Craigslist erotic services ads: AJC get it so, so, so very wrong
By now you might have heard that Craigslist is ending its erotic services section.
This is a little confusing to me, since they are replacing the category with a new category called “adult.” How this is not a simple renaming of an existing category still defeats me. Oh, right: because Craigslist employees are going to “review” the ads in the adult category. Well that makes me feel so much better. Because requiring sex workers to fork over their credit card information in order to post an ad wasn’t enough.
The ending of erotic services ads comes on the heels of the murder of a masseuse who advertised on Craigslist in Boston. Which is a bit like shutting down banks and opening new institutions where you store your money, but which are not called banks, because there are bank robbers out there.
Naturally, coverage from mainstream media has been what you would expect: sensationalistic, inaccurate, in many cases wildly irrelevant, and with a deafening lack of sex workers’ voices.
The AJC did a particularly stellar job with this article on the matter. Have a look at this lede, why don’t you:
Atlanta children will be a little safer now that Craigslist will no longer post prostitution and other “erotic services” ads, but additional precautions are needed, an Atlanta anti-child prostitution group said Wednesday.
WTF???????
Where to even begin?
When Rusty showed me this article in his Google Reader, I was all inspired and motivated to take Dacia’s message from this weekend about getting our voices heard in the media to heart and write a letter to the editor. I could do this! Short, to the point. On message. 150 words or less.
Then I read the full article and the WTF-ness of it was just so overwhelming that I felt paralyzed at the prospect of trying to condense a response to the necessary length for a letter to the editor.
I feel shitty about that because I do think it’s important to respond to the media in the media’s space. But all too often the media doesn’t offer space that’s meaingful, and so, I’m doing what I always do: using the space I’ve carved out for myself to spell out exactly what the hell is wrong with this, in way more than 150 words.
Looking just at the lede… I really don’t know what goes through people’s minds. Atlanta’s children will be safer? What?? Do these people truly believe that traffickers – yes, actual child traffickers, not adult sex workers posting ads for their own services – are going to go, “Oh, Craigslist shut down its erotic services section; shucks! Now there’s nothing we can do! Oh well, no more trafficking!” Because that’s what that line seems to be saying. And for anyone who believes that, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.
Here’s the deal. Actual traffickers? Scary, dangerous, powerful people. Tough to go after. Lots of risk involved. And you know what else? Usually not posting on fucking Craigslist!! But of course (as Ren has pointed out) it’s far easier to make a big show of “cracking down on child prostitution” by arresting a bunch of adult sex workers, a situation wherein the state essentially becomes a pimp (for another nice dose of irony there) and keeps that door revolving, than it is to go after actual traffickers. Because that doesn’t titillate readers or make enticing headlines.
Like many cities, Atlanta had been doing police stings to “crack down on child prostitution.” What ended up happening? Law enforcement dollars and resources were devoted to giving criminal records to adult women simply trying to make a living, while violent crime continues to rise. The AJC played a nice role in that, too, by posting the full names and photos of many of those workers arrested (not linking to an article because I do not want to contribute to further outing of those women).
I feel so much safer now, don’t you? Now that those dirty whores aren’t earning money (and subsequently paying taxes) somewhere off in a hotel room?
It’s for the children!
These stings have been equally successful in protecting the children elsewhere across the country. Chicago, for example:
Perhaps you’ve heard about Operation Cross Country, a three-day, nationwide FBI operation that was supposedly targeting child prostitution trafficking. I didn’t realize it had happened right here in Chicago. “Of those arrested in the Chicago area, 5 were charged with running prostitution operations, 34 were charged with prostitution, and 5 were customers, according to the release. No minors were found.” (Emphasis mine)
In that case, SWOP-Chicago put it well:
To target child prostitution and trafficking is one thing. To scapegoat sex workers and crackdown on prostitution in the name of preventing trafficking is a horse of a different color. It’s a waste of money and it’s a waste of tax-payer resources. And if you really care about “rescuing” sex workers, why the fuck are you giving them felony records?
Operation Cross Country is not about ending the exploitation of children and those who are trafficked against their will. It’s using this exploitation as a smokescreen for persecuting sex workers on the altar of sex panic.
But back to the AJC article. I have a serious problem with this line:
As recently as February, 176 girls were prostituted for sex on Craigslist, she said.
