Being Amber Rhea

If you haven’t read Amanda’s series of posts chronicling her now-completed stint at Bella’s, you are really missing out on some of the best, most insightful writing in a long time. So get on over there and read it. I’ll wait.

Tonight as I was trying to catch up on my almost 300 unread posts in Bloglines (I’ve been on a self-mandated break from reading many blogs other than a select few; this crap really made me feel down in the dumps about blogging for a while), I noticed that someone else, heretofore unknown-to-me blogger Mariko Passion, has now started a journal of her experiences at Bella’s. Cool! Maybe Amanda has started a trend.

Recently I had dinner w/ Lia of Star Light Ministries. And, no surprise, she is awesome. At one point during our extended dinner conversation, we were talking about all the assumptions that are made about women in sex work, and the problem of assuming that the goal of a ministry for sex workers is for the workers to “get out” of sex work. Because as Lia said, that’s judging the work they do and therefore judging them. Plus it’s just the same old stereotypes - obviously no woman would want to be in sex work, obviously they would all do something else if only they had the chance, etc. ad nauseum. I said that even though I feel like it’s not a popular thing to say in activist communities, because I feel like it makes me look like I’m being selfish (ah, that old meme in my head) or shifting the focus, the truth is that beyond just being irritated w/ these assumptions on general principles, I also take them personally. Sex work is something I’ve been drawn to for a long time - at least 10 years - and although as of now I haven’t actually done anything about it, I do take offense to the notion that there must be some pathological explanation for my interest in sex work. I know myself, I know how I feel, and I know that I feel that sex work is something that is interesting/appealing to me. You don’t have to understand it, but hey, I don’t understand why some people want to become lawyers or sales reps or flight attendants, so there you go. I’m smart, responsible, self-aware, capable - and I shouldn’t have to go into this defensive mode of justifying myself, but that’s how it always happens.

Lia asked why I hadn’t tried sex work. With stripping, my answer used to be* that I couldn’t walk in heels, much less dance (with or without heels). That’s obviously no longer a problem, but my issues with it now are:

• I don’t know of any non-smoking strip clubs in Atlanta. Being around cigarette smoke for extended periods of time, especially in poorly-ventilated areas, gives me a pounding headache and makes me feel generally like shit.
• I hate approaching strangers. I really just can’t do it; I get panicky about it. So obviously a job where I have to hustle for lap dances isn’t a good fit for me.
• The bullshit. We’ll come back to this in a minute.

As for escorting or even stuff like FBSM, when Lia asked why I’d never done it, my answer was much shorter: “I’m afraid of getting arrested.” That’s it, plain and simple. And more specifically, I’m afraid of getting arrested and being victimized by the cops. Insert here yet another diatribe about the importance of decriminalization of prostitution.

(To be fair, there are other issues w/ escorting in particular, like the fact that it seems like you have to pretend to give a shit about what the clients are talking about, really really enjoy their company and hang on their every fascinating word… and as Dacia has said about herself, I, too, have no poker face. I have tons of respect for people who can do it, but I just can’t. But that’s not really relevant, because there are many other kinds of sex work that are vaguely escort-like but not as focused on being a companion.)

Lia said she thought I should (only if I wanted to, of course) do what Amanda was doing: try a brief stint at a legal brothel and just see how it goes. I told her there’s no way I would do that. Why? Because of the bullshit.

Just read Amanda’s posts and you’ll see what I’m talking about. The nickel-and-diming with all kinds of fees. The customers trying to lowball you all the time. The cabin fever. Having to do shifts on the damn CB radio.

And the stuff that’s not just annoying, but potentially dangerous: The lack of adequate security. The creepy (yet required by law - ’cause prostitution is legal and therefore the girls are safe, see!) doctor. The drunkenness of customers, and of people to whom you’re entrusting your safety. The lack of easy access to an exit in case of an emergency. The pressure to potentially put one’s health at risk for the sake of not letting “money” walk out the door.

Obviously all jobs have their annoyances. But these are above and beyond what I could put up with. The second set, the ones that are downright dangerous, are obviously conditions that no job should have, ever. The first set, the “annoyances,” all exemplify a huge pet peeve of mine, something that just drives me up a wall: micromanagement by people on little power trips.

It seems to me that that’s what’s behind a lot of this stuff. It’s the same at strip clubs, with the house fees and drink quotas and tipping every damn person on staff… on and on… to me it reeks of people trying to control things and make themselves feel like Oooh Big Important People in whatever tiny way possible. Insecurity. Bred out of a stigmatized industry, not surprisingly. It seems like a vicious cycle.

Major respect to Amanda for doing this and documenting it. What she’s doing is extremely important, and she is an amazing person to have the patience to deal with it at all. I really can’t convey how much respect I have for her w/ this series.

One thing’s sure, her posts have confirmed what I’d suspected for a long time: if I were to be an escort (or whatever), I’d be independent, no doubt about it. Of course I have plenty of issues w/ freelancing in general, but in this case it is definitely the way to go, no question.

