t I?”

I was nervous beforehand, but once I got to the studio and started warming up and talking with the other six ladies in the show, the nervousness started to melt away. I went third, and hearing all the cheering and applause for the first two performers helped a lot, too. When it was my turn to go on, I had a brief attack of nerves again, but I pushed it aside and marched into the room in my five-inch platform heels.

Now that I’ve gone through with this, I feel even more confident than before about my pole dancing ability! I’m my own worst critic, but honestly, aside from a very very minor things that no one else would be able to notice, I really do think I kicked ass!

Here are a few photos Rusty took after the show (they didn’t allow photography during the show, and it was too dark anyway):

More photos here.

I feel really good, proud, and happy (and bruised)! And I’m looking forward to class tonight!

Not to end this on a negative (and really, I don’t think this is a “negative” per se), but I feel I’d be lying by omission if I didn’t mention it… it did hurt that none of my friends (other than Rusty, of course, and CaSandra, who attempted to be there but was held up by highway construction) came to the show. This was an extremely big deal to me, and I wanted my friends to be there. I understand that some people had legitimate conflicts; this thread should not devolve into a flurry of justifications. I’m simply stating, honestly, how I feel. Friends support friends at stuff that’s important to them… and this was important to me.

Bottom line from last night? It went great, I feel great, and I’m already looking forward to the next time I can perform in front of a packed room! :)

There has been a whole lot of awesomeness at Bound, Not Gagged lately (in addition to their usual awesomeness, that is), in response to Melissa Farley’s latest piece of “research.” I urge everyone to go read all the good stuff there, listen, think, and learn.

There’s so much kick-ass writing there that it’s almost impossible to choose a blockquote representative of the whole. But Amanda really nails it with this post, so I give you the following quotage:

Today’s feminists rail against prostitution. They reduce women to their orifices and make judgments based on sexual activity - the exact same crime they accuse all men of doing to them. I fail to see the difference. One person who bases my value as a woman on my baby-making abilities and purity is pretty much the same as any other person who does - regardless of gender.

I sent my letter to the Department of Justice; have you sent yours?

Here’s what I wrote:

To the U.S. Department of Justice:

I am writing, as an adult US citizen who votes, to object to the proposed revisions to Section 2257 regulations. The proposed changes would not stop child porn, but they would put legal porn performers at risk for harassment and abuse (of which they already experience more than there fair share, from the public at large), in addition to identity theft. Fundamentally, this is an unreasonable government intrusion into the lives of adults conducting legal business. No other professions require this amount of personal information to be collected and stored on a national level.

Most disturbing, to me, is that the proposed revisions would allow the Attorney General to conduct unannounced warrantless searches at will on the sites’ records, including reviewing and presumably seizing the personal information on site users. This is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Threatening and potentially putting out of business legal adult businesses will do nothing to stop child pornographers from continuing their illegal practice. Instead of focusing time and money on persecuting legal performers, focus these resources on prosecuting actual criminals.

Sincerely,

Amber Rhea

You have until Monday, Sept. 10th to voice your opposition to these regulations. Check out the 2257 Fact Sheet (PDF) for more info.

Ren has an excellent post outlining the differences in the tactics of pro- and anti-sex work activists. It came through in my daily del.icio.us links posting yesterday, but I wanted to highlight it again, separately, because it’s really top-notch.

An excerpt:

Inflexible vs. Individual:

Within the anti sexwork world of activism, it is common to treat the sex industry in a monolithic fashion, surmising that all forms of sex work are similar, and need to be treated similarly. Often it appears as if there is no real difference between any form of sexwork or the level of exploitation involved. Child prostitution is regarded with the same level of seriousness as adult stripping, and the whole of the industry is seen as equally dangerous and degrading to both those involved and those who purchase its goods. Often all are addressed in the same sweeping terms, addressed using the same statistics, and subject to the same stereotypes and generalizations. They also tend to work from outside the industry, rather than within.

The pro sexwork organizations tend to prioritize and differentiate between the various forms of sexwork. Action, attention and focus are based on need and dangers, in that issues such as trafficking and illegal child sexual labor rate as a higher problem than legal prostitution and other forms of sex work. The needs and dangers faced by a street prostitute are not the same as the needs and problems of a contract porn performer. Pro sexwork organizations tend to divide the various forms of sexual labor and address each according to the most pressing needs for the workers in the various forms of the business. They also tend to work more from within the industry.

Read the whole thing!

A commenter at Feministe said:

As a parent of 2 girls, I’m hoping that I can encourage them to feel empowered by being smart, skilled, happy, powerful, knowledgeable, athletic, etc. Getting positive sexual attention seems pleasant enough, but also seems ’second class.’ Mostly because it relies on ANOTHER person’s judgment, and not on your own internal power.

*sigh*

Where to begin?

As Jenny put it a few weeks ago: “You’re a woman. You may have your intelligence or your sexuality. You may not have both.”

This, of course, is nothing new at all. In fact, it’s so not new that part of me wonders if I should even bother blogging about it. But it never fails to throw me for a loop when self-identified progressives spout the same reductive, dichotomous crap as the status quo conservatives they claim to oppose.

And you know, I bet the father who made the above statement has the best of intentions. Of course he does! He wants his daughters to be valued for more than their looks or their sex appeal; he wants them to be valued as whole people, who have minds and hearts as well as bodies.

And yet, somehow, in the earnestness to ensure that women and girls are valued intellectually and not just physically, the physical gets left behind.

-Well, actually, scratch that; the sexual gets left behind. Because if you’ll notice, in the above quote, the commenter included athletic ability among the list of skills for which he would like his daughters to be admired.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be valued as a whole person; I don’t think any reasonable person would argue otherwise. But the thing is, people have bodies. People have sexuality. So, part of being a whole person is valuing those aspects of oneself as well as the mental, emotional, and spiritual. It’s not an either/or game. Compartmentalization of a major part of oneself is in no way holistic.

As a child, these are the lessons I learned: It’s more important to be valued for your mind. The mental is superior to the physical.

And in a lot of ways, that was a good lesson. I have always enjoyed a rich inner life, and have excelled intellectually. I wouldn’t trade either of those things. I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to grow up basing my entire worth on my physical appearance or physical abilities. But, at times, I feel like I went too far in the opposite direction. I was out of touch with my body. I felt guilty about my strong sexual desires, because those were “second class,” to use a phrase from above. Smart girls use their minds. Smart girls have more important things with which to concern themselves. Smart girls don’t. We know this to be true.

Except, smart girls do. And I realized that denying this very strong, powerful, essential part of myself in the name of being “smart” was not very smart at all.

My other beef with the above quote is this part in particular: “Getting positive sexual attention seems pleasant enough, but also seems ’second class.’ Mostly because it relies on ANOTHER person’s judgment, and not on your own internal power.”

Let’s leave aside the “second class” business for now, the connotations of which could make for a whole other post.

What bugs me about this is the language, which was probably used without any specific thought given to it: “Getting positive sexual attention.” Certainly, there is nothing wrong with getting positive sexual attention if that’s what you want. However, using that language as the assumed default here once again casts women as passive recipients. Women are portrayed as being desired; but what about desiring? What about acting? What about seeking, learning, growing, self-actualizing, and all that other hippy-dippy stuff? Owning one’s sexuality (”my body belongs to me”) absolutely does rely on one’s “internal power.” It can even be a source of that power. When women take full, unapologetic ownership of our sexuality, we are reclaiming it from the tired old rule of women’s sexuality being defined by others.

So, while I 100% support women feeling empowered by being smart, skilled, happy, powerful, knowledgeable, and athletic, I equally support women feeling empowered by being sexual and by not denying the body. I support women feeling empowered by all these things, because none of them are mutually exclusive.

