Sex In The Public Square - media - Comments

Studs Terkel introduced me to prostitutes

Elizabeth — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:18:53 -0800

Chris, thank you so much for posting that.

I was very sad to learn about Studs Terkel's death this weekend. I have loved his work since being introduced to it in college. And it struck me as I was thinking about his life and work that he was the one to introduce me to my first prostitute, or at least the first one I was aware of "meeting." She was interviewed in Working and in my English Composition class I had to write an essay comparing the work lives of two of his interview participants in Working. I chose the construction worker Mike LeFevre and the prostitute Roberta Victor. I remember writing about how they did physical labor and how both should be valued. And I remember commenting on the fact that her last name was Victor. I wish I could find that essay!

I will miss Terkel's work, but I will revel in poring over all lives he collected and honored during his remarkable journey.

Any time, Gracie

Elizabeth — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 13:38:40 -0700

And I mean that :)

Thanks for posting this,

Gracie — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:28:26 -0700

Thanks for posting this, Elizabeth ~ I am (naturally) whoring it!

I was totally unaware of

Diva — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 05:31:43 -0700

I was totally unaware of these types of issues until I set up the Paypal account for the NYC Sex Bloggers Calendar recently. Within a few days of doing that I received a phone call from Paypal questioning what exactly it was we were selling all because of the word "Sex" that was both in the title and our email address.

I then found myself defending what was in our calendar to Paypal thinking how our poses would be less revealing than the annual Sports Illustrated calendar has. All of this only because I had put the word sex in there. To me that seems a little over the top when just using that word triggers that type of reaction from Paypal.

You're welcome, and thank you Harper Jean

Elizabeth — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:15:09 -0700

The reminder of Google's opposition to Prop 8 is also important. It's rarely so clear as to say a company is "sex positive" or not. Google is a good example of a company that supports some degree of sexual freedom and yet is clearly uncomfortable with certain expressions of that freedom. It's a bit like saying "we support expanding sexual civil rights so that everybody can conform to mainstream institutions."

Thank you

Harper Jean — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:05:32 -0700

...for blogging this - I posted it to my Polymorphous Perversity blog as well. This is very disappointing behavior from Google, in a week when they have come out against Prop 8 in California.

Privatizing of public discourse

Elizabeth — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:03:04 -0700

Chris wrote:

The irony is that such policies don't hinder the people who make the majority of the stuff that really pisses off the anti-porn crowd. Do you really think that Vivid's income is hindered one bit by not being able to use a Google account? Does Larry Flynt lose sleep over the fact over Apple's policies about listing adult podcasts? Not one bit. Their size and financial resources allow them to either take a small detour to distribute their goods and collect payments through other means, or just roll right over them like a big rig facing down a turtle standing in the middle of the highway. The people they inconvenience are those for whom sexual expression is personal and artistic, who are trying to create things that reflect their own lives and desires, not a corporate product.

This is so important. One of the things that the public square is supposed to provide is a place for exchange of ideas. The problem with the Internet is that it has no true public space. The only way to gain access is through corporations which have policies that effectively limit that exchange of ideas by shutting out the diverse range of independent voices and allowing only the large monoliths to get their message out.

Anti-pornography activists who object to porn that seems to present a uniformly degrading portrayal of sexually active women ought to be celebrating when somebody like Gracie or Audacia gets her work out there. Since that is obviously not the reaction then the objection must be to something else. I'm guessing the objection is actually to portrayals of any sex that goes beyond the soft-focