Being Amber Rhea

I meant to post this a few days ago. After furiously typing these notes, I managed to call and leave a mostly-coherent voice mail.

I am now posting the rough-cut version as a total cop-out of a blog post. And I see now that there’s some ambiguity, but I’m not going to “correct” any of it. Fortunately it made sense to me at the time.

• Anti-sex work bias affects clients, too
• Letters From Johns shows they don’t have a vocabulary to talk about sex work outside of the stereotypes
• Stigma and shame around being a client when it comes to the individual, even though in general it’s accepted that it’s ok for men to be clients as long as they don’t talk about it - or as long as they don’t talk about it *seriously* or by invoking a power dynamic
• Review boards result in competition among escorts and gossiping and bad-mouthing - generally not a good thing
• I don’t think sex work thrives because of shame. I think it thrives in spite of shame. It shows just how powerful sexuality is. I think one thing that might change is there might be more male sex workers and female clients.
• Illegality of some types of sex work reinforces the lack of discourse about sex work by the people actually involved (workers and clients) and leads to the continuing trope of people talking ABOUT and FOR sex workers and clients.

Listen to Bedroom Radio episode 16.5 here, and call in with your own thoughts! (As a fellow podcaster I know how important voice mail is.)

Words of wisdom, from another twenty-something feminist with a degree in linguistics and an eye for bullshit (whose blog I discovered yesterday):

The language we use to talk about sex work (and the metaphorical extensions of sex-work related words) emphasizes this point - by charging a fee to have sex with someone, a woman has sold her body and herself. Linguistically speaking, there’s a metonymy there - the “part” (sexuality) has come to substitute for the whole woman.

That’s objectification, and it’s objectification in the narrow, limited, sex-specific sense of the word - the definition of a woman’s self has been reduced to her sexuality, her value has become inextricably attached to her sex. On the other hand, it’s perfectly acceptable - laudable, even - for me to charge for the use of my brain, or for me to be “valued” for my intelligence. That wouldn’t be considered being “used”, it wouldn’t be thought of as “selling myself”. Paradoxically, that’s like saying that my brain is less valuable, less connected to what I am as a person - it can be partitioned off, the use of it essentially “rented” by my employers, and I can joyfully and proudly accept payment for it while I continue to use my brain outside of the workplace to also attract potentially desirable mates. “Selling” my brain doesn’t take anything from me, doesn’t make me less whole, doesn’t make me damaged goods, and yet somehow, selling my body in a sexual manner (because, of course, if I were selling the use of my body for work in a factory, we again would not be having this conversation) would. If my sexuality is not the sum total of my humanity, if it is not even the primary source of my “value”, then this attitude towards sex work is nonsensical.

Read the whole post.

This post at Bound, Not Gagged really touched me.

Her death has been heavy on the hearts of many a sex worker, indicative as it is of this juggernaut of a system that could grind us into nothing if we get caught up. For me, I think her death translates into real fear. A fear that is about fighting the good fight, and still going down. If we manage to survive and thrive in a crazy industry; if we live ethically as sex workers and use all our faculties to operate our businesses and maintain what we believe is right, we still might end up dead. Ms. Palfrey was a resourceful woman. A woman connected, perhaps dangerously, to big players in the government. And she got royally fucked. Someone, somewhere said, we’re going to bring her down. We’re going to make an example of this one. And they didn’t stop until she was swinging from a rope.

…

I regret deeply now that I, we, did not do something more concrete to support her in her struggle. It is a bare and unpleasant truth that the moment a sex worker comes under legal fire, s/he becomes untouchable. Abandoned by clients, friends, etc…how did Palfrey end up in her mother’s home? Why wasn’t she staying with me? Where were her friends? Where was her support network?

This blog was begun as a response to her original arrest. She has, inadvertently, been an enormous catalyst in the sex workers rights movement. And now she’s dead.

What the fuck.

Keep Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and what her death means, in your thoughts starting at 7:00 p.m. (Atlanta time) today, for the next 24 hours. And all the time, really.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I’m crying, again.

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

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.

Straight privilege… this is it.

Very moving post up at Shakesville, written by Portly Dyke:

I doubt that most straight, cisgendered people think about, or notice, how frequently they touch their partner in public in ways that are not necessarily “sexual” (in addition to kissing, cuddling, and the odd bum-squeeze) — ie. holding hands, walking with an arm around the waist, smoothing the other’s hair back out of their eyes — nor do I think that most straight, cisgendered people are probably aware of the fact that when I touch my partner in public, it’s nearly always a considered act.

I don’t obsess about this — as in — it doesn’t eat up my days and nights — and I’m probably about as “out” as a queer can be in this country — but every single time I take my partner’s hand on the street, or toss my arm over her shoulder or around her waist, hug her goodbye or hello, I do a little, tiny “security sweep”.

I notice who is around, and where I am, and what the energy feels like — before I touch her in public. It’s a tiny amount of attention, most often, but it’s there.

I just noticed recently that in an unknown situation that seems “sort of” safe, (like walking in a crowded mall) I’m more likely to curl her arm through mine than to hold her hand — which may seem counter-intuitive, since arm-in-arm actually affords much closer body contact — but after I thought about this, I realized that walking “arm-in-arm” is something that I see straight girl-friends do more often than holding hands (after they’re 12, anyway). In considering this choice, I also realized that in many situations, I’m happy to give any possible bigots in an uncertain setting the option of assuming that we’re just a couple of straight girls.

Which sorta sucks.

I recognize this as the internalized homophobia that it is, but I can’t deny that it’s present in me. The fact is, that I stop, look, and listen before I demonstrate physical affection toward my beloved in nearly every public setting that is not clearly “queer safe”.

A must-read.

(Yes, I’m aware I’m speaking in sentence fragments today.)

Last night, after spending several hours watching TV (My Name Is Earl, The Office, and several Daily Shows from last week), Rusty and I got in bed and talked for a little while about Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s death, and the whole situation, and what to do when things make us lose faith in humanity. There were no answers to be found, but at least talking about it can do some personal good.

After Rusty went to sleep, I quietly cried myself to sleep.

Some of what I said last night was…
Read the full post »

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.

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

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

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

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

Seriously y’all… give me a fucking break!

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

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

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

Once again, file under “Typical.”

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.)

I keep quoting people who say the stuff I struggle to put into words, but can’t get quite right. So, here we go… Melissa nails it again:

On the abuse issue, I try to reframe it around either:

1) 1 in 6 women in their lifetimes are survivors of sexual abuse or assault, and clearly not all of them become sex workers.

2) We never ask how often women in other helping/service professions do that work as part of their being survivors. The number of rape crisis counselors and educators I have worked with who are survivors is HUGE, for example. In a way, that makes sense. In another, it can be very damaging.

As a culture right now everyone’s so quick to pin adult sexual behavior (and sex work as part of that) on some childhood trauma. “What MADE you that way?” is one of the only questions people who don’t understand human sexual variation and the sex industry ask. It’s part of the discourse of sex right now, and it’s infuriating as a sex worker *and* a survivor . It’s about context, though. When it comes to something like The View, I don’t know how I’d talk about sex work and sexual abuse and not have everything I said manipulated. There can be solid reasons to be strategic about discussing abuse, but I hate feeling like we “can’t” because we’d somehow damage the movement.

You’re probably thinking, “But Amber, you had just started there!” Yeah, I did - in January. And two months later, I’m quitting. All my posts are here, but there won’t be any more coming.

The comments in my last post spiraled out of control, quickly. Right now it’s up to 92 comments (but for the past twenty or so it’s been the same two guys beating their chests at each other). From the beginning, I probably should’ve created a Gmail filter to automatically delete comment notifications (which I did later), but I didn’t want to miss any good comments.

Then the attacks started pouring in.

I didn’t want to comment, because I knew it would be pointless. But then I left one snarky comment, and then a few more. Even as I was doing it I was feeling the emotional toll, and yet it was like the car accident phenomenon of not being able to look away.

And then I got some emails from fellow Download Squad bloggers who said they found my comments “reprehensible,” “close-minded,” and “mean-spirited.” They characterized the trolls, slut-baiters, and anti-feminists* as “disagreeing” and “addressing [me] civilly and, for the most part, maturely.”

So.

After lots and lots of thought on the matter, I’ve decided that I’m not going to continue writing at Download Squad. The kind of thing that happened on that last thread is just not a healthy environment for me to be in. I know how those kinds of situations affect me, and it would be extremely detrimental for me to continue putting myself in such a position.

It’s not that I’m all that surprised, really. I mean I’m not stupid or naïve. I guess I just… thought? hoped? wanted to believe? it would be different this time. But I’ve gotten that kind of reaction so many times, in so many different places, that at this point I can’t even try to enumerate them. That’s why I made the commenter Bingo card; it really is like marking squares off a board. They say the same shit every time. And some people have a thick skin, and that stuff doesn’t get to them, and they stand tall in the face of it and shout their message out to people who are determined not to hear it, in the hope that maybe 1 person out of 1,000 will listen and really think about what they’ve said…

But I’m not one of those people.

I’ve mentioned before that this is why I don’t consider myself a hardcore activist. I’m not cut out for it. I can say with reasonable certainty that being on the front lines of this kind of stuff would turn me suicidal.

