When is it in to be out?

Hi Michael,

Certainly these are all topics worthy of careful thought and civil debate. But I'd like to point out that I've not seen anyone objecting to free speech, and it makes me uncomfortable to have (some of) the complaints voiced within this particular controversy reduced to simply not liking what another person is saying. I don't think it's a fair representation of the concerns that sparked the fire. 

If I have a sex blog in which I claim to tweet during anal sex, enjoy gang bangs, and make thousands of dollars per hour for my work, and I'm attacked solely on my professed lifestyle, there's little ground for a critic to stand on. If, however, I have a blog in which I try to dictate the behavior of others or in which I promote myself publicly (and successfully) as a sex educator, the situation becomes more complex and, I would argue, problematic.

Imagine, for instance, if I claimed to be transgendered and wanted to introduce a transgendered persons' code of conduct. Or if I maintained a website in which I claimed *some* of the writing was mine and some wasn't, but I wasn't going to identify what was the work of others. Or if I gave out medical advice while claiming I was a midwife when in fact I was not. I don't know that anyone need produce evidence of personal damage for common sense to tell us none of these is a desirable, ethical situation. Certainly we can say the onus is on individuals to use their own common sense and do research before trusting an unseen other, yet our communal instincts generally protect against self-misrepresentation when it strays into the realm of affecting others' behavior. And so we endorse free speech but don't allow unlicensed doctors to practice medicine.

I also think it's unnecessary to imply that the current debate is creating a slippery slope into an online dynamic where anyone writing about sex is expected to provide real information about his or her identity. Maybe I'm being naive, but it seems obvious to me: if I want to constantly advertise professional credentials on my online forum, it's reasonable for my audience to want to know more about those credentials. But if I just want to tell a hot story, no one needs to know my name.

Respectfully,

Monica 

Thanks, Monica

I think we all defend free speech, both by bloggers and their critics. However no freedoms are unlimited, and as you say there are legal issues when people claim to be members of regulated professions.

While we cannot verify the various claims that have been made, I have been informed that a blogger whose identity is being questioned has received a number of threats against both them and their family, and had their website hacked. A number of campuses have apparently received letters about 'suspect' students in their classes.

It is not that people will be obliged to reveal their identity that I fear, but rather the opposite. Unfortunately the history of hate has shown us that what may start out as fair comment under the principles of free speech can easily attract violent and dangerous elements which may be what has happened here. That is what i mean by mobbing.

I am therefore suggesting that maybe there should be a cooling off period, because I think there is a serious risk of some people being harmed by all this. This is not a criticism of you or the issues that I beleive you raised originally.

Though your post is thoughtful, the problem is that you seem to dismiss ALL concerns raised simply because they were raised. Sex workers are affected by the public actions of others -- which is why you recently spent your energy fighting the the passage of the RI law. You were aruging not just legal consequences but also public perception -- a much more difficult thing to quanitfy (law is fairly cut and dry). A blog whose creator has worked hard to develop a large following as the public voice of sex workers is a public action and it affects perceptions.

The questions should be asked. No one "jumps on a band wagon" if they ask these questions. Not asking is not thinking and I really don't want to promote that! Nor does asking questions step on anyone's freedom of speech. Requesting that questions not be asked IS impeding freedom of speech and thought.

XX

I'd like to bring up the bust that happened in Houston recently. For many of us (escorts) our work isnt legal, cam girls, strippers, adult actors dont face some of the same issues that escorts do. In Houston this last month the police infiltrated a popular review and message board and arrested members at a meet and greet. The press was called and peoples faces were splashed all over  the evening news and the internet.

How did the police get into the site and make that happen? They posed as someone they were not to gain peoples trust under a false pretense. Wrangled an invite then ARRESTED people.

How we (as escorts) establish our legitimany is paramount in my world as a sex worker. NOT questioning means people go to jail. To pretend like this issue is about how to hide your idenity online because you want to talk sex or that it will lead to outing internet sex writers is pretty silly. As escorts we have to hide our idenities AND prove our legitimacy and thats not always an easy thing to do. Do you think somone infiltrating that community to such a degree, gainig peoples trust, marketing herself as the face of that community then turning out to be an all made up fantasy, makes that harder for the real working escorts of the world or easier... That's not throwing stones thats making sure something like this doesnt happen again with a much worse outcome then some people were tricked and made fools of.

Slippery slope?... there's your slippery slope.