* And just look at the comments on that thread for a perfect example of the “explanations on demand” thing. It’s crazy-making, I tell you.

This is what needs to be stopped.

Call to action, please redistribute widely.

The Stop Porn Culture Slide Show Training Program includes a script, tips for conducting the session; it also includes the power Point Visual presentation, which contains pornographic material. They are saying that this slide show falls under the preview of Fair Use.

However, as it can now be watched, downloaded, viewed, reproduced, and yes, even sold, the creators of Stop Porn Culture, or anyone and everyone else who wishes to showcase, distribute, or otherwise use the material in the slide show is in violation of Federal Law 2257.

Never mind that not a one of the performers featured in this “educational tool” were asked their opinions, or for their consent, nor were the companies that originally produced the images… but now see, there are questions of a Federal Law which applies to Pornographers, and as these people have essentially made themselves such, the law also applies to them. Any person exhibiting pornography, even if it is free, is beholden to 2257, this includes SPC, and those who run this seminar. You will note, at the end of the presentation, there is a claim of copyright over images already subject to copyright, and used without permission.

You will also note, their attempts to keep this material out of the hands of minors are scant at best.

I encourage everyone to write a letter of protest the organizers of the SPC Training Program, inform anyone and everyone you know who is pondering doing one of these sessions of the lack of 2257 compliance and lack of consent on the part of the performers and owners of the images, and if necessary, alert legal authorities to the use of this slideshow where ever it may occur.

Oh, and I am curious, are people CARDED before attending one of these events? Viewing the slideshow on line? If not, then anyone and everyone involved in this program is guilty of showing pornography to minors… oddly enough, John Stagliano is in court for such things” do the same laws not apply?

Enough. If Pornographers must comply with 2257, so must their adversaries.

[Re-posted from Renegade Evolution. Please spread the word! I'll be writing my letter today; what about you? It should take only a few minutes.]

Meant to post this stuff sooner, but that is the eternal blogger’s refrain, isn’t it?

First, a must-read from Monica at the $pread blog:

Douglas had some pretty amazing things to say, starting with an explanation of the Max Hardcore charges that highlighted the wrongdoing of his distributors, Jaded Video. Basically, Jaded sold a “Euro” version of a Hardcore film to a US Federal Agent and sent the video through US mail, which was what allowed the obscenity charges to be brought against Hardcore. Of course, the real guilty party here is Jaded, not Max Hardcore, just as if a 7-11 sells beer to minors, 7-11 is guilty, not the good makers of Nattie Light. Jaded was granted immunity from prosecution.

As if all of those details weren’t scary enough, the jurors were exempt from watching the entire DVD, and instead the prosecution selected scenes for viewing. This is the most distressing aspect of the case, because it violates the “taken as a whole” stipulation of the Miller test. The jurors didn’t see behind the scenes footage demonstrating affection between performers, female performers smiling and able-bodied after the shoot, how scenes are edited, etc; they just saw excerpts selected for maximum shock value. Max Hardcore will appeal, but while he’s waiting for his follow up trial, by estimate of his lawyer, he’ll spend at least 30 months in federal prison. FEDERAL. PRISON. For, according to the DOJ: “anal penetration, urination, insertion of an entire hand into a vagina or anus, vomiting, and severe violence.” Ok, so severe violence sounds bad (although that’s a vague term which has no meaning without an actual description of what went on) but as far as pissplay, anal sex, and fisting go…? That merits federal prison? It sounds like an average weekend at my house. (I’m kidding. Maybe)

So this brings me to the point of why anyone besides those in the porn business should care about the Max Hardcore conviction. There are obvious reasons: the jaw-droppingly brazen trampling of the legal system, the tax payer money spent on these sort of trials, the possible disruption in supply of porn, if you’re an avid porn consumer. But sex workers of all walks should be especially alarmed, because when any type of sexual material or right is successfully attacked, it’s like another block laid in the wall separating us from the rest of the world. And the sad fact is, I feel like it’s pretty rare to see any sex worker solidarity in these situations.

Ren has an excellent (as usual) post on the matter as well. And at Pro-Porn Activism, Anthony wonders what the effect will be on the rest of the adult industry.

Ren has touched on this before; just look at the terrible things that happen when prostitution is decriminalized…

The number of sex workers in New Zealand does not appear to have increased since legislation decriminalising prostitution became law, according to a new report.

The Prostitution Law Review Committee was set up to report on the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 three to five years after the Act came into force.

…

The committee said a Christchurch School of Medicine survey of sex workers found that more than 90 per cent felt they had legal rights under the Act.

More than 60 per cent felt they were more able to refuse to provide commercial sexual services to a particular client since the enactment of the law.

Prior to the Act, the illicit status of the sex industry meant sex workers were open to coercion and exploitation by managers, pimps and clients.

Research indicated there had been “some improvement” in employment conditions “but this is by no means universal”.

…

Associate justice minister Lianne Dalziel said the report showed the Act had had a positive effect on the health and safety of sex workers and had not led to an increase in numbers of sex workers as predicted by critics of the law reform.

