Quote of the day
After a few rounds of Comment FAIL on this post by Hugo Schwyzer, commenter ElleDee gives us a dose of Comment WIN:
I am very suspicious of people who go on and on about how horrible taking these pictures are because they could ruin a teen’s reputation or employment opportunities and such, because I think most don’t want teens to take erotic pictures of themselves, period, regardless of whether they are revealed in public or kept private as intended. And these people that see these pictures as a Bad Thing are so frequently the very sort that would think less of someone whose private pictures ended up in the public sphere. They are the reason why these pictures can ruin reputations to begin with! If everyone would just stop with the panty sniffing for 5 seconds and accept that everyone has a sexuality that is private, it would solve at least 80% of the problem.
Comment re-post
I said this on Derek’s blog:
The MRAs crack me up with their constant cries of “censorship!” Never mind that they don’t seem to understand what that word actually means (hint: no, you do not have the inexorable right to scream your head off in other people’s houses and not get your ass thrown onto the lawn) but isn’t it the women – especially us touchy humorless feminists – who are supposed to be so “sensitive?” Not those manly-men, surely not! And yet, whenever I read their comments, I just want to holler for the waaaahmbulance.
Submitted without further comment, because none is needed, and because I’m exhausted. More stream-of-consciousness rambling wherein I do my best to pretend no one’s reading to follow, probably not until after my dentist appointment tomorrow.
Again? Really?
Rob Peters, a reporter from Vancouver, says:
Some difficult truths have been brought to light by the personal blogging blitz of the last few years. One such revelation is that most of us aren’t as interesting as we think. Waking up every day and jotting down some deep thoughts about breakfast is a difficult way to sustain any kind of readership.
I could not disagree more. What blogging brings to light for me – and I know I’m not alone in this – is that people are infinitely interesting.
Not every single person is going to be interesting to every single other person. But that’s not news; that’s a fact of human existence, and why would we hold blogging to ridiculous, unrealistic standards that we don’t apply to other aspects of life?
And anyway, why is anyone still publishing this recycled tripe? Every 6 months or so, some know-it-all writes a piece on the “death” of blogging, or how it’s causing Very Bad Things to happen, or how it’s lost its innocence, or whatever other cliché they’ve dredged up for the moment. I guess maybe it’s a guaranteed will-publish if you’re having a dry spell?
On a personal note, I’m not having the best day – in fact, someone on a blog just saw fit to inform me that they “don’t appreciate anything about [me].” Do I blame blogging, though? Give me a break. I think you know the answer to that one.
That reminds me – a post on civil communication is in the works, too.
An open letter
Dear “that guy” at the sex club last night,
Let’s get right to it. First of all, if you see my boyfriend and I getting our things out of our locker and getting dressed, you make yourself look stupid by coming up and saying, “So, you gettin’ ready to leave?” Thanks, Captain Obvious! However, I could’ve toned down my internal snark and forgiven that awkward attempt at small talk (lord knows I’m no master of it myself) if it weren’t for where you went next.
“I been seein’ her all night. Just wanted to touch her once.”
HELLO. If there ever was the remote possibility that I might have a smidgen of interest in your dumb ass? You just shattered it by speaking to Rusty, about me, AS IF I’M NOT THERE!! If you want to “touch [me] just once” so badly, it would behoove you address me directly, since I am, amazingly, a fully-functioning adult capable of speaking for myself.
Further, I mentally kicked myself the second after the response (see, I can talk!) left my mouth: “Sorry, no.”
Ah, there’s that lovely social conditioning as a woman again. Sorry? I most certainly was NOT sorry. If only I’d had the presence of mind to say, while you were still standing there, the biting things I said a few seconds after you’d skulked away. I would’ve said, “No. And let me give you a word of advice, hon” – and thence recited the third paragraph above.
This is not the first time this has happened, either. What is it with creepy guys at sex clubs, speaking about rather than to a woman who is right in front of them?? Surely you weren’t suggesting that, basically, Rusty is my owner, and thereby grants or retracts consent on my behalf. Surely not.
It was couples-only night, so you must’ve come with a lady friend. I hope for her sake that she’s the Patron Saint of Perpetual Patience.
Wishing you a clue,
Amber
B-I-N-G-O
Last night, Jen and Tony were kind enough to give me the dubious gift of a copy of the latest issue of The Sunday Paper. The cover story is (in huge pink letters), “ATLANTA’S HOOKER SCHOOL.” Then in smaller letters, the subhead: “New Program Aims To Make Prostitution A Risky Business For Johns.” (Okay, so it’s not really a hooker school at all, is it, dumbasses? It’s a johns school. But that won’t grab readers by the throat the way “HOOKER SCHOOL” will.)