Jenny DeMilo

Jenny, I've been frequently appalled by your posts, but this has gone too far.  Firstly, you feel compelled to note some off-hand occurrence in what I assume is an attempt to gain more followers of your argument by frightening them.  Alexa is clearly not a law enforcement officer, else Ava DeLuca [http://www.realprincessdiaries.com/2009/05/testimonial-from-a-client/] would have been arrested on spot.  There have also been other sex workers who have come forward in Alexa's defense to assure the masses that 'yes, Alexa is an escort, and yes, I've seen clients she referred to me.'  The lot of them would have been placed quickly in the slammer.  Your correlation is silly, and as usual your statements are dangerously irrational.

What I find deeply disturbing is that your statement "NOT questioning means people go to jail" appears to totally negate your point, and you fail to realize this.  Firstly, you establish that escorts, as a rule, need to protect their identities to avoid legal prosecution.  Secondly, you cite a 'bust' where a great many providers and clients alike were revealed and "splashed" across the news--we all know what the ramifications are for such a thing.  People were imprisoned, families were damaged, reputations were ruined.  What Jenny, Trixie, and many others in this "FauxHo" campaign are doing is attempting to reveal the identity of Alexa DiCarlo.  They're searching IP addresses, they're writing letters to colleges, they are interrogating professors and owners of strip clubs.  They are doing precisely the same thing as both the Anti-Prostitution crowd and law enforcement officials do to set up a sting and to generally ruin the life of a sex worker [not to mention the clients involved].  You're right, not setting up a screening process does generally indicate that at some point, someone is likely going to get caught and go to jail.  However, screening is far removed from revealing someone's personal information!  What you and your tribe are doing is the same thing you say you want to avoid--in much the same language as those who are utterly opposed to sex work [see @jennydemilo's twitter comment quote "entitled trick" for the most recent occurrence].  

This is mob mentality, and for someone to say they support sex worker's rights and in the same breath diminish everything their work stands for in the same manner as the opposition totally negates your legitimacy! 

By the way, spouting conjecture en masse never means that it's absolute truth.  See anti-prostitution fanatics for reference. 

Amanda and Jenny,

thank you for contributing your perspectives. These are useful and necessary dialogues. I want to say at the outset that any impression that SiTPS is in anyway discouraging freedom of speech or the asking of awkward questions was certainly not intended, quite the opposite, we exist in order to ask inconvenient questions. The issue was not so much the ‘whether’, but the ‘how’, but also to make sure we all considered some of the potential for ripple effects and collateral damage. I assure you the concerns raised are by no means dismissed.  

However it is also important to point out that where one stands on this issue is likely to be very much influenced by whether one believes at this stage that the allegations have all been substantiated. As I indicated in the original article, I think we should all respect the principle of the presumption of innocence till proven otherwise. In any case I was more concerned about the general principles than the specifics of the case, which are being argued in many fora elsewhere. If indeed, the intent was to silence a particular blog, it has been successful since virtually all traces of the individual have disappeared in the last few days.

As a background we need to appreciate that for a long time sex workers have justifiably complained that their voices have been ignored, dismissed and silenced, and that all too often others have taken it upon themselves to speak on their behalf. These facts are naturally going to raise questions about blogs claiming to be by sex workers. On the other hand because of this problem sex work blogging is enormously important in giving the community a voice, and we need to carefully consider anything that might discourage that.

The question has been raised as to what effect sex work blogs might have on the lives and work of sex workers, and their image. These things are hard to quantify. I think that at least in the UK, the Belle image was influential during a particularly nasty political debate that tried to depict all sex workers as trafficked, vulnerable, abused, addicted and needing rescue by the State. Belle therefore represented an inconvenient truth and was a matter of considerable popular discussion. The blog in question here was of relatively high profile, but I don’t think was likely to be influential in the same way, outside of the internet sexuality community. By contrast those sex workers that have written books have been more influential. So we need to ask whether demonstrating that a blog is purely fictitious, partly fictitious, or true, influences the lives of sex workers and of sex bloggers in general, and if so to what extent.

Jenny also raises a very important question, that of deliberately infiltrating the community in order to destroy it. However I think the two are distinguishable, but  the sequence of events she describes will naturally create caution regarding any new sex work blog that appears.

When Jenny says “As escorts we have to hide our identities AND prove our legitimacy and that’s not always an easy thing to do” I think she identifies the central issue. The two needs are almost irreconcilable in the present legal and social climate. Sex workers are therefore faced with the need to both conceal identifying information and to demonstrate legitimacy at the same time. In this light discussions about whether details ring true or not are likely to be misleading.

It is also understandable that anyone who feels the facts have been proven might feel they have been deceived, cheated or made fools of, and are going to be justifiably angry. But again, the assumption that concerns me is that the facts have been proven to date. Therefore the argument that we must prevent this happening again is not necessarily convincing at this stage. It may be that we will never know. But the potential of a chill effect is real, and that concerns me. I hope I am wrong, but I don’t share Jenny’s optimism that this will not lead to a wave of zealots trying to out sex workers who write, I have seen too many people hurt to be complacent on this. I am aso aware of a negative effect these events have had on some allies, who were distressed by what they saw unfolding.

I look forward to further contributions on this important topic. Ultimately we must change society so that people do not feel the same compulsion to hide their identities, and we must find ways to support and work with new sex bloggers.

Kate Josephine: it is unacceptable and defamatory for you to say, "What Jenny, Trixie, and many others in this "FauxHo" campaign are doing is attempting to reveal the identity of Alexa DiCarlo.  They're searching IP addresses, they're writing letters to colleges, they are interrogating professors and owners of strip clubs.  They are doing precisely the same thing as both the Anti-Prostitution crowd and law enforcement officials do to set up a sting and to generally ruin the life of a sex worker [not to mention the clients involved]. "

UNACCEPTABLE, and untrue, at least on my part, except for the IP address part which is hardly evidence of a nefarious plot. To say I'm doing or have done precisely the same thing as the anti-prostitution crowd and LE is and state as fact that you know I've interrogated professors, owners of strip clubs and written letters to universities is slander. I have not done any of those things and wouldn't be surprised if none of those things have been done by ANYONE, and it's just one more attempt to deflect attention from her scam falling apart and try to garner sympathy from her fans that don't give a fiddler's fart about the people she has stolen from or professionals whose credentials she's falsely claimed for herself.

Regardless, when Alexa decided to post her credentials by making specific claims about what universities she has supposedly attended in the form of a CV on her myspace and presented herself as a sex educator, she invited people to CHECK those credentials. Also, I didn't book a date with her under false pretenses, take hidden camera photos of her, track down Cass and then EXPOSE her, which is the kind of thing you're implying I did. ALEXA PUBLISHED THOSE PHOTOS HERSELF. And speaking of defamation, add that to copyright theft because using images of the non-nude model BlueyedCass in association with prostitution ads is libelous. I cannot understand why you give Alexa full and complete trust as being "real" but completely dismiss who BlueyedCass is or presents herself to be. How do you reconcile that? Of course, if they are the same person, AGAIN, the onus of responsibility is ON ALEXA, not the people who recognized the pictures and alerted people, including the camgirl, to what looks to any reasonable person like a scam and copyright infringement. If a mistake was made here, IT WAS MADE BY ALEXA. If someone's privacy was compromised, IT WAS COMPROMISED BY ALEXA. It's unacceptable to lay that burden on me or anyone else but her, whoever she may be.

Most sex workers with a web presence who do in-person work do not fabricate (or even provide true) specific qualifications (complete with school names and dates of enrollment ) they do not have and steal images. Those specifics need not have been volunteered, particularly if verifying them would compromise someone's safety. If she is indeed any of the things she claims to be, she could easily have protected her privacy the way everybody else in our industry does by being unspecific about which schools she's attended and bars she's worked in (if it's really a horrible problem for someone to ask people in those clubs if they've ever worked with "Peaches") and had the good sense to have photos taken for her escorting sites which weren't snagged right from the front page of a different person's (or persona's, if what you're suggesting is true) website. By unnecessarily creating and publishing all of the details she did she has cast suspicion on OTHER people completely innocent of having any involvement in her fantasy life.

I do not want Kate Josephine misrepresenting what I've said and done. Here is my blog entry on the subject:

http://www.tastytrixie.com/blogging/alexa-real-princess-diaries-faux-ho-...

Long story short, I explained that I don't like the way she operates and was removing my link to her. Not because I thought she was fake, which as I explained mattered little to me -- I maintained a traffic exchange with her for MONTHS (maybe even a year or more) in spite of privately thinking she wasn't a "real princess". The only thing I suggested people to do? Not feel bad if they enjoy her blog, take it with a grain of salt, and consider pressuring Alexa to properly credit the artists whose work she co-opts. I can't see how that makes me Lord of the Flies the way people are suggesting.

I have been blogging since 2001 and doing sex work online (and on rare occasions in person) since the year 2000 and I have never betrayed a colleague's or a customer's confidentiality or engaged in a "witch hunt". This portrait being painted of me instigating "pogroms" and "campaigns" against sex workers is not supported by anything I am doing now or have done in the past. Unlike Alexa and most of her vehement defenders, I have years of archived content that speaks for my character itself and a reputation for honesty built up over almost ten YEARS of almost unheard-of transparency. I defy you to find one reputable source, particularly one who has had a consistent online presence even half as long as I have, who will bear witness that I run harem scarem through the ranks of anonymous sex bloggers laying waste to anyone in my path. It's ludicrous and beyond insulting, particularly coming from people who cannot demonstrate the same history or record of behavior or have anybody vouch for them outside of this tiny circle of faceless, new-on-the-scene Alexaphiles and non-sex workers who are so irrationally frightened and threatened by women publicly airing opinions of suspicion, indignation and anger over Alexa's theft and misrepresentations.

Clarification on my last comment to assure you that while I have looked at my own logs to compare ip addressess to those others have shared, I have never published anybody's ip address on my site, on twitter, or in any public space, nor have I ever encouraged anyone else to do so.

I was chided by Amanda elsewhere for using the word 'war' and I accepted her criticism. However one thing that I stated initially that worried me was that this issue could quite easily develop  into something that turned the online sex community against each other.

It may not necessarily be the main actors in this debate who are causing the damage, but that they simply provide a pretext for others with more of a mob mentality to wreak out their misogynist and sexphobic fantasies.

I have a feeling that on line sex blogging is not going to be the same for some time.

Trixie, I should not have grouped anyone into that category so generally without citing specific references to each course.  It was hurried, and it didn't help me address the point very well.  I will address it more specifically now.

Trixie, one reason I felt compelled to separate those in the situation into two or so groups is because there is a blatant hatred being spouted among what appear to be your associates, given the content of your interaction about the debate, most of it spewing from conjecture and all of it utterly reckless.  This has never seemed to me that it is simply an appeal for legitimacy in sex work; in fact, from the beginning it appears that it was just that you [and perhaps a few others] became offended by something Alexa stated: "Apparently, she got bent out of shape months ago because I made some comment about her cunt." 

In fact, your comments about the situation seem unnecessarily spiteful, your mouth frothing in glee whenever one of your cohorts decides to write some offhanded [and inaccurate] blog post about Alexa's credibility in her degree program: "Remember, @AlexaRPD is not just a faux ho, but a faux educator."  If others would look a bit more closely, they would note in Alexa's post that it was an assignment she was given to create her own course syllabus: "For one of my classes this semester I have to develop my own syllabus for a History of Sexuality class for undergraduate college level students."  The Sexademic seems to insinuate [wrongly] that because Alexa left out one text that is already implemented in a syllabus in her department she must be lying about attending the school/having taken the courses.  She obviously did not read through the text [though it was in the first sentence] and instead formed a false conclusion based upon her willingness to jump upon the bandwagon.    

That brings me to another issue I take with you, Trixie--you are dreadfully inconsistent.  When your claims are dismissed by those with enough logical ability to see past the petty callousness, you tend to take another ridiculous path from what I assume is simple stubbornness.  You claim that "Content theft isn't a NON issue, it's one of THE PRIMARY issues" yet here and in many other forums you state the phrase "if Alexa IS Cass, then..."  That quite plainly negates the supposed legitimacy to your claims that Alexa is a "is a lying fucking thief."  If you don't [and can't] even fully support your own arguments, how am I supposed to assume that any of these credientials you posted here are in any way verifiable?  The point is that you, Jenny Demilo, Vivian DaSilva, Furrygirl, and many others are merely grasping for proof that you don't have.  I make the connection between your actions and the anti-prostitution crowd because your actions in this instance [note that I am not stating that all of your projects are utterly ridiculous and without foundation] mirror theirs exactly.  When an anti-prostitution zealot makes an argument against sex work, do you think they have anything but stigmatized opinion and conjecture?  Of course not, they would have no point otherwise, would they?  They group prostitutes not into the more accurate dimensions of mostly intelligent well-rounded individuals, but into drug addicts, street walkers, and people who were abused as children.  They also verbally assault sex workers and attach a tag to them much in the same way you and your brethren have by the term "Faux Ho".  I understand why you might be offended that I am making that very obvious correlation, and you should be.  You should realize that your actions [as well as those of others, of course this is not soley on your shoulders] are just as terrible in this instance as the forces you fight to remove the negative stigma attached to our profession.  I can see why that might make you raise your hackles in disgust.  Mine certainly are.