Normalize it? Legitimize it? Perish the thought! We care about women, after all!

-Oh wait. Yeah, for all you would-be “allies?” See, if you actually cared, you would be in favor of decrim. It’s really not that complicated.

(Via Cunning Minx.)

God forbid, you can’t normalize and legitimize icky prostitution that I have such a personal moral problem with, because then…

-oh wait. Because then, stuff like this might not happen.

Well then.

As Kim said at Ren’s…

Popular opinion: Hooker murders are icky, grisly, and wrong, because, well, murder is wrong but … well, thank goodness it was “just” a whore. No big whoop, right? And, well, that’s what she gets, you know? I mean, that’s just part of the risks of being a skanky ho.

This has me so pissed off right now. What the hell is wrong with people?

This “Well, thank goodness just a _____ died and not, like, a real normal, GOOD person” attitude strikes a real sore spot with me.

ETA: Oh, and also… don’t bother reading the comments on the Bastard Logic thread. Trust me.

My feelings on the bit of it I (regrettably) skimmed echo what GallingGalla said at The Curvature:

The comment thread on the bastard.logic story made me sick. A bunch of men (and especially one guy) making every excuse in the book for why the “sentence” was justified — probably enough to create a “hating on sex workers” bingo card.

Speaking of The Curvature, thanks to Cara for also posting about this on Feministe.

Insert sophomoric joke here about “commentary on briefs.” Hey, I can’t help it; Dacia’s excellent Naked City interview with Sadie Lune reminded me that I once had my photo taken on Ho Plaza:

Anyway, somehow I’ve ended up with 7 items pinned in Bloglines again. Oh, bother. So here’s some stuff I wanted to talk about at greater length:

• porn law follies (from Open Source Sex)

  Violet Blue explains some of the profuse idiocy that is Section 2257. If you don’t know much about 2257, don’t care, or (especially) if you think it’s a good idea because who would want to repeal it except sickos who dig child porn, you should definitely read this post. Money quote, emphasis original:

  You know, I’m really in favor of laws that make sense when it comes to kids, adults and porn. Too bad we don’t have any.

• Oh, the irony (from Mistress Maeve)

  I could really relate to Maeve here. I’ve experienced that feeling of revealing something to a sex partner (a fantasy, desire, preference, etc.) and having them not respond positively, and feeling utterly crushed and embarrassed - and of course, with my annoying idiosyncrasy of crying at inopportune times, having the tears sting my eyes. And I don’t think there’s any shame in that - it shows that we’re human, and when we open ourselves up and make ourselves vulnerable, as you have to do with sex (even casual, no-strings-attached hook-ups require a certain level of vulnerability; all sex does), deeply-felt emotions are on the line. Especially living as we do in a sex-negative society that has told us all along that our desires are wrong and bad and shouldn’t be discussed in “polite company.”

  So, really I think it’s good for those of us who advocate for sex-positivity and open, healthy communication in relationships to have experienced that kind of thing, because it helps us remember that this stuff is hard - but so worthwhile.

• Previous Posts Revisited (from $pread Blog)

  An excerpt will speak for itself for this one:

  For instance, when Lyderson claims “the vast majority of young women in prostitution are controlled by pimps and suffer worse conditions in terms of violence, number of clients and lack of autonomy the longer they stay in the trade”, what is actually meant is that the vast majority of prostitutes in the DePaul study fit that description, and this is a study of only 100 women. Similarly, when she goes on to talk about percentages (”58 percent of women were transported to different locations for prostitution”) it would be equally true to say simply “58 of the respondents were transported”….but “percentage” sounds more dramatic and substantial than providing the actual number.

• Booty 911: Butt Pimples B-Gone! (from Naked City)

  I pinned this post as a reminder to myself. I am so ordering this product.

…okay, there are others I want to mention, but I’m too damn sleepy to write anymore. Bed beckons.

Be sure to stop by Caroline’s first:

• UK Criminal Justice Bill Clause 63 - but what is “extreme”? - A Beginners Guide - Seriously, if you read no other post, read this one.
• Kink

Ren also has several posts:

• It’s late, I can’t sleep, and I am obsessing over this new UK porn law…
• Head,desk…headdeskheaddeskheaddesk!!!!!
• Content Regulation and Porn Laws

A few from SnowdropExplodes:

• “Honk if you like kinky pictures!”
• The Day They Came To Arrest The Book
• If the government could read my mind, they’d ban it.

A hodgepodge of others:

• Polyamorphous Perversity: On the UK’s new pornography law
• Sex, Life & Frilly Bits: Return to 1959 & ‘Obscenity in the UK’, or How to Create a Blackmarket
• Pro-Porn Activism: “Extreme Porn” Banned in U.K.
• Aiken Area Progressive: Blatant display of censorship in the United Kingdom
• The Strangest Alchemy: On Graham Coutts , and why the UK anti-porn law was not the answer

It’s been almost a week since the untimely death of Deborah Jeane Palfrey. In my second post on the topic, written on Friday, I lamented the lack of coverage of this tragedy on big feminist blogs. Being an eternal optimist (often to a fault, I know), I gave Feministe and Feministing the benefit of the doubt, saying that hopefully they would post more about it soon - because as I well know, when you’re juggling a full-time job and other personal responsibilities along with blogging, it can be a challenge to find time to sit down and write a substantive post.