I do very well in face-to-face one-on-one interactions where I know the other person sees me as a fully equal human being and is willing to listen respectfully and thoughtfully to what I’m saying. I enjoy those interactions; I enjoy respectful, intelligent debate. I do not enjoy or do well in verbal onslaughts where people are telling me I need to shut up, go away, show ‘em my tits, get laid, change who I am if I want to be taken seriously, and by the way why am I so ugly, why am I such a whore, etc. etc. etc.

For the sake of my own health (not to mention self-respect!), I won’t allow myself to be spoken to that way. And as I learned a long time ago, the “just ignore them” adage does not work.

As I said in the fateful Download Squad post, it’s important to keep hacking away at these bullshit barriers. And I completely believe and agree with the sentiments expressed here. But, I can’t do it on a large scale. This is something I know about myself; I can fight this fight with individuals and very small groups, but not with large groups or (god forbid) “the public.”

It’s an important fight. But it’s one we all have to do our own way, and that is not my way.

Maybe Download Squad can find someone with a thicker skin to write what was my column.

* Funny thing… I was called a radical feminist on that thread. That’s one thing that does make me laugh. Inevitably, in discussions (and I use that word loosely) with people like the lovely DLS commenters, I will eventually be called a radical feminist. Usually I’ll be called a lesbian as well, or the question will be raised of when I last had a good deep-dicking. Oh, if only they knew… actual radical feminists can’t stand me! And they accuse me of being some kind of girly-girl embodiment of the common man’s wet dream, which also cracks me up. Little do they know, the common man is calling me one of them!

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Scratch that; submitted with the only comment being, “Are you fucking kidding me??”

DEAR ABBY: There seems to be an awful lot of women exposing themselves on the Internet in graphic sexual fashion. My wife says that men degrade themselves by looking at them.

My question to you is, what is more degrading? Looking at them, or women exposing themselves? — WONDERING IN PUYALLUP, WASH.

DEAR WONDERING: For a woman to post graphic sexual images for people she doesn’t know to view strikes me as more degrading because it indicates that she thinks she has little else to offer.

However, for a married man to view those images could also be considered degrading — and threatening — to his wife. Many women have written to me because their husbands spend more time looking at porn on the Internet than having a sex life in their own bedroom. In other words, the practice became an addiction.

*headdesk*

Again, I ask, “Why oh WHY do so many people persist in the idiotic belief that taking nude photos of yourself means you have no self-respect??”

I do not understand.

[Via Dacia]

This is an updated video, a follow-up to the one I posted yesterday. Watch it!

[Via Pro-Porn Activism]

From Bound, Not Gagged:

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

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

Question: “Why did you decide to work in the web industry?”

Answer: “It’s fun, challenging, and there’s always something new to learn.”

If someone asked me the above question, I would reply with the above answer. That would be a satisfactory answer, and the conversation would move on. Maybe we’d talk about web development, technology, etc., or maybe we’d move to other topics. Either way, I know my answer wouldn’t be followed by prying questions like:

“But why? What do you find so fun and challenging about it?”

“Are you sure there isn’t something else you’d rather be doing? You have so much potential!”

“Why do you need to prove yourself by writing code? You’re more than just a nameless, faceless code-writing machine, you know!”

“What could you possibly learn? It’s simple HTML.”

“Come on, let’s be honest. It’s not really work. Any idiot who knows how to use Google can figure out everything you need to know for your job.”

“Wouldn’t you rather be doing something that contributes to humanity?”

“How can you be so selfish?”

“You know, a lot of people don’t have the luxury to be able to pursue a career they enjoy. So who do you think you are? And what are you going to do about that?”

“Do you have problems meeting people? I heard web nerds are socially awkward and don’t know how to interact in real life.”

“What does your boyfriend think of what you do for a living?”

If I were unwilling to answer any and all of these follow-up questions? Oh, the poor dear. I’m clearly in denial about something. Why am I so defensive?

And what if I had simply answered, to the original question: “I have to pay the bills, and web development pays better than retail.” That would be an acceptable answer, too. There might be laughter, nods of agreement, conspiratorial smiles. There most certainly would not be frowns of pity and a soliloquy about how awful that is.

But replace “web” with “sex” in the original question above, and it’s an entirely different ballgame.

If I were to end this post right here, I guarantee you someone would come along and leave a comment along the lines of, “But but but… Some sex workers do have low self-esteem! Some of them are addicted to drugs! Some of them would rather be doing something else!”

To that I say, well, some web developers are socially awkward and don’t know how to interact in real life. Some Asians are bad drivers. Some black dudes carry concealed weapons. Some feminists hate men.