In addition, Trixie, I'm terribly disappointed in your insinuation that simply because I am merely beginning in the movement [and being a staunch defender of Alexa--not simply for her but for all sex workers who are doubted on a constant basis] it makes my thoughts or activism any less credible than yours.  You had a beginning, as well, and I'm certain that it would offend your delicate sense of "right and wrong" were someone to insult you in such a manner.  I bring logic and rationality into this situation where people are turning into animals and attacking one another.  

Anyway, I'd like to be finished with this debacle.  If Alexa couldn't even defend herself from the hyenas in a rational manner, [http://www.realprincessdiaries.com/2009/12/lets-get-real/] there is nothing more I or anyone else can do.  This will blow over just like Belle, with any luck, and all the doubters and attackers will have to live with the consequences of their actions [not speaking directly to Trixie here, either].  But one last thing:  I'm curious, Trixie, if your intent wasn't to trace Alexa by her IP Address, what was it?  I ask because Jenny DeMilo [with whom you associate in this instance] appeared to be insinuating that she'd ask a person she knew in Deleware for personal information about Alexa:  "what shes not in FLORIDA? funny i know someone in the Delaware area right now.... ummmm".  Trixie, you may not have been a prominent part in this attack, but as Michael stated--"It may not necessarily be the main actors in this debate who are causing the damage, but that they simply provide a pretext for others with more of a mob mentality to wreak out their misogynist and sexphobic fantasies."

Oh come on, Michael. Nothing about this is uncharacteristic of blogging or sex blogging. Shit happens; people get mad.

Speaking of misogyny, these attempts to stifle women's voices when they aren't soft and attractive and perceived as helpful to one another and to call them "ugly" "nasty" and "truly frightening" when they are assertive and critical feels to me EXACTLY like misogyny. If you really want to celebrate women's voices, then you're going to have to accept and celebrate that we express a full range of human emotions and have thoughts that are sometimes critical of each other.

To all: 

I have been largely offline during the end-of-semester wrap-up (which was sadly chaotic because of the loss of a dear colleague) and then holiday travels (much more joyful, thank goodness). Michael alerted me to the discussion going on here.

I have not followed the details of the Alexa story so I will not comment on it. What I would like to say here is that while as a site we welcome difficult discussions and uncomfortable questions I am dismayed by the unsubstantiated accusations that have become part of this thread. Comments here are very lightly moderated and I am largely offline for the next several days. Please be respectful of community norms we try to establish here and keep focused on the larger issues while avoiding personal attacks.

I regret that this has all come up at a time when I am so unavailable to participate. I will check in as I can and trust Michael to moderate in my absence.

~Elizabeth

The exchanges above reflect some of what is being said around the community, and while mutual respect cannot be said to be a characteristic of these exchanges, there are once again lessons to be learned. Sometimes we inadvertently do our opponents job for them when we turn on ourselves.

Yes, it is a rough and tumble world out there, but the anger that this issue has provoked should make us take stock. We also need to acknowledge our diversity, and that we should not always assume that other's experiences while differing from our own are necessarily wrong.

Some of the wisest words I have seen on this issue were offered by La Libertine, where she asks us to consider the words of Alexander Hamilton in 1787 in which he reflects upon the Constitution. Hamilton asks us to observe how easily we are persuaded that we have a unique grasp of the truth and to argue it with utter conviction. I would reccomend that all those who have witnessed or been part of the "torrent of angry and malignant passions" that Hamilton describes, read the whole essay and ask what it may teach us.

Perhaps we should now move on and ask what steps we can take to make the on-line sex community more supportive, and focus on the structural factors imposed by dominant discourses that create and shape these disputes. 

I'm not going to make any kind of huge inflammatory statement on any of this, I have my ideas as well as certain mostly verified information that I will not share because it isn't my place to do so. I have seen a certain blogger/twitter individual post Alexa's alleged IP address and location, I've seen posts and pages written and then deleted as swiftly regarding some pretty incendiary accusations and ideas regarding Alexa. Its as simple as doing a twitter search for #fauxho and AlexaRPDAFraud and you'll see for yourself what's been posted.

Now we have another brand new backlash with ExposeAHo and yet more divulgence of personal information which could lead to a whole new explosion of violence and hatred amongst the sex workers and within their community of allies.

Its wrong, all of it. This will not help the sex workers, if anything it makes them appear vindictive, violent and untrustworthy. It also shows just how divided they are even with their claims of solidarity. What benefit has any of this for any of them?

No, I am not a sex worker but someone very close to me (within my biological family, actually) was for many years working the rough street trade and she's dead now but that does not lessen my feelings, worries and fears for all of you, agency, street or independant as well as other areas of the sex industry.

I've been called a groupie, I've been called a sock puppet, I've been called everything but a human in this debacle, and I'm not playing into the drama blazing from either side of the debate. I'm not attacking anyone and I don't intend to although a few saw fit to attack me on a public level because I dared show support to a friend on her private blog. Did I make any type of incendiary replies and /or comments in retaliation on her initial post or on any of their reactionary posts? No, and I won't because that isn't how to settle/solve anything.

But seriously, this all has to stop before someone is physically hurt, or maybe even worse...

I think one can say at this point that there is litle to be gained by further discussion about this particular blog. Lines have been drawn, views are entrenched and there is probably little more that can be said other than simply inflaming things further.

I would suggest commentators confine their remarks to trying to understand the circumstances that led to people taking such vehemently diametric positions, and where we can go in the future to heal some of these wounds. 

In the final analysis it is rarely the individual that causes crises and conflict, but the system in which they find themselves, and which determines their reactions to the actors.

It looks like Real Princess Diaries has gone offline as of today, as has Alexa's MySpace page.

Monica pretty much said it all up front and then Amanda and others elaborated- Michael you are minimizing this situation and reducing it to a "silly cat fight." I'm insulted both as a woman and a sex worker. And, frankly, I'm surprised to find this at SITPS.

Let me remind you that nobody has had to dig for anything on Alexa. She's constantly putting herself out there as an authority on topics for which a person needs credentials to be considered an expert in. The only problem is that the credentials are lacking and those who have them are rightfully making their contributions to the public record. The only way to fight free speech is with more free speech. Not a single person has said that Alexa should be "outed" as in have her 'real name' made public or any other identifying information. I would never wish such a thing on anybody. I happen to actually be a woman and a sex worker, I know how scary and horrifying that can be.

Sex workers have private community processes for establishing credibility. Professional sex educators have both public and private processes for establishing credibility. Activists do too. Alexa is not passing. A huge diverse group of people who actually are sex workers, educators, activists etc have spoken out as a result of an article that was about sex workers who blog. Furry Girl said it best at her blog: this is a consensus, not a debate.

The ability to blog anonymously and have people jerk off to it, comment on it, link to it or any other form of internet expression is not being threatened by professionals holding their colleagues accountable.

I don't really see how you have any authority on this matter and I think it's a cop-out to suggest that letters are being sent around and then shrug off the commenters who ask for your proof. If anything, that's how the flames are being fanned, not by true authentic people expressing their concerns.

Ick, I'm just really uncomfortable with this post. Why is this so important to you that you'd blabber on at such length? And to post a comment today saying that you dispute that you've taken sides in this? Um, did you read your post and subsequent comments? Michael, I don't really know you but I've appreciated some of your past writing and I trust Elizabeth deeply and appreciate SITPS being here. That said, this really isn't very cool.

And in your other comment I think you're correct, this is done. But I came here because i found your twitter messages to me to be insulting and presumtuous. Don't tell me that "we" need to back off. You, like everybody else commenting on this who are not among "us" don't actually get it and aren't part of "we." I can appreciate your general concern for free speech and web freedom, but don't degrade our very legitimate concerns because you don't get it.

The most disturbing developement to come out of this conflict has been how easily it has been for many in the community to turn on it's allies.  It is divisive, unprincipled and does nothing to forward the rights of sex workers to attack allies form the movement who have PROVEN, many through the years, their commitment to this struggle.  Many of these allies have taken great risks, including the risk of losing their careers as doctors, researchers and academics.  Many of these allies have had to endure public attacks from the anti-prostitution forces, vicious public attacks, not disimilar to what is taking place here and elsewhere on the sex worker blogs.