However, the weekend has come and gone, and this week is half over, and still… nothing new on Feministe. Feministing hardly ever loads for me anymore beyond the header, but a quick view of the source in IE (it won’t even show me the source in Firefox; it’s hung up on some script, apparently) shows nothing new.

I’ll briefly hop over to some other feminist-leaning blogs that I don’t frequent as often and see if they have anything…
Read the full post »

Reposting this press release from Bound, Not Gagged until I have time to finish the other Palfrey post (not to mention the “why feminism needs to focus on women” post) that have been in draft mode for several days now.

—

New York, NY - The activists at Sex Workers Action New York (SWANK), Sex Workers Outreach Project New York (SWOP-NYC), Prostitutes of New York (PONY) and the nationally-based Desiree Alliance are saddened that Deborah Jeane Palfrey, also known as the D.C. Madam, passed away on May 1st in an apparent suicide. We - prostitutes, strippers, pro-dommes, porn stars, sex experts, and allies - extend our sympathies to all of those hurt by this most recent chapter of the “Pink Scare,” in which oppressive legislation and social stigma partner to generate hysteria around what, for us, can prove to be simply a decent way to make a living.

The circumstances surrounding Ms. Palfrey’s death suggest that Americans reconsider the current state and federal policies that govern sex work, as well as the stigmatization and sensational treatment of those who participate in this industry. From New York to California, daily reports of Pink Scare-fueled police busts, e-stings and raids, even at legal venues like strip clubs and dungeons, have reached a fever pitch. These oppressive patterns regularly marginalize and terrorize our communities, with barely a headline to show for the mass arrests. In contrast, coverage of high-profile cases include yellow journalism exposés published at the expense of sex workers’ privacy, dignity and livelihood. In an interview with Lori Price, it was Ms. Palfrey who said, “Without question in my mind, escort and adult service businesses. . . are being used as the new weapon of choice in American politics.” The public figures implicated in this type of case often receive little more than a slap on the wrist and a second chance from a forgiving public. Ironically, among the exposed we regularly find the very same lawmakers and other insiders who claim to protect people from vice through moralizing legislation. Former State Department official Randall L. Tobias was a Palfrey patron, though he implemented the abstinence earmark in programs such as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and, with it, the “Anti-Prostitution Pledge” that has resulted in diminished funding for sex worker-run organizations. Annually, our government spends millions in taxpayer money to apprehend and prosecute participants in the sex trade, while more effective policies like harm reduction-based approaches, including the multiplication of living wage alternatives, are dramatically under-utilized.

In both the highly-publicized scandals and under-documented daily struggles, many sex workers now face financial ruin, emotional hardship and social opprobrium at the hands of the Pink Scare simply because their work, though it takes place between consenting adults, may be illegal and, to some, may be offensive. In two instances associated with Palfrey’s case, Ms. Palfrey and her former employee, Ms. Britton, oppressive laws and stigma cost the implicated their very lives. Why did Ms. Palfrey die? In response to this question, an activist with the International Union of Sex Workers wrote, “Whether she died by her own hand or her suicide is a cover for murder, she has been killed by the state.” Given the highly political nature of these events, SWANK, SWOP-NYC, PONY and the Desiree Alliance call for an independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding Ms. Palfrey’s untimely death. Furthermore, we, as activists and advocates, would like to stress in this instance that the criminalization of sex workers and our labor only drives us further underground, making us and our dependents more vulnerable to client and police violence, and even death, as we are further isolated. The unfortunate events of the D.C. scandal bring many of these broader issues into sharper focus. It is high time that we challenge the morals and laws that harm so many, so deeply, with so few gains and so many lives destroyed.

All I have time for today are blockquote posts, but here’s another one everyone should read, from Elizabeth at Sex in the Public Square:

I no longer think that the exposing of clients is going to be the source of any great reduction in the stigma attached to sex work. Why? Because they always apologize.

They apologize by admitting their “sins” a la David Vitter or they apologize and resign their posts, a la Eliot Spitzer, but they always apologize, and by doing so they reinforce the impression that consciously and explicitly exchanging sex for money is wrong, and they reinforce the stigma. In fact they often refer to that stigma when they include in their apologies their regret for bringing shame on their families.

Note that they do not apologize for any mistreatment of the workers. They apologize for being clients in the first place.

So my new call on Labor Day is a call to the clients and not a call to the workers. Clients of the sex workers of the world: stand up for the people whose work you are paying for. Treat those workers respectfully and protect their safety and don’t apologize for paying for their services.

Yes, you may have much to apologize for:

Apologize if you have actively worked to keep the services you pay for criminalized.

Apologize if you have said insulting, demeaning or paternalistic things about sex workers.

Apologize if you have contributed to the shaming of sex workers.

Apologize if you have jeopardized the health of a sex worker.

Apologize if you have committed violence against a sex worker.

And by all means apologize if you have lied to your partner about sex you are having with other people.

But for being a client of a sex worker?

Please, no more apologies. We can’t afford them.

Via Melissa on Twitter, I just found out that Deborah Jeane Palfrey (a.k.a. the “DC Madam”) has committed suicide.

Fuck. Fuck. Shit.

I am sitting here at my desk at work, fighting back tears.

No, I didn’t know her. But I’m grieving, because I have some humanity in me, unlike the media and judicial system and court of public opinion that tore her life apart.

Earlier today I was contemplating finishing a long-stored-in-draft-mode post about my fear/issues surrounding death. I think I’ll put it off for a while longer now, but this just shows… I mean… I don’t even know how to say it, but just, she’s gone now.

What will it take, people? How many more women have to die before sex workers are actually considered human? How much longer will we excuse - or, more accurately, applaud - exploitation by the media of women who “step out of line” in some way? How much longer will we keep denying that the sexual double standard isn’t just an annoyance, it actually kills?

People’s - oh who am I kidding, women’s; it’s not like any of the men involved have experienced anything even remotely comparable - lives have been ruined because of this case. And now the woman at the forefront of it is dead.

Her blood is on the hands of lawmakers and the media, and no I don’t even care if I sound like the religious guy (Pat Robertson?) who was blaming 9/11 on teh ghey… IT IS TRUE in this situation.

Fuck you. Fuck all of you who want to pick apart sex workers’ lives, dehumanize them, get the juicy details for a good story, then throw them out like yesterday’s trash when the story goes stale.

Deborah Jeane Palfrey is dead, and I think I’m just going to have to ignore all MSM (and a lot of new media as well) because if I see any salacious “tell-all” stories in light of this, I am going to go ballistic.

Bound, Not Gagged was started in the wake of the original breaking of the “DC Madam scandal”… and that is where I will be turning for information and updates. And I think now is a fitting time to revisit the words on their page, “Why a Blog for Sex Workers?”

When sex work is in the press, the coverage most always brings to the surface more issues than a single organization’s statement can address. As advocates, it would be impossible to make a statement that truly reflects the voices of this dynamic and diverse community.

BoundnotGagged is a space for these voices to be heard. It is a place for sex workers to respond to the way that they’re portrayed in the media, the way that sexist laws are used to undermine women’s rights and their feelings about the ethical dilemma of exposing a client list. The issues are deep and broad. The stories are powerful and frustrating.

BoundnotGagged is our way of responding to the injustice and hypocrisy that keeps sex workers’ voices muted and faces hidden. Sex workers may be in hiding, but they refuse to be silent.

Also, here are some excellent interviews with which to remember Palfrey:

• Interview With Deborah Jeane Palfrey, AKA The DC Madam - Radical Vixen’s podcast interview w/ Palfrey
• The D.C. Madam Speaks! - Susie Bright’s interview w/ Palfrey

And now I have to continue going on about my day as if everything is okay.

Rest in peace, Ms. Palfrey.

ETA: Noteworthy excerpt from Radical Vixen’s interview with Palfrey (as printed in $pread magazine):

Some of the attorneys that I have had and that are no longer in my life or will not be soon have said things to me like, “Jeane, don’t you just go to prison for 8 months? You’ll be out in 8 months. It’s going to take at least 8 months to fight it. I thought this person was the biggest buffoon- and he’s an attorney. Only a buffoon would say [to] give up your liberty for 8 months. I wouldn’t give up my liberty for 8 minutes. I’ve had people say, “Don’t say anything, don’t give any press conferences, don’t speak up, just be quiet, don’t aggravate the situation.” Don’t aggravate the situation? You’ve got to be kidding me. These people can come after me, destroy me, take every shot they possibly can at me, and I’m supposed to just sit back and be quiet and dutiful and well mannered?

That’s why I’m doing this interview with you. These people who are telling me, “Just take it,” these people scare me to death. I just don’t understand them.

ETA, pt. 2: What Dacia said:

These men spent a few weeks being raked across hot coals and being the targets of gentle ribbing from colleagues. There were cries of “hypocrite!” echoing all across the American media, but just beneath that is a resigned shrug: boys will be boys.

But if boys will be boys, whores will be punished. Deborah Jean Palfrey went to trial. And now she’s dead.

It saddens and angers me that this is Palfrey’s end, that she saw no easy way out other than suicide, and that women have to pay such a high price for their sexual and economic sins (especially when the two are combined), when men get slaps on the wrist.

ETA, pt. 3: See also, Anthony:

I would like to say that I’m surprised…but I’m not…because this is the ultimate (if to the extreme) means to which our sex-negative society deals with women who challenge the status quo when it comes to our hypocritical sexual mores. It’s much easier to drive the woman to suicide or simply murder her than it is to take a realistic look at how our laws and social mores against consensual adult sex (for free or for pay) do far more destruction and degradation than the actual sex acts and services that are bought and sold.

(That’s right, GenderBorgians, I said “acts” and “services”. not “bodies”; women who do sex work are not comparable to slaves, and they still own their own bodies, regardless of whether you like what they do with them.)

Like the Duke University rape accuser who gets slimed and virtually raped over and over again in the media because she dared to even make the claim that she was raped (and NO, MRA jackals and all other “White pity” fools, this is NOT permission to send me your half-baked comments on that case, either).

Like the rape crisis center owner who decided that a woman like Renegade Evolution should be denied the right to even counsel women who have suffered from abuse….merely because she might defile the center with her clients.

Like the cops in LA who mocked and laughed at and dehumanized an arrested street hooker into wetting her pants because they could only see her as an “object” to be used and manipulated for their benefit. (But I guess that since they were trying to get prostitution off the streets, that makes it OK for some so-called radicalfeminists, right???)

Like every Goddess-damn porn starlet, sex worker, adult model, and merely overtly sexual woman who has to face the full stigma of “slut-baiting” for simply not being as “pure” or “chaste” or “decent” for the public taste. Not even a young adolescent like Hannah Montana is immune from the anti-sex gaze; lest even sweet virginhood is defiled by her actress character flashing a bra for her boyfriend.

And all this done in the name of “protecting women and children”, no less.

…and the inimitable Susie:

I know how pissed you were. This was an act of revenge, and I know who you’re determined to haunt.

You were righteously furious at all the men who “walked away.”

That included the esteemed gents on your client list: Louisiana fundamentalist, Senator David Vitter. Abstinence Ambassador Randall Tobias, who squashed AIDS funds all over the world. “Shock and Awe” war profiteer, Harlan Ullman.

And that was just the expendable layer. None of them were charged with anything; all are living quite comfortably, in particular because they have no conscience whatsoever.

Imagine my surprise this morning, during breakfast at Radial, when I saw an article in Creative Loafing(!) about the under-21 stripping ordinance.* Imagine my downright shock when I read the article and discovered that it was not sensationalistic, full of stupid jokes and bad puns, dripping with value judgments, or any of the other countless traits that too often characterize mainstream media coverage of anything related to sex work.

I would’ve liked to hear more from Danielle Barbee and other dancers. But since the article focused on the lawsuit, the plaintiffs probably couldn’t (or, were wise not to) speak to the press directly.

The article also made me feel frustrated and a little angry at the lack of a cohesive sex workers’ rights movement in Atlanta. Those of us who were at Charis on Dec. 17th should be “plugged in” to the same support network as Barbee et al. Caitlin set up a listserv but so far I’m the only one who’s emailed anything to it… my hopes for a bad-ass march through midtown this December are fading, unfortunately.

But more on that another time. Ahem.

Memo to MSM (and especially to Andisheh): it is possible to write a straightforward article about sex work issues. You have no excuse for fucking up so badly 99.9% of the time.

* The ordinance was mentioned during our Dec. 17th event, but I hadn’t heard anything about its status since then.

From Kerry Howley, senior editor at Reason magazine:

Everyone seems to assume that legalizing sex work will reinforce all sorts of ugly cultural phenomena women struggle against all the time. Writes one commenter at Feministing, “I’m politically liberal, openly feminist, and opposed to sex work precisely” because of “patriarchy” and “heterosexuality issues.”

I find this incoherent precisely because I share all the poster’s intuitions about problematic cultural norms. Of course sexism restricts autonomy in all sorts of ways that deserve consideration when discussing the prevalence of prostitution or the choice to enter sex work. Of course it’s deplorable that sexually adventurous young women are constantly told they are “degrading themselves” by seeking out various experiences, that every bit of enjoyment eats away at some secret store of purity. This whole tradition-the idea that women need be preserved in glass so as not to “ruin” themselves, lest they diminish their sexual value by “giving it away”-restricts the lived autonomy of women in ways I can’t even begin to articulate. None of the slut-shaming makes sense unless you assume women live to give themselves to men in their purest possible form.

If you find all of these cultural pathologies unfortunate, what is the public policy you should prefer? It seems to me that it is not the policy that deems it a crime against the American people to open your legs. Anti-prostitution laws add a layer of legal sanction to all of our worst intuitions about the treatment of sexually independent women; they strengthen and validate the idea that women who bed men with any frequency are sick, marginal, pariahs.

Via Bound, Not Gagged. Please feel free to repost.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts
Shakti Ziller, Sex Workers Action New York (SWANK), swank@riseup.net 877-776-2004 x 2
Audacia Ray, 718.554.1714
Sarah Bleviss, Sex Workers Outreach Project NYC (SWOP-NYC), swop.nyc@gmail.com
Prostitutes of New York (PONY), pony@panix.com
Desiree Alliance, http://www.desireealliance.org/

WHAT ABOUT KRISTEN? New York Sex Worker Organizations Respond to Spitzer Scandal

New York, NY - In the last few days, Governor Eliot Spitzer has publicly admitted to being associated with an escort agency and is considering resignation. As sex worker advocates, we are concerned about the representation and fate of “Kristen” and sex workers who are being thrust into the spotlight because of the investigation into the Governor. We also share the widespread concern for Governor Spitzer’s family.