Now, for those of you who aren’t in Atlanta, The Sunday Paper is a pretty worthless rag. It always has sensationalistic, overblown headlines, especially in the cover stories (I remember one with a big explosion on the cover, and something like “Countdown to Armageddon” – and they were totally serious) and generally includes some of the worst writing I’ve seen in a print publication. They try to publish “controversial” stories with the most watered-down, trite mockery of point/counterpoint you can imagine. And here’s how I think they go about writing features: they have a template, and they drag and drop various talking points from a database, maybe some clip art as well (e.g., in this case: photo of fishnet-clad legs and high heels, standing in a dark alleyway; Julia Roberts 20 years ago), and click “Generate story.” Voila! Your next issue is complete.
I said that at the table last night, and Kim brought up a good point, that if she were still working at a newspaper and getting paid $8.00 an hour, she wouldn’t exactly pour her heart and soul into researching every story in-depth and writing a thought-provoking, well-rounded piece. Can’t say I blame her. And The Sunday Paper is a free weekly, so who knows what those writers are getting paid. This is a topic that isn’t discussed much in all the various rants about the mainstream media and why they suck so badly. So maybe new media and independent media (often the same thing, but not always) can fill the void? But that’s a tangent for another time.
I’m always torn on stories like this. One the one hand, they’re such pathetic, rehashed tripe, that it feels like a waste of time and energy to address them at all. But then I think, that kind of rationale might make sense in some other situations, but when it comes to sex workers’ rights advocacy, we are dealing with an issue that is literally (yes, literally!) life and death for many people, mostly women; and it’s an issue fraught with layers and layers of bullshit, where all of a sudden everybody thinks they’re a damn expert, and everybody loves to hear themselves talk except they can’t be bothered to listen to the people who are actually affected by all the laws and stigma and such; and the silence is rather deafening when it comes to calling bullshit.
So, I feel compelled to call bullshit, yet again. And I just hope that if people keep on calling it out whenever they see it, whether on 20/20 or in some piddly little hometown rag, maybe progress can slowly be made.
Kim actually read the article before me (I didn’t read it last night when we were at Manuel’s), and afterward, she said, “Yeah, you’re going to need your meds after reading this.”
The article starts off talking about how “hookers” are portrayed on film (because that’s so relevant), and how it’s in stark contrast to “the truth.” (Yeah, the truth which includes sex workers being talked about but not talked with, and called “hookers.”) From there it’s just a matter of marking off the various Bingo squares. It includes the phrase “selling their bodies” and refers to them being “victims of abuse.” (No sources are cited, of course, but why bother? I mean we all just know this is true.) And oh of course there’s that whole thing about how “john’s schools” don’t work, but why get sidetracked with that annoying little piece of information?
They do include a quote or two from Carol Leigh (a.k.a. Scarlot Harlot) representing SWOP, which is more than most articles of this type do. But I’m not giving them a cookie. No, they don’t get a gold star for doing what should be the bare minimum in anything purporting to call itself a journalistic endeavor.
One thing that I really hate about bullshit articles like this is that they reinforce the idea in so many people’s minds that “sex worker” == “street prostitute.” Hell, that’s what I thought until I was 18 or 19. In fact, street workers account for only 10%-20% of all prostitutes/escorts/courtesans (not using the term “sex workers” here since that term encompasses many other types of work).
And once again, they don’t give a shit about actually helping sex workers, or any of it. (I know The Sunday Paper certainly didn’t come right out and say, “We care about sex workers!” but with all the victim language and talk about the “johns,” that’s what the superficial message clearly is – even if it falls miserably flat with its condescending, pearl-clutching tone.) They make bank on perpetuating the very stereotypes and stigma they dramatically wring their hands about in articles such as these. It’s so transparent it’s pathetic. Sex workers aren’t people after all… they’re just an easy way to move some papers!
Timely comment fail!
Here’s an IM conversation I had with the lovely SakuraSarashi mere minutes ago:
[11:18] sakurasarashi: just got an interesting comment on my blog
[11:20] AmberATL30309: interesting how?
[11:20] sakurasarashi: its SUPER long
[11:20] sakurasarashi: and its from an ex creepy guy
[11:20] sakurasarashi: on the entry i made after being harassed that night
[11:21] AmberATL30309: oh wonderful, one of THOSE
[11:21] AmberATL30309: one word… DELETE
[11:21] sakurasarashi: i approved it… he took a lot of time writing it
[11:21] AmberATL30309: fuck him
[11:21] sakurasarashi: and made some interesting points
[11:21] AmberATL30309: you don’t owe him shit
[11:21] sakurasarashi: and was very respectful
[11:22] AmberATL30309: well, it’s your call. but i used to be all concerned about the delicate fee-fees of assholes on blogs, and then i realized, why? they have no right to my space. they got somethign to say, they can say it on their own blog.
[11:22] sakurasarashi: oh yeah, i have deleted disrespectful comments
[11:22] sakurasarashi: but i dont mind this one… just thought it was interesting
[11:23] AmberATL30309: i’m reading it. he sounds like an asshole.
[11:23] AmberATL30309: classic “Nice Guy”
[11:23] sakurasarashi: haha
[11:23] AmberATL30309: he should read the Don’t Be That Guy post i linked to last night
[11:23] sakurasarashi: i am SO going to link that
[11:23] AmberATL30309: seriously, anyone who makes a statemetn like “Guys are assholes” and leaves it at that? FUCK THEM
[11:23] sakurasarashi: in reply to him
[11:24] sakurasarashi: he has some hella WMP too
[11:24] AmberATL30309: WMP?
[11:24] AmberATL30309: “It’s taken me years of hard work to reduce my creepiness.” – bwahahaha!! oh really, dear, do tell!
[11:24] sakurasarashi: white male privilege
[11:24] AmberATL30309: uh, yeah, he’s kind of drowning in it
[11:25] AmberATL30309: clue phone is ringing… guess what dude… you are STILL CREEPY
[11:25] sakurasarashi: haha
[11:25] AmberATL30309: i’m sorry (actually, i’m not) but guys like this make me sick
[11:25] AmberATL30309: all tiny violin and male privilege
[11:25] sakurasarashi: i can tell
[11:26] sakurasarashi: lol
[11:26] AmberATL30309: i’ve just seen it so many times that it’s SO not funny anymore
[11:26] sakurasarashi: yeah
[11:27] AmberATL30309: anyway, like i said, your call. if it were me, i’d either delete the comment, or repost the comment with the FAIL stamp on top of it
[11:27] sakurasarashi: i was ALREADY in the process of the fail stamp thing
[11:27] sakurasarashi: hahahaha
[11:27] AmberATL30309: lol!!!
[11:27] AmberATL30309: GMTA
[11:27] sakurasarashi: I KNOW!
[11:27] sakurasarashi: can i quote you on the “clue phone ringing thing?
[11:28] AmberATL30309: indeed
[11:28] AmberATL30309: and now to get super meta, can i blog this whole damn IM convo?
[11:28] sakurasarashi: yes
[11:28] AmberATL30309: awesome
Here is the comment in question. It is an EPIC FAIL, as you will see from the number of stamps it required. (It actually could’ve used a few more, but my stamp pad ran out of ink.)
[Click for larger image version, if you're so inclined.]
Because some women are more equal than others
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.”
Comment fail
As posted on my Tumblr (yes, I have one of those, although I don’t use it very often)…
That’s a comment on Tiffany Brown’s post about Violet Blue’s recent SFGate column, which I keep meaning to blog about myself.
Rusty made a fail stamp image with a transparent background that I can put on top of screenshots of stupid/ignorant/obnoxious/pathetic comments, or anything else, really. Fun!
Goddammit
Fucking mainstream media. Oh, who am I kidding, why be so specific… fucking mainstream society.
The MSNBC request came through Seal Press, the publisher of Naked on the Internet. I said I would talk to the show’s producer and possibly do the show if I could talk about sex worker rights, politics, and trafficking. They were casting for someone who had been a sex worker to talk about the mechanics of hiring a prostitute, and the producer I talked to point blank asked me the question that is the title of this post, though then he quickly backtracked and said, “I’m sorry if I’m not using the right terminology,” and I told him that no indeed he was not. When asked if I have had sex for money, I told him I had been a fetish worker and sensual masseuse (I’ve briefly been an escort too, though for a fraction of the time of the other jobs) – which seemed to disappoint him, and he said things like, “So you weren’t a real… you didn’t have sex…”
MSNBC was only interested in having a woman who had been a prostitute talk about the mechanics of hiring a sex worker – a little salacious how-to on national television, gotta love it. They told me flat out that they weren’t interested in discussing the political interests of sex workers or the issues around sex trafficking as it is today. And while I am not ashamed that I was a sex worker, and I know sound bites are short and cannot be anywhere near as complicated as my shit is, I don’t want to be MSNBC’s whore on television. It does nothing for me personally and nothing for the movement I’m part of for me to be boiled down to the essence of “will fuck for cash. here’s how.”
I may have to ignore the internet tomorrow just so I don’t stumble onto blogs/tweets/etc. talking about the Spitzer thing. Because I just can’t fucking take the stupidity and the teeming assholes anymore.
Succinct
This is all I have to say about tomorrow night’s Nightline special:
