Being Amber Rhea

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.

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!

Cross-posted from Bound, Not Gagged:

As an active sexworker, longtime sex worker rights activist, and member of SWOP and this board, I urge anyone and everyone who viewed Diane Sawyer’s “Prostitution in America” on 20/20 last night to write to ABC in one of two ways (or both):

1. Seen something? Heard Something? Know something? Please let us know — by being the reporter yourself. If you have facts or information to add to the story, fill out the form below and we’ll get in touch with you. You have a 2000 word limit to add your own story about your reality as a sex worker. Make sure to link back to either boundnotgagged.com or your local SWOP chapter.

2. You can also leave a comment about the story on the ABC site. Again, make sure to link back to either boundnotgagged.com or your local SWOP chapter.

Blog comments on this board can be found here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elizabeth agrees with me, anyway.

My real anger, though, actually comes from Dominus’s acceptance of the term “high class.” I know that is the term that much of the press has been using to describe the escort service in question. But to accept its use and to apply it to people is appalling.

“High class” is a value judgement and a way of obscuring the real stratification of wealth, power and privilege in the United States. Why not talk about the upper class, the elite, or the working class or the middle class, which are much more meaningfully descriptive?

Read her whole post; her analysis is spot-on, as usual.

Via thoughts of an erotic laborer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More later, when I get time.

Well, Creative Loafing finally ran my letter to the editor. Ken Edelstein has a snarky response, which is easy material for those who enjoy fisking and playing “Spot the Logical Fallacy.” I typically don’t enjoy these pastimes, but in this case I can make quick work of a few of the most glaring eye-rollers.

1. “Organizers also asked Nouraee not to expose names and identities of those attending the meeting.”

Well, since I was one of the organizers, I’ll tell you what we actually said. Before the program began, we asked that members of the press not reveal anyone’s name or personal information without their explicit permission. We said that any individual should definitely feel free to agree to an interview; we simply asked that they step away from the program to do it, so as not to disturb others. (E.g., Caitlin was interviewed that night and included in another piece.) So this line about “Wah, he wasn’t allowed to expose anything!” is really stupid and easy to see through.

2. “Later, Nouraee tracked down a woman who was involved directly in an incident with Gower, and he quoted that woman, Cheryl Courtney-Evans, extensively in the article.”

Extensively? Go back and check the article again, Ken. I wouldn’t call a few lines, preceded by several paragraphs devoted to Gower on his nasty soapbox, “extensive.” Give me a break.

Edelstein closes with this, which I guess he intends to be a real zinger:

3. “Another point worth considering: Gower, whom Rhea describes as homophobic, is openly gay.”

You know, people make dumbass arguments like this one all the time, and yet every time I see it, I’m still amazed. (Several commenters on the original CL story trotted it out like a beacon of truth, and were properly taken to task by other commenters.) Gower is openly gay. And?

Just because you’re gay, doesn’t mean you can’t be homophobic. Arguments like this one show a profound lack of understanding of the way privilege and prejudice operate in our society. If you grow up in this society, no matter what your race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, class, etc., you internalize a degree of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and classism because these things operate on a structural level. (Which is why we can’t successfully fight against and dismantle them until we acknowledge them within ourselves.) Sure, Gower probably doesn’t sit up nights entertaining a bunch of consciously homophobic thoughts like, “Hey, I really hate faggots!” Because that’s not how it works. Whatever thoughts he may or may not have are irrelevant. His actions speak for themselves.

This is the same stupid shit as when people say, “I can’t be racist, some of my best friends are black!” Are you fucking kidding me?

And, anyway, let’s just allow for a minute that maybe Gower isn’t homophobic. Maybe he’s done all kinds of examining of societal conditioning and is totally not affected at all by it anymore. Again… so what?? He’s still an asshole, and an extremely dangerous one at that. So I don’t know what this triumphant “He’s gay!” declaration is supposed to prove.

Overall, CL’s continued defense of Gower is puzzling… -well, okay, not really. I don’t think many of us still buy into their self-proclaimed “alternative” status.

Update: Christ on a cracker. I just noticed the letters to the editor page has comments. The good news? A few of the comments there are sensible. The bad/annoying/hilarious (depending on my mood) news? Check out this comment:

Sex Worker Article Comment - It seems that Rhea has a uninformed image of prostitution. A life of a prostitute is nothing like what is portrayed in the movie Pretty Woman. Most prostitution is tragic and the people selling their bodies would probably rather be doing something better with their lives. Tragically, Rhea romanticizes the world of prostition. Internet images and radical ideologies due more harm than good for our public health. She needs to step away from the internet to see the world. She obviously hasnot seen families torn apart due to prostitution. It is very tragic.

Oh, this person knows me so well!

Also, ten points for using the loathsome, worn out, and wholly inaccurate term “selling their bodies.” NEXT!

The new issue of Creative Loafing is out, and they didn’t run my letter to the editor. (I had gotten an email from someone on their staff saying they might run it, which is why I waited before posting anything here.) So here it is. Later I might do a follow-up post where I expand on some of the points and include some other points that I had to cut out in order to keep it around 500 words.

—

I’m writing to express my disappointment with the 1.16.08 feature, “One man’s battle against Midtown prostitutes and their johns,” by Andisheh Nouraee.

There are two separate matters here. The first, and most obvious, is that Gower and Denby are dangerous vigilantes. I am glad that their deplorable tactics are being exposed.

It should go without saying that posting videos of sex workers on YouTube is a horrible idea. What is the goal? Sex workers - especially street prostitutes - are disproportionately the targets of violent crime. Violent criminals target sex workers because they know they can get away with it. (In fact, this was the exact justification given by Gary Ridgway, who was convicted of the murders of over 40 prostitutes.) Gower’s dehumanization of sex workers through his behavior and language perpetuates the cultural mores that make such violence acceptable.

But I am also disappointed with Nouraee’s treatment of the issue. Nouraee learned about Gower’s harassment of street workers at an event I helped organize at Charis Books, commemorating the 5th annual International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. After the program, he spoke with the other two organizers and me and expressed interest in learning more and possibly doing a story.

Nouraee sat through our program that night and listened as people recounted individual encounters with Gower, citing Gower’s blatant homophobia and transphobia. He listened as we discussed the glaring absence of sex workers’ voices in the media, as well as the fact that when sex workers are mentioned in the media, they are either troublemakers or victims - in other words, they’re not people; they’re useful objects in making a point and reinforcing a stereotype.

He spoke with several sex workers that night and a few weeks later, while doing research for this story. He expressed concern about making sure to include sex workers’ voices.

If Nouraee tried to speak with street prostitutes in Midtown and they did not want to speak to him, he could have mentioned it in the article. Reporters do this all the time (”so-and-so declined to comment”). If that were the case, he could also reflect on why sex workers might be wary of talking to a reporter. Could it be because they’re tired of having their words (and existence) twisted to fit whatever agenda is at hand?

Nouraee fails as an investigative reporter with this piece, especially as one for a paper that claims to be alternative. Terms like “transvestitute” and “real female” go unchallenged and uncorrected. Nouraee does not probe Gower about why Gower is so fixated on harassing prostitutes. He does not examine how the criminalization of prostitution perpetuates the violence that many people associate with street prostitution. He does not discuss the societal and economic conditions that lead to many transpeople working on the streets.

For people who are interested in learning more about sex workers’ rights activism, some good sources of information are SWOP-USA, Desiree Alliance, COYOTE and $pread Magazine.

I am so angry I can barely see straight.

I’ve already Twittered about it. I will blog about it eventually. But I need to wait until my hands stop shaking, my heart stops pounding, and my stomach stops doing somersaults.

You want to know why I’m burned out on activism? Perfect fucking example.

Holy shit holy shit holy shit.

More to come, eventually. But right now, I need a DISTRACTION in a big way.