Sex worker organizations urge the press and the public to focus on the violation of sex workers rights and the need to change these laws and policies, rather than simply on the story of one individual who has purchased sexual services.

“Nobody is talking about the impact of this story on ‘Kristen’ and other women, men and trans people who are currently working in the sex industry,” Shakti Ziller of SWANK in NYC added, “Prostitutes disproportionately face punitive action after arrest as compared to clients. Whether or not she will face prison time, “Kristen” has been dragged into the spotlight and will be subjected to public humiliation. Shouldn’t the police emphasis be on catching perpetrators of violent crime and protecting sex workers - not exposing adults who are consenting to a transaction? All she did was try to make a living.”

“Governor Spitzer ran on a platform of being a different kind of politician and then portrayed an inaccurate image of himself. Being involved with the services of sex workers is a very common thing, if all forms of consensual sex work were decriminalized for adults involved in a consensual transaction, sex workers could access the services they need,” says Dylan Wolfe of SWANK (Sex Workers Action New York).

Governor Spitzer took a lead role in developing the NY State Anti-Trafficking Law. Over the objections of advocates who worked directly with victims of human trafficking and with sex workers, Governor Spitzer pushed through penalty enhancements against clients of all sex workers. Sex worker advocates fought against such provisions because these policies drive people who need help further underground.

“Spitzer has stood up for workers’ rights in certain capacities, but has not followed through with meeting the real needs of sex workers,” Audacia Ray, author of Naked on the Internet, noted, “It would be great if the government could use money towards services, not punitive measures.”

The press has picked up on the relationship that inter-state trafficking laws (under the Mann Act) have to this case. This connection illustrates a point that sex worker advocates have been making for a long time: Laws against inter-state transportation for the purposes of commercial sex are too often used for punishing people working as sex workers and those who work with and patronize them.

The exposure of Randall Tobias last year as a customer of an escort agency, Senator Vitter’s rumored association with sex workers and now this recent news of Governor Spitzer, the corruption and hypocrisy inherently associated with prohibiting consensual prostitution are again being brought to light. Shaming these men will do nothing to improve the nature of the sex industry and the deeply-rooted corruption that is associated with the prohibition of prostitution.

“The criminalization of prostitution breeds this type of hypocrisy and makes our politicians (and other public figures) vulnerable,” says Carol Leigh of Sex Workers Outreach Project-USA. “This vulnerability exists until our society recognizes that consensual sexual behavior is private and these private acts should no longer be criminalized.”

“Many of our clients are politicians, judges, lawyers and even police,” Monica S., 26 of Brooklyn said. “It’s odd that they spend so much effort putting us into jail, but then turn around and give us their money in exchange for sex. Why do they think they won’t get caught breaking the laws that they make?”

The commentary on Dealbreaker.com, a Wall-Street news site, says about Wall-street’s anti-Spitzer reaction to the ‘Client 9′ story: “‘There is a God’ was the first thought on Wall Street. The next thought is, ‘Please don’t let it be revealed that I’m Lucky Number 7.’”

# # # #

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.

Cross-posted from the Sex in the Public Square forum on Sex Work, Trafficking and Human Rights. Comments are disabled so as to force you people to go comment over there instead, where lots of good discussion is going on.

—

This is a question that’s been bouncing around in my mind for a few days:

“Would sex work be so profitable if it weren’t stigmatized or criminalized?”
Example:

Sex work is often an attractive option for single mothers, because they can earn more money and (sometimes) work fewer hours than they would at a retail or other service industry job, thereby allowing them greater economic stability and more time with their children. But to what extent is this attributable to the stigmatized - and, with prostitution specifically, criminalized - nature of sex work?

I think that if sex work were decriminalized and de-stigmatized, it would still offer attractive, competitive pay, for the same reasons that other professions that require specialized skills or training come with higher compensation - e.g., lawyers, doctors, etc. (No jokes about lawyers being stigmatized!) I do not think that if prostitution were decriminalized, for example, tons of women would suddenly flock to the profession; that argument holds about as much water as the argument that making emergency contraception available over the counter will encourage promiscuity.

However, I am curious to hear what others think about this question.

Courtesy of Ren, here it is, the sex work debate bingo card! Click to enlarge.

Based on my latest, um, encounters at Blog For Democracy* and Creative Loafing (a.k.a., further attempts at not taking a claw hammer to my eyes), I’ve already got ideas for a Version 2.

Oh and for everyone who likes to run off at the mouth about “privileged” sex workers, allow Ren to remind you of a small point…

you know what so many of them forget…with the privilege and all?

ALL THIS CAN BE USED IN A US COURT OF LAW AGAINST ME.

All of it.

Not like I HAVEN”T been BLACKMAILED.

I get raped? You think I stand a fucking chance in HELL? Even if I am beat to shit?

No.

I don’t. Cause I;m a whore who likes rough sex.

It takes SToNES to do this.

Most sex workers DON’T want to take that chance.

Which, hello, this blatant injustice is exactly what so many of you are reinforcing with your words, actions, and stubbornly closed ears. Yeah, I’m pointing fingers. DEAL. Start listening.

* I’m referring to certain heads-up-their-asses commenters, not the post itself.

I can’t believe there are self-identified liberals, progressives, and Democrats basically taking the tack of, “Well, it’s illegal; so it must be bad!”

HELLO.

The fact that something is illegal does not mean it’s somehow inherently, morally wrong - and vice versa. Anyone who considers themselves to have any liberal/progressive/what-the-hell-ever leanings AT ALL should understand this.

I won’t go the route of talking about how it’s what this country was founded on but you can go there yourself if you’d like.

Examples:

Interracial marriage was illegal into the 1960s.

Spousal rape was legal - excuse me, there wasn’t even the concept of spousal rape! - in many jurisdictions well into the 1970s.

And some particular lightning rods for liberals etc.: Abortion. Same-sex marriage. ENDA.

I think that’s all I need to say about that, right?

TVPRA (Trafficking Victims Protection Act) 2007/11 passed the House of Representatives last Tuesday. The sections relating to “sex tourism” clearly conflate all sex work with sex trafficking, the consequences of which could be quite horrific for sex workers. There is the potential for massive arrests and long periods of prison time if workers are crossing borders to work. The legislation specifies up to 10 years for the worker and up to 30 years for the support staff.

In a practical sense (and for people who don’t have time to read all 126 pages of the bill), what does this mean? As Iamcuriousblue explains at the Pro-Porn Activism blog:

Existing legislation prohibits traveling abroad to purchase sex with minors; the new legislation expands this to include sex with consenting adults, even in countries where this is legal. (For example, an American who buys sex in an Amsterdam brothel would be subject to Federal prosecution back in the US.) Notably, it also criminalizes travel to or from the US to sell sexual services as well. (For example, a Montreal escort who travels to an American city to sell sex would be further criminalized under Federal law, in addition to existing local law.) Basically, it resurrects the Mann Act and internationalizes it.

Contact your Senators!!

[Via Bound, Not Gagged and Pro-Porn Activism]

Teresa Carr Deni was retained.

FYI, the Philadelphia Bar Association recommended against her retention.

On Ren’s site, commenter Katie wondered if a lot of people just voted “yes” straight down the ballot. It seems like a plausible explanation, at least for some of the votes. But whatever the reason, it doesn’t make the results any less discouraging. In fact, apathy may be more discouraging than malice.

And then, there’s this.

On the surface, it looks like a good article in support of the sexual assault victim and outraged at Judge Deni’s retention. And overall, it is, and the more of this kind of support that gets published in the mainstream media, the better; I’m certainly not going to totally castigate something if people are making an effort. Still, this part chafed:

The victim spoke intelligently and with deep love for her mother and daughter.

She no longer advertises on Craigslist.

“If I’m going to struggle, I’m going to struggle, but I don’t want to be in a position like that where I have to be begging for my life,” she said.

What the fuck???

Why does it make any difference whether or not she still advertises on Craigslist?? Are we supposed to feel sympathy for her on the condition that she’s a repentant hooker? Would all the other points about her situation outlined in the article be somehow less true if she were still advertising on Craigslist??

And, “[t]he victim spoke intelligently and with deep love for her mother and daughter”??? WHY is that in there? I guess we’re supposed to be blown away by this hooker with a heart of gold, AND brains, too!

The article would have been just fine, thanks, without those two sentences! Talk about a slap in the face!

And I hate that the victim seems to be partially blaming herself in the last sentence. And that she now chooses to “struggle,” because as a sex worker, she didn’t have the basic protections offered by most other professions, even though sex work would allow her to earn more money to support her family. I don’t think that part should have been taken out of the article, since it was a quote from the victim. When I say that I hate that part, I don’t mean it in a way like “oh it’s making her look bad” or something. What I mean is, I hate that we live in a world where we’re supposed to be all sanctimonious and nod our heads like, “Yes, yes, now she knows better, she’s learned a lesson, she can go get a respectable job that pays minimum wage where she has to work long hours and not spend any time with her kid… not that that’ll stop us from giving her hell about being a single mother and GOD FORBID she try to collect a welfare check or get childcare or medical care for her family… and if her kid gets in trouble it’s HER fault for not being at home…”

ARGH!!!!

Update: Forgot to say when I initially wrote the post - Look at how the first two sentences in the part I quoted are juxtaposed. They’re positioned as an if/then situation. Or more like, one directly led to the other. “She’s intelligent and loves her family, therefore she no longer advertises on Craigslist.” Because clearly no intelligent woman who loves her family would do THAT.

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!!