Decriminalization and the health and safety of sex workers is what should be first and foremost.  What has unfolded over the last few weeks does nothing to improve the lives and working conditions of sex workers, who as we blog and "tweet" (what ever that is) are being raided, arrested and deported, having their children taken away, are losing their access to life saving services and are being arrested for 135th time for standing on a fucking corner trying to make a living.

Also- it takes some serious hubris for an "ally" to write a post to draw attention to himself and then three days later tell me, a sex worker, in a pubic forum that it's time to cool it down after I've sent him a very friendly private message about the nature of some of the people he was linked up with. None of the anger expressed by sex workers here is unfounded, this is not acceptable ally behavior.

I hate to use such a word as "hysteria" as my subject, but it's really warranted.

We're seeing an increasing and virulent "them against us" mentality here in comments such as from Kimberlee and Trixie. And anyone at all who dares to disagree that Alexa's blog was so horrible and deleterious is promptly vilified.

No one is being "thrown under the bus" as you claim (besides, of course, Alexa); actually, it's just that your behavior is being criticized. Welcome to a modern web forum. You don't have to agree, you certainly can voice your own views of the matter, but let's maybe try not to cast things as quite so black and white. Anyone who disagrees with you tends to be instantly cast into what one sex worker snootily called "horny men and internet nobodies" (missing the whole point about the importance of web anonymity), or, if they're a sex worker, instantly questioned as to their own true identity and called a sockpuppet or worse. I keep seeing the meme that "ALL sex workers agree that Alexa is a fake."  No, that's patently not the case if you watch the twitstream, but repeating it over and over obviously must feel good.

Equally, I have yet to see any convincing case (rather than simple statement that this is so) that Alexa's blog did any harm whatsoever, whether fake or not. I have yet to see anyone point out the inadequacy of her sex advice. I have yet to be even remotely convinced that even if false, descriptions of her escort activity would do anything to harm actual escorts by supposedly raising clients' expectations unreasonably (!). If that were true, you escorts better get out there and start protesting any number of things, from mainstream movies to television to alternative porn, because those things set such expectations just as much as anything in a blog.  To the contrary, Alexa's blog has been praised, even by people who now think she was a fake, as having expanded their view of sexuality.  It certainly did for me, and it's a shame that this resource has now been silenced due to utter pettiness.

Yes, I agree with others that much of the behavior I've seen here and on the twitstream (as documented above by commentator "K.") is nothing short of "ugly," "nasty," and "truly frightening". If you don't see clear and undeniable examples of that, you're not looking very hard at all. And Trixie, this ugly behavior is seen as ugly not because anyone's being "assertive" (what a facile and ridiculous claim), it's because the behavior actually is, well, ugly, nasty, and truly frightening. As a prospective escort client, I'd be scared witless by the obvious vindictiveness I'm seeing, vindictiveness without much cause at all, frankly. Not a chance in the world I'd be approaching any escort now. You all must really feel smug about having won, eh?  You've driven this shameless hussy from your midst, out of town on a rail. Wow, someone needs to read The Scarlet Letter. The ironies...

I would like to remind readers and contributors that we do have a comments policy. I have been very liberal to date because I wanted everyone involved to have their say.

However we will not publish, or will unpublish, any further comments that do not provide new information or perspectives and that are merely criticisms of other people. Such comments do not add to our understanding and merely serve to inflame an already volatile situation further. It is clear that this is a very divisive issue and from not only comments posted here but many private messages and emails that the on line sex community is firmly divided into three camps.

People either firmly support the views and actions of the original criticisms of a particular blogger, or firmly defend that blogger and are upset at the criticisms. The third group, including myself are trying to look at what is going on objectively and drawing conclusions about our collective behaviour.

I doubt that there is much that can now be said that will change anybody's minds.

I am going to go one step further and declare this thread closed. I hope that at some other time we can open a discussion of some of the very important issues that were raised here, but right now I see no potential for useful conversation about them. I'm glad they were raised but unfortunately, as Michael and others have pointed out, there is little going on now other than venting of frustration. While that is important to do, it is only enflaming frustrations here.

Comments on this thread will be turned off. Readers who believe they have something very important to add are welcome to email me their comments (use the contact form on the site if you don't have my email address) and I will put those that are useful together into a new post that redirects attention to the important issues raised in this discussion.