There will always be some people who fit a particular stereotype. But - and I shouldn’t even have to say this, right? - that doesn’t mean stereotypes are A-okay.

Because the fact is, some white people are bad drivers and/or carry concealed weapons. It’s worth examining why the stereotype is there for one particular group and not another. We know this.

And yet it all goes out the window when the topic is sex work. Somehow, otherwise intelligent, thoughtful, open-minded people lose their shit.

I know the stereotypes about sex work are deeply embedded in society - really, really deeply embedded. But that doesn’t make it okay to simply accept them without question. In fact, it makes questioning the dominant paradigm (that’s right, I said “dominant paradigm!”) even more imperative.

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.

There’s been some discussion going on about sex bloggers within the larger social media community. See Graydancer’s post about his experience at the BlogWorld Expo, and Melissa Gira’s Sexerati post from today. (Why yes, they are both session leaders at Sex 2.0, why do you ask?)

In a perfect world, none of it would make a damn bit of difference. This would all be a non-issue. We wouldn’t even be able to conceive of it as an issue.

On one hand I feel stupid writing about this at all… like I shouldn’t be writing about it because what do I know, and it’ll just look like I’m co-opting other people’s experiences. I’m not a current or former sex worker, I’m not a sexuality educator, I’m not a “big name” in social media or sex… so what am I even talking about? But, I do have my experiences to draw from, so that is what I’m talking about. And I need to push through these feelings about not being good enough, because otherwise I’d be contradicting one of my fundamental beliefs about blogging: that we’ve all got a story to tell, and yes, it’s important.

In comments on her post, Melissa says:

[T]he way sex is being changed by the internet, and how it effects people outside the sexblogosphere, is so much bigger and more important than how any of us is treated at a conference. Yes, it’s a drag to be looked down on, but look who’s doing the looking-down-on. Compare that treatment with the stigma we face outside the web scene. How does it, as a million guys in striped shirts have said before me, scale?

Bigger and more important?

I don’t think so, because I don’t think the two realms - sexblogosphere and offline “everything else” world - can be so easily separated. As any of us who are at all involved in social media can attest, social media is contributing in a major way to the breaking down arbitrary barriers. And on a more fundamental level, I don’t think sexuality and the rest of one’s life can or should be easily separated.

I do understand that, in the offline world, being unashamed about your sexuality can have more immediate consequences, and the world in general can be much more cruel. It depends on where you live, too; I bet offline sex culture in San Francisco is different from in Atlanta. But little by little, we’ve got to keep chipping away at this stuff, otherwise no changes will ever be realized offline.

Okay, I feel like I got off on a Theory Tangent there. Ugh, sorry about that. Here’s what I originally meant to say about Melissa’s comment/question…

The purpose of my blog is for me to write about what I want, simple as that. Of course, I’d be lying if I said I don’t impose any filters on it; I’m writing in public about real people, after all, and the intersection of my life with the lives of everyone else I know is always something I’m trying to negotiate properly. But the main thing is, I don’t have a blog so that I can get a message out, or serve some “greater purpose,” or fill the gaps left by old media, or anything like that. Some people do have blogs for those reasons and more, and that’s great; that’s their choice. It’s just not my reason for blogging.

As such, to me, it doesn’t make sense to pose the question of “how does this compare to how other people are treated in other settings?” It’s a non-sequitur. Yes, lots of people are treated poorly in lots of situations. And that sucks. But, what are you* going to do about it? You can’t fix all of it. You can’t even focus on all of it. So why not focus on where you can have a real impact and make a difference? I know it might sound trite, but I really do believe that you start changing the world by making small changes in your own life and in the lives of those around you.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable of me to be offended if someone blows me off the instant they find out I write about sex. That’s not okay, and I certainly should call them out on their bullshit. Look what happened with that BlogNetNews guy. He wanted to build a nice ghetto I mean “special aggregator” for me and mine, ’cause we weren’t fit to mingle with all the serious bloggers. (But even the serious bloggers could get away with writing about sex, as long as the blogger in question was a man.)

-I just realized this post has gotten long, and I haven’t said much. I feel jumbled. I don’t know where I’m going with this. In my head, it was all nice and coherent. Melissa said I “always nail issues of community & sex blogging so well” - guess I didn’t live up to that expectation this time! But, just… I’ve experienced what Graydancer talks about, and at this point I’m starting to lose count of how many times it’s happened. And it’s part of why I’m wondering if I’ll lead the PodCamp Atlanta effort again next year (although that warrants a separate post). I’m just not willing to do the compartmentalization thing, and I’m not okay with being typecast and/or labeled as less relevant because of it.

Sorry for this hodge-podge of a post.

* generic “you”