There is no sourcing for this. Where did they get that information? Police reports? If so, of what nature? Or maybe sources other than police reports? And if so, what were those? I have seen all too often how “facts” like this are crafted in order to fit an agenda. Without knowing where this information is being drawn from, I don’t trust it one damn bit. Those 176 prostituted girls might very well be escorts who are legal adults. We don’t know.
The above was attributed to Kaffie McCullough, director of the anti-child prostitution group A Future. Not A Past. This group takes an “end demand” approach to ending child prostitution, according to their web site. Yet all the red flags are there. The conflation of exploitation of minors with consensual adult sex work. The vague and brief language on their web site. The lack of support for decriminalization of prostitution (which would be a huge help in the fight against trafficking of both children and adults, because far too often when either children or adults are “rescued,” they are entered into the criminal justice system; some rescue). Oh and did you know, according to A Future. Not A Past.’s web site, this is one of the warning signs that a minor might be a victim of trafficking:
Inappropriate dress, including oversized clothing or overtly sexy clothing
?????
Yeah. If she dresses like a slut or a weirdo, she must be trafficked! It’s that easy to spot!
How out of touch with reality are these people?
Furthermore, when someone who claims to care about children says something like this (again quoting from the AJC article)…
“I’m glad because with all the press Craigslist had been getting it was just way too easy for someone to buy an underage girl on the Internet,” McCullough said.
…well I have a major problem with that, too. Another red flag. You’re talking about trafficking victims having a future and yet you use incredibly dehumanizing language. Buy a girl? Are you fucking KIDDING me?
I’m exhausted. I’ve written over 1200 words and there’s still so much more that could be said about the AJC article. It really depresses me sometimes when I realize, yet again, that this is how much of the public at large views sex work. They think these tactics are okay. They think, I guess, that Craigslist truly is overflowing with ads for underage girls. I don’t know what they think, exactly. But I know it’s fucked up, seriously wrong, and perpetuates harmful conditions for sex workers and victims of trafficking.
I don’t know what else to say. I’ll leave you with words of wisdom from Jill Brenneman:
When I did need help, when I was facing violence and coercion in the sex industry, none of the current anti trafficking measures would have applied or helped, I couldn’t go the cops or the justice system because in the US being a prostitute is illegal, the clients getting arrested,,, so what??? Great so the whole thing which was underground in the first place just moves farther underground. Not to mention I went into the sex industry for a reason. To make money to survive. I didn’t need the clients arrested because they were clients, I was there to make money to eat, to live, there was a need for the clients. I needed the ones arrested that beat the shit out of me, or raped me, or forced me to do things without my consent. I needed them arrested for rape, for assault, not on some minor misdemeanor that they could wash away with a visit to “John School” in some lame ass plea bargain. I needed labor and human rights so that an abusive, sadistic pimp, didn’t have criminalization to use against me to keep under control. As long as the whole thing is illegal the cops were more his allies than they ever could have been mine as I was more afraid of being arrested, or worse, being blown off because I was a prostitute and sent back to him to face a very angry pimp. I needed human rights.
Seriously, sometimes I wonder what it’s going to take to get through to some people.
Oh, and on that note: I might as well publicly state right now that I want to bring the Speak Up! media training seminar to Atlanta, and I am going to work to make it happen.
Sex workers self-identifying
After posting about the National March for Sex Workers Rights, I wanted to address something that I think a lot of activists, if they’re not directly involved with the sex workers’ rights movement (and even many who are), do not think about. A comment from Zenobia on a post Anji wrote about Reclaim the Night (which I found via Debi) made me think I should post something:
Although I’d be more on the side of the one screaming about sex workers’ rights, but still, where are the sex workers themselves actually involved here? At the moment, they’re just the audience being informed that feminists have opinions on them. How’s that useful to them in any way?
In response, I left a brief comment:
Keep in mind, too, that sex workers may not always self-identify, due to concerns about being outed. They may face very real concerns about the possibility of facing stigmatization or even arrest.
Zenobia’s comment bothered me because of all the assumptions wrapped up in it. Why does she assume there were not any sex workers among the activists shouting for sex workers’ rights? Is it because in her mind, like the minds of so many people, “sex worker” means “street-based prostitute” or “down-on-her-luck stripper?” Or, what, do they have to be wearing a T-shirt that says “I’M A SEX WORKER” in order for her to believe it? Sex workers of all stripes are the ones leading the sex workers rights movement, and yep, many identify as feminists. Does Zenobia assume those identities are mutually exclusive?
People, even those who consider themselves feminist or progressive or whatever, have lots of ignorance, stereotypes, and unquestioned assumptions about sex workers. One is that they can “spot” a sex worker. Guess what? Not true. You see sex workers every day; you just don’t know it. As PlainsFeminist writes:
In fact, one of the things that continually surprises me (because I, too, fall prey to stereotypes about sex workers) when I meet sex workers is that they look just like everybody else.
When you really think about it, this assumption is pretty stupid. Do people really think sex workers walk around in 7″ heels and a thong all the time? That they all have bleach-blond hair and breast implants? That they’re all women (an assumption that both the previous stereotypes rest on)? Unfortunately in my experience, lots of people who are otherwise very intelligent do subscribe to these ridiculous ideas.
So back to Zenobia’s comment – if she can’t “spot” the sex workers, then they must not be there, right?
As I wrote above, something that even well-intentioned activists often don’t consider is that sex workers often have reservations about self-identifying. This is one reason why it’s so difficult to organize for sex workers’ rights on a local level. In some areas it is easier than others, but for example, this is one of the biggest hurdles we faced organizing the IDTEVASW event at Charis last year – and it’s why, I think, no one other than Caitlin and Tabby (the other two organizers) came up to do anything for the open mic. We restricted the open mic to current and former sex workers because we wanted to make sure the event was not co-opted by non-sex workers; but, it’s asking a lot of someone to get up in front of a room of strangers (even strangers who, ostensibly, are there because they support the cause) and say “I’m a sex worker.” Having reporters from media outlets in the room only adds to that pressure. Of course we wanted the event to be covered by the media, because sex workers’ rights activism gets little to no coverage in the media; but at the beginning of the event we specifically told people from the media NOT to take photos or use quotes from anyone without getting their explicit permission.
In fact, this is part of why it’s so difficult to achieve adequate representation for sex workers in the media. Dacia covered this in her session at WAM!2008, “Sex Workers and Media Representation.” Mainstream media organizations often want certain information about people’s identities when quoting them for a story (for some reasons that are valid and some that are spurious); but for sex workers, this is highly problematic. Some sex workers that have trusted mainstream media have then been outed and faced the repercussions – thereby instilling in the community even less trust in the media.
While it’s certainly not easy to go on record, whether at a small community activist event or in the New York Times, as being a member of many other marginalized/oppressed groups, most of those identities don’t have the potential for arrest, eviction, job loss, or loss of custody of your children. Most people don’t think about this dilemma that sex workers face, because they don’t have to – and that, of course, is the definition of privilege. It’s not on your radar, it never even occurs to you that it would be something to put on your radar because you have no idea it exists. As a tangent, this is helpful yet again in dispelling the myths and misunderstanding around the concept of “privilege.” You’re not a bad person because you didn’t know about something; but you tacitly benefit from not having to know about it.
Sex writers: not a monolith
As I mentioned yesterday on Twitter, I was linked by Salon in a piece by Tracy Clark-Flory entitled Sex writing goes limp. My initial reaction was to roll my eyes at the title, but I thought, well, writers often don’t choose their own headlines, so I’d better give the piece itself a chance. So I read it, and unfortunately I was pretty disappointed.
The bulk of the article is devoted to talking about how “sex writers” (not a huge fan of that term, as I feel it’s too reductive; but it’s the term used by Clark-Flory) aren’t talented, don’t work hard, and have nothing substantive to contribute. Take this quote from Susannah Breslin, for instance:
“Sometimes people become sex writers because they screw a lot, not necessarily because they can write well,” she told me in an e-mail. “If your career as a writer is driven by you showing your tits on your blog on a regular basis, maybe you shouldn’t be so surprised when you lose your cred.”
This is asinine but also infuriating, because it implies that the writers who were laid off and/or chose to leave fit this description. But none of them do. So why waste time talking about the mythical sex writers who have jobs only because they show their tits?
I said “mythical,” but I know such writers do exist. However, it’s pointless, misleading, and frankly seems a bit malicious to bring them up in this situation, because they have nothing whatsoever to do with the specific people being discussed!
The conflation is maddening. The loss of Regina Lynn’s Wired.com column and Tristan Taormino’s Village Voice column (and all the rest) is upsetting specifically because they were not fluff writers putting out glossy features about 10 ways to give an awesome blowjob.
The dearth of smart sex content is what we’ve been bemoaning, people. The fluff writers aren’t losing their jobs – who can resist a checklist of 5 daring and dirty new positions? The titillation factor is high and the threat level is low. That kind of material is exactly what a society that can talk about sex only in a “ha-ha tee-hee let’s make puns” manner demands – and it reinforces this arrested development mentality toward sex. The writing of the people who lost their jobs recently was remarkable because it challenged the status quo of how sex is represented, and helped to expose more people to the possibility of a thoughtful, interesting, non-judgmental discourse about sexuality.
I hear and completely agree with what Gracie Passette, Melissa Gira, Regina Lynn and others are saying about the lay-offs being part of the larger issue facing media: plummeting profits and circulation. I have no doubt that that’s what led to these writers being laid off, but I don’t think it’s pointless to note the fact that a particular type of writer is being let go. Coincidence or not, noting the zeitgeist of it is appropriate, and we should use it as a jumping-off point for greater analysis of how our society views sex.
New media filling the void, for passion and (maybe, sometimes) profit
I felt like writing about a few things that I think were missing from Monday’s post, related to blogging, bottom lines, media (new, traditional, and otherwise) and WHAT IT ALL MEANS.
First of all:
I loathe the idea that if you make money from something, then it’s “selling out” and somehow less valuable to your audience and/or community. I love what Kevin Barnes had to say about this. And here’s an appropriate cartoon from Gaping Void:
Do I think it’s important to question a writer’s motivations? Well, yes, obviously. But this isn’t brain surgery; it’s all part of the general practice of media literacy and analysis that a lot of us do reflexively at this point, on a daily basis. What’s the NY Times’ motivation for leading with an inflammatory headline and putting someone’s life in danger? To make more money, of course. And is that problematic? YES, of course. (If you don’t know my answer to that question, then you haven’t been reading my blog for very long!) But what I’m saying is that this is an entirely different thing from making a generalization that anyone who makes money as a writer automatically, without consideration, has bad motives – and that people who do something “for the love of it” or whatever, and don’t make money doing it, are automatically better or more respectable. That’s some bullshit.
Now – to use a phrase my mom hates – with all that being said, I’ll go on and say a bunch of stuff that might appear, to the casual reader, to contradict the above two paragraphs:
Regina and Dacia and others have talked about how it sucks that, basically, the mainstream media* wants to use their writing when it’s convenient, as a way to make a buck, but doesn’t want to associate themselves with them too much; and/or wants them to do the work for free and then loosely cover it under the umbrella of “covering blogs.” And they’re right, it does suck!
But I know they would all agree with me, too, that this is where new media comes in and fills the void. No use waiting for mainstream media to get on the bandwagon and catch up; we all know how long THAT takes, if it ever happens at all. Instead, we can use the tools that are now available to us to get accurate information out there quickly, in our own voices, unpolluted by editors who are “uncomfortable” with certain topics or downright ignorant, and reach people who otherwise might not be reached (and they will have a voice, as well!). Sexuality can be discussed with the full level of nuance and intelligence it deserves, not merely used as a titillating eye-catcher; the voices of individuals can be respected rather than tokenized and used for cheap shots. No need to wait for MSM to get their shit together with how they cover sex work, for example – because sex workers are speaking for themselves (and even reaching out to try to educate the media) and slowly but surely, people are paying attention. People are going directly to the people who are experts in their own lived experiences, not to the MSM as a filter or, as one manager at the media company where I used to work said, “gate-keepers of the news.” No more letting them decide what’s important and relevant. We create the content and we foster a dialogue about it within our communities in a way that MSM just does not get yet. Hopefully they will catch up eventually, but if they don’t, that’s okay, because we’re doing just fine ourselves, and we have a drive and a passion that isn’t dependent on advertiser dollars.
* Let’s just use a rather loose definition of what that means; or maybe I should say corporate media? But I don’t think that’s exactly right either. Hmmm.
Smart sex content and getting paid
So by now you’ve probably heard about seemingly everyone in the freakin’ world getting canned (or voluntarily leaving due to “circumstances”).
Dacia wrote about it the other day and included a master list of sorts. Let us also not forget Regina Lynn leaving Wired, and Playboy Radio putting the kibosh on her Sex in the News segment. And you could really say it all started nearly two years ago, when the Village Voice killed Rachel Kramer Bussel’s “Lusty Lady” column.
In particular, it was really bizarre to hear about Melissa being laid off from Valleywag, because just a day or two before that, I’d heard about Tristan’s Village Voice column being axed, and as Rusty and I were walking from the MARTA station to work, I said something like, “It seems like the only one who still has a job is Melissa, at Valleywag.” Then Rusty said something about all of us starting a site together and how awesome that would be.
Ahem.
Dacia isn’t so worked up about the idea of starting a new site – and neither am I, honestly. Admittedly, after hearing about all the latest news, I did say this on Twitter (tweets listed in reverse chronological order, for those not on the bandwagon):
(more…)
BINGO!
I have an idea: let’s make a BINGO card for media representation of sex workers!
A BINGO card has 25 squares (including on “free square” in the center that can be adapted creatively as necessary), so help me out with your suggestions. Here’s what I’ve got so far off the top of my head.
Terminology:
- The world’s oldest profession
- High-end / high-class
- Working girls
- Virtual street corner
- Ply their trade
- Sell their bodies
Other characteristics:
- Dismissive/snarky quotation marks (e.g., “work”)
- Photo of scantily-clad woman leaning into car window
Hell, we might have to make more than one card!
Note: this post was inspired by Monica at $pread Blog.
Different kinds of blogs
Last night, several of us local thin-skinned types got together for food and beverages at our collective second office, and talked about the latest “us vs. them” dust-up and Lack Of Getting It on the part of some traditional media folk. At one point Sara and I said something to one of the Democratic Party guys who’d shown up to do Jäger bombs about how our blogs were a little different because they’re not straight-up political blogs. And this is something I’ve talked about all over the place plenty of times before: how making sweeping statements about “blogs,” as if blogs are a monolith, is pointless because there are so many different kinds of blogs. There are blogs that are online news outlets, many of which break stories. There are blogs that are devoted to political analysis. There are blogs that are focused on a specific topic and definitely write with more of a “for the audience” perspective. And there are plenty of blogs (such as I would class my own) that exist primarily for the blogger, cover a wide variety of topics, but do not purport to be unbiased or “fair and balanced” or objective, etc. etc. etc. So when talking about credibility, citizen journalism, etc., I was thinking it only makes sense to apply those standards to the certain types of blogs that want them.
But then I thought, well, that’s too simplistic, too. With a lot of blogs, there’s not this stark dividing line between one type vs. another type. I would call my blog a “personal blog,” but I also have, arguably, “reported” on plenty of things. So have many other people who write the type of blog I do – and that makes sense, because why should writing about an issue, or posting news, etc., have to be sequestered from writing about one’s life? And really, i think when the two mingle, that’s when some of the most effective political activism can take place – or am I abusing the old adage “the personal is political” again? ;) I just think for a lot of people, putting the humanity into something helps them see why it’s important, and think of it in a more concrete way, and not just as an abstract “issue.”
And, blogs similar to mine have broken stories. Kyle Payne, anyone? And that’s just the most recent example that comes to mind. Look, too, at how bloggers of various stripes pulled together in an ad hoc media team during the Eliot Spitzer brouhaha. A few MSM outlets here and there started to realize that yes, we are the experts, and it didn’t matter what “type” of blog we had.
So are we all really that different? I think yes and no… as Facebook would say, it’s complicated.
That’s it
I’ve lost what little patience I had left.
The following words and phrases, as so often tossed about in the blogosphere, mainstream media – hell, most anywhere – by people sitting up on their high horses feeling so proud of themselves, get me steaming; and with rare exception (as I will always reiterate that context matters), are cues for me to stop listening, because I’ve better things to do than hop aboard the Bullshit Train for another trip round the Armchair Psych Ward.
- Can’t take a joke
- Credibility
- Criticism
- Critique
- Defensive
- Ethics
- Humorless
- Integrity
- Just disagreeing
- Race card
- Satire
- Sensitive
- 4:38 p.m., ETA: Thin-skinned
- Whiners
Congratulations, you’ve got a non-argument. How about a little originality, for once?
Everybody’s a damn expert. I’m sick of it.
12:16 p.m.: Edited to put in alpha order.
Sexism in the media
Excellent video:
Please repost!
(Via Derek.)