It’s posts like this one at Feministe that give me renewed hope about blogging and all the positive aspects of the medium, such as increased discussion of ideas, sense of community, promotion of good communication methods, people speaking for themselves, etc…

I sat there at my desk, talking about sex workers and sex work and porn like they were abstractions… but they’re not, and mythago rightly called me on my shit. It took me a while to realize that, but it was a totally fair criticism. My sitting there saying that stats show this and stats show that and look how many sex workers were this or that… none of that helps them now, and talk like that does make me more likely to find myself allied with religious conservatives who have a “moral interest” in condemning sex work… and sex workers.

And that’s the thing that mythago knew when posting that “Mackinnon and Dworkin made the silly assumption that their anti-feminist allies on the right would see their point of view, and apply protectionist ideas in a way that would help women instead of as a way to control women” and that trinityva was getting at when posting “often even ‘enlightened’ people here who object to porn for the ‘right’ reasons are willing to form alliances with those who oppose it for reasons of ‘religious morality’.”

And when I allow myself to ally with questionable or even flat-out bad groups, I have to accept that the damage they do in the name of our cause is damage that I’m contributing to. I can’t wash my hands of the harm that my allies do if they’re doing the damage in the name of our mutual cause. If I’m rallying behind the cry of “PORN HARMS ALL WOMEN!” and I allow myself to get backing from a group that’s adding “BECAUSE DIRTY SLUTS ABUSE SEX!” then aren’t I at least somewhat culpable? Because, ultimately, don’t my actions help further that cause, as well? And doesn’t that mean that the damage they’re doing is to some extent, on my hands?

Because those people have made it absolutely clear that they don’t care about the women involved. They’re not working to help end the abuse of sex workers. They’re not condemning poor working conditions. They’re not working to help sex worker’s rights. They’re not even remotely interested in making sure that their voices get heard. They’re interested in keeping the whores out of their neighborhoods.

How am I doing so far? Because, I have to tell you, sorting through this? It’s stressful. And I’ve barely touched anything yet. It’s all babysteps and inching around. And I’m sure that I’ve already pissed off some people, and others are thinking “you’re just getting here, now?”

But I’m feeling like, what’s a safer place, anyway?

Because, where I’m standing… it’s wrong.
It’s never easy to say it, but it’s true.

I was wrong.

Read the entire post. It’s worth your time.

(Via Ren.)

If you’re asking? Well, here’s an example, from Ryann Rain:

I don’t want The Drake to close. I feel like I’m losing a friend. What I am losing is options. I’m losing a safe environment in which to work. I’m losing security and choice. They don’t fucking care if they run strippers out of business. They don’t fucking care if our choices are taken away, if we’re forced to make harder decisions. They don’t care if we end up on the street.

It’s just another reminder of how disposable the City of Vancouver thinks we are.

Safe working conditions for sex workers. THAT is something I care about.

More quoting. I’ll have a real post shortly.

This is from The Angry Black Woman - which, btw, is an excellent blog I highly recommend to everybody.

What does not affect you personally often will not impact on your consciousness unless you’ve trained yourself to see and understand.

Therefore, the next time you feel yourself declaring something “not racist” or “not sexist” or “not offensive”, think about whether you feel that way because you’re not the one on the receiving end of racist, sexist, or offensive behavior/words/actions/images.

Via Sassywho.

“PodCamp Atlanta changed my life.” - Julie Squires

Without a doubt, that’s going in the promotional materials for 2008!

Also, Tim Moenk said something about web 2.0 stuff being a “lifestyle choice.” It was both funny and insightful, but I can’t remember the exact quote, so I can’t post it. Oh, and also, there was conversation about the difference between willingly putting information about yourself out there, vs. the government or whoever else taking such information against your will (and without your knowledge). Why aren’t more people talking about this rather obvious distinction?

Haven’t gotten around to fixing my CSS on the permalink page yet. Remember: patience is a virtue, dear readers.