Duly noted: the AJC will print “drinking game material for bloggers” tripe like this in their Opinion section, but they won’t print that fresh! new! (gag) content they claim to crave so badly. Anyway, I thought today would be an appropriate day to repost the op-ed I wrote several months ago. Here it is:

Shaming tactics not effective against prostitution

Currently, the Atlanta Police Department’s Web site includes mug shots of women convicted of prostitution and escorting without a permit (”City adviser: ‘Johns’ get too little scrutiny,” Metro, May 21). This tactic is dangerous and ignorant.

Sex workers are disproportionately the victims of violent crime, especially rape and sexual assault. The concept of shame perpetuates the widespread view of sex workers as disposable. Further, the illegality of their profession prevents sex workers from reporting violence perpetrated against them.

How does posting their mug shots benefit women arrested for prostitution? Even if we assume that a woman may be successfully “shamed” out of sex work by having her photo posted, she is still an open target for potential harm by anyone who sees her photo, since the mug shots remain on the Web site for 3 to 6 months.

The current debate, however, does not address the dangers of women’s mug shots being publicly displayed, nor does it advocate for the photos’ removal. Instead, the conversation is centered on the question of why there aren’t any photos of johns on the Web site.

Some cities have adapted a tactic of “shaming” johns by posting their photos online, on television, or on billboards. Stephanie Davis, the mayor’s policy adviser on women’s issues, believes this would be a good solution in Atlanta. But will it work?

In 2005, Oakland, California launched a campaign called Operation Shame, with the same goal as that which Davis suggests for Atlanta. The Oakland campaign displayed johns’ photos on 10 by 22 feet billboards.

After eight months, the billboards disappeared amid protests from constitutional rights activists. The prostitution rate in Oakland did not fluctuate.

Proponents of “end demand” programs claim that these campaigns reduce prostitution without harm to sex workers, deterring men from purchasing sexual services. According to Norma Hotaling of SAGE (Standing Against Global Exploitation), the developer of San Francisco’s John School program, 98% of men going through the program were “rehabilitated.” However, a 2002 study published in the Canadian Journal of Criminology found that such programs have little or no long-term deterrent effect.

In many cases, these programs exemplify misplaced good intentions fraught with paternalism. In the late 1990s, Vancouver stopped arresting street prostitutes and began focusing on johns. The rationale behind the change was that the johns were predators, and the prostitutes were victims. But Andrew Sorfleet, a sex worker and founder of SWAV (Sex Workers’ Alliance of Vancouver), disagrees. He points out that the real predators are men who pretend to be clients in order to rape, beat, or rob sex workers, and adds that the campaign was motivated by “the misconception that sex workers need to be ‘rescued’ - with or without our consent.”

Besides, the idea that shame will discourage a non-desirable behavior isn’t realistic. This is the fundamental flaw behind Davis’s proposal. She believes that posting johns’ photos online “would contribute to the shame that any man who buys sex should feel.”

Adults paying for sexual services from other adults should not be a crime. As the Oakland example shows, shaming does not deter people from paying for or accepting payment for sex. It just makes people stealthier and drives activity further underground, thereby elevating the risk to all involved.

The double standard is at work here - the concept that women who sell sexual services are worthy of public contempt, but the men who pay for those services are not. Davis seeks to address this inequity, but her motivations are based on an assumption that any participation in the sex industry - whether as client or service provider - is contemptible.

In all of this, though, there is one very important set of voices that is missing: the voices of actual sex workers. Policy advisers, APD officials, and op-ed writers can talk ad infinitum about what should or shouldn’t happen. But the people we most need to hear from are the ones whom these policies actually affect on a day to day basis.

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.

Courtesy of Belledame, posting at Bound, Not Gagged (which has a cool new template today)… this is basically how some of the conversations about sex workers’ rights are going. The use of metaphor makes things painfully clear, or should, anyway.

“We’d like to decriminalize marijuana for reasons x,y, and z”

“Do you KNOW how many people meth kills?? Or heroin??”

“I wasn’t talking about meth or heroin. I’m talking about pot. Here’s why-”

“Well, la di da for you, I Just Want To Smoke Pot In My FancyPants Hot Tub, it’s all right if you want to rot your -own- brain and give -yourself- lung cancer, but -innocent helpless people are dying.- Think of the children!! God, you’re so SELFISH. You and your “I gotta get high and that’s all I care about.” What have you done to save people from DRUG-CAUSED DEATH?? What have you done to get people off the street? Huh?”

“Well, first of all, it’s -not- just ‘getting high,’ although I personally don’t see anything -wrong- with that. But, one, I don’t think the State should have so much power over a consensual activity, and two, while some drugs are more dangerous than others, medical marijuana-”

“SHOW US YOUR CREDS!”

“Well, okay, I -was- going to talk about getting medical marijuana to cancer patients, but since that clearly doesn’t count for anything, I’ve taken addicts into my home and helped them detox, helped get them jobs. I helped set up a needle exchange program for heroin-”

“Those don’t help. They actually just lead to more heroin addicts. Studies have shown that.”

“Which studies?”

“These studies here. They’ve got graphs and footnotes and academic endorsements and -everything.-

“Okay, those studies there were funded by a pro-abstinence think tank, and furthermore they aren’t in any peer reviewed journal.”

“What is all this fancy talk? You and your ivory tower graphs and footnotes and academic endorsements! We’re talking about REAL LIVES. People are DYING, did we mention?”

“…Look, can we just get back to talking about the pot thing, since we’re clearly just talking past each other when it comes to this stickier stuff?”

“Why do you hate America?”

“AAARRGGGGHHHH” *breaks things*

“You see? You see how irrational and abusive you are? Maybe if you weren’t rotting your brain with all those DRUGS, you’d understand that we’re -just trying to help,- and you’d get out of our way and let us get on with it.”

Belledame wins September.

And I want to stress, this is how some of the conversations are going. Some others have been downright productive. I wish I could be participating more in these conversations, but things are rather hectic at the moment so my internet time has been limited. I’ll be back in the game eventually, though!

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.

Jenny observed today that it seems like I haven’t been blogging as much, and asked if something was going on. The short answer is, yes, something is going on. (That makes it sound like somebody’s in the hospital, or in jail, or breaking up, or something like that - none of those are the case.) Even though my bloggin’ fingers are itching to write about all of it, I know the prudent* thing to do is to wait.

However, I will say that we’re moving back to Decatur tomorrow. We’ll be living camp-out style for about a week, and then some actual movers are coming on the 22nd to bring over all the furniture and heavy boxes. We’re supposed to have internet access as of Monday; keep your fingers crossed that Comcast doesn’t screw it up.

So, yes, blogging has been and will be light. I’ve also been busy with Sex, Wine and Chocolate planning, Sex 2.0 planning, getting back at Platinum Stages for sucking, and my actual 9-to-5 job. But I kind of hate “blogging will be light” posts and “OMG I’m so busy” posts, so I’ll leave it at that.

In the meantime, there’s a new episode of Mostly ITP. Also, Ren breaks down solutions for dealing with prostitution that actually make sense. To me this seems like common sense and it boggles my mind (and irritates the hell out of me) when people don’t get it. Here’s part of what I said over there:

I didn’t mean the issue was simple as in, “Oh, just flip a switch, and that’s that.” I meant it should be a pretty basic concept that, hello, regardless of one’s job, they should be treated as a human being. And, too, that even if one has a longterm goal of abolishing something, or creating some sweeping revolution, or completely overthrowing the power structure, or whatever… well, the reality is, that goal may be admirable, but it’s not going to happen tomorrow, and grandiose plans are not going to do any good to the people who are affected TODAY.

* I can’t use that word without thinking of Dana Carvey’s impressions of George Bush on SNL in the early 90s.

Wow, I was just reading about Sin in the Second City: Madams, Ministers, Playboys, and the Battle for America’s Soul at Viviane’s blog, and then Thomas IMed me and we were talking about something completely unrelated, and then he mentioned that he was reading a book he thought I’d like, and by the way, the author lives in Atlanta and is doing a reading tonight.

How is it that I never know about all the cool things that are going on in my city, right under my nose? At least I found out about it ahead of time this time, instead of the morning after, which is usually the case.

So, I’ll be there tonight, with camera and recorder in tow, hoping to snag an interview. Here are the details; if you can come, please do!

August 2
7:15 p.m.
Discussion & Signing
Georgia Center for the Book
Dekalb County Public Library
215 Sycamore Street
Decatur, GA
404-370-8450, ext. 2285
gcb@dekalblibrary.org

There’s also a longish excerpt on the book’s web site.

Thanks, Thomas!

A couple days ago, I wrote an op-ed in response to this AJC article. Since I haven’t heard back from them and it’s almost Friday, I’m guessing they’re not going to run it. So, I’ll just post it here.

Note: if you feel like there are points and angles I didn’t address - you’re right. That’s what sucks about having to stay within a certain word count. In order to get it under 700 words, I had to cut out an entire section about economic need, for example.

—

Shaming tactics not effective against prostitution

Currently, the Atlanta Police Department’s Web site includes mug shots of women convicted of prostitution and escorting without a permit (”City adviser: ‘Johns’ get too little scrutiny,” Metro, May 21). This tactic is dangerous and ignorant.

Sex workers are disproportionately the victims of violent crime, especially rape and sexual assault. The concept of shame perpetuates the widespread view of sex workers as disposable. Further, the illegality of their profession prevents sex workers from reporting violence perpetrated against them.

How does posting their mug shots benefit women arrested for prostitution? Even if we assume that a woman may be successfully “shamed” out of sex work by having her photo posted, she is still an open target for potential harm by anyone who sees her photo, since the mug shots remain on the Web site for 3 to 6 months.

The current debate, however, does not address the dangers of women’s mug shots being publicly displayed, nor does it advocate for the photos’ removal. Instead, the conversation is centered on the question of why there aren’t any photos of johns on the Web site.

Some cities have adapted a tactic of “shaming” johns by posting their photos online, on television, or on billboards. Stephanie Davis, the mayor’s policy adviser on women’s issues, believes this would be a good solution in Atlanta. But will it work?

In 2005, Oakland, California launched a campaign called Operation Shame, with the same goal as that which Davis suggests for Atlanta. The Oakland campaign displayed johns’ photos on 10 by 22 feet billboards.

After eight months, the billboards disappeared amid protests from constitutional rights activists. The prostitution rate in Oakland did not fluctuate.

Proponents of “end demand” programs claim that these campaigns reduce prostitution without harm to sex workers, deterring men from purchasing sexual services. According to Norma Hotaling of SAGE (Standing Against Global Exploitation), the developer of San Francisco’s John School program, 98% of men going through the program were “rehabilitated.” However, a 2002 study published in the Canadian Journal of Criminology found that such programs have little or no long-term deterrent effect.

In many cases, these programs exemplify misplaced good intentions fraught with paternalism. In the late 1990s, Vancouver stopped arresting street prostitutes and began focusing on johns. The rationale behind the change was that the johns were predators, and the prostitutes were victims. But Andrew Sorfleet, a sex worker and founder of SWAV (Sex Workers’ Alliance of Vancouver), disagrees. He points out that the real predators are men who pretend to be clients in order to rape, beat, or rob sex workers, and adds that the campaign was motivated by “the misconception that sex workers need to be ‘rescued’ - with or without our consent.”

Besides, the idea that shame will discourage a non-desirable behavior isn’t realistic. This is the fundamental flaw behind Davis’s proposal. She believes that posting johns’ photos online “would contribute to the shame that any man who buys sex should feel.”

Adults paying for sexual services from other adults should not be a crime. As the Oakland example shows, shaming does not deter people from paying for or accepting payment for sex. It just makes people stealthier and drives activity further underground, thereby elevating the risk to all involved.

The double standard is at work here - the concept that women who sell sexual services are worthy of public contempt, but the men who pay for those services are not. Davis seeks to address this inequity, but her motivations are based on an assumption that any participation in the sex industry - whether as client or service provider - is contemptible.

In all of this, though, there is one very important set of voices that is missing: the voices of actual sex workers. Policy advisers, APD officials, and op-ed writers can talk ad infinitum about what should or shouldn’t happen. But the people we most need to hear from are the ones whom these policies actually affect on a day to day basis.