B-I-N-G-O
Last night, Jen and Tony were kind enough to give me the dubious gift of a copy of the latest issue of The Sunday Paper. The cover story is (in huge pink letters), “ATLANTA’S HOOKER SCHOOL.” Then in smaller letters, the subhead: “New Program Aims To Make Prostitution A Risky Business For Johns.” (Okay, so it’s not really a hooker school at all, is it, dumbasses? It’s a johns school. But that won’t grab readers by the throat the way “HOOKER SCHOOL” will.)
Now, for those of you who aren’t in Atlanta, The Sunday Paper is a pretty worthless rag. It always has sensationalistic, overblown headlines, especially in the cover stories (I remember one with a big explosion on the cover, and something like “Countdown to Armageddon” – and they were totally serious) and generally includes some of the worst writing I’ve seen in a print publication. They try to publish “controversial” stories with the most watered-down, trite mockery of point/counterpoint you can imagine. And here’s how I think they go about writing features: they have a template, and they drag and drop various talking points from a database, maybe some clip art as well (e.g., in this case: photo of fishnet-clad legs and high heels, standing in a dark alleyway; Julia Roberts 20 years ago), and click “Generate story.” Voila! Your next issue is complete.
I said that at the table last night, and Kim brought up a good point, that if she were still working at a newspaper and getting paid $8.00 an hour, she wouldn’t exactly pour her heart and soul into researching every story in-depth and writing a thought-provoking, well-rounded piece. Can’t say I blame her. And The Sunday Paper is a free weekly, so who knows what those writers are getting paid. This is a topic that isn’t discussed much in all the various rants about the mainstream media and why they suck so badly. So maybe new media and independent media (often the same thing, but not always) can fill the void? But that’s a tangent for another time.
I’m always torn on stories like this. One the one hand, they’re such pathetic, rehashed tripe, that it feels like a waste of time and energy to address them at all. But then I think, that kind of rationale might make sense in some other situations, but when it comes to sex workers’ rights advocacy, we are dealing with an issue that is literally (yes, literally!) life and death for many people, mostly women; and it’s an issue fraught with layers and layers of bullshit, where all of a sudden everybody thinks they’re a damn expert, and everybody loves to hear themselves talk except they can’t be bothered to listen to the people who are actually affected by all the laws and stigma and such; and the silence is rather deafening when it comes to calling bullshit.
So, I feel compelled to call bullshit, yet again. And I just hope that if people keep on calling it out whenever they see it, whether on 20/20 or in some piddly little hometown rag, maybe progress can slowly be made.
Kim actually read the article before me (I didn’t read it last night when we were at Manuel’s), and afterward, she said, “Yeah, you’re going to need your meds after reading this.”
The article starts off talking about how “hookers” are portrayed on film (because that’s so relevant), and how it’s in stark contrast to “the truth.” (Yeah, the truth which includes sex workers being talked about but not talked with, and called “hookers.”) From there it’s just a matter of marking off the various Bingo squares. It includes the phrase “selling their bodies” and refers to them being “victims of abuse.” (No sources are cited, of course, but why bother? I mean we all just know this is true.) And oh of course there’s that whole thing about how “john’s schools” don’t work, but why get sidetracked with that annoying little piece of information?
They do include a quote or two from Carol Leigh (a.k.a. Scarlot Harlot) representing SWOP, which is more than most articles of this type do. But I’m not giving them a cookie. No, they don’t get a gold star for doing what should be the bare minimum in anything purporting to call itself a journalistic endeavor.
One thing that I really hate about bullshit articles like this is that they reinforce the idea in so many people’s minds that “sex worker” == “street prostitute.” Hell, that’s what I thought until I was 18 or 19. In fact, street workers account for only 10%-20% of all prostitutes/escorts/courtesans (not using the term “sex workers” here since that term encompasses many other types of work).
And once again, they don’t give a shit about actually helping sex workers, or any of it. (I know The Sunday Paper certainly didn’t come right out and say, “We care about sex workers!” but with all the victim language and talk about the “johns,” that’s what the superficial message clearly is – even if it falls miserably flat with its condescending, pearl-clutching tone.) They make bank on perpetuating the very stereotypes and stigma they dramatically wring their hands about in articles such as these. It’s so transparent it’s pathetic. Sex workers aren’t people after all… they’re just an easy way to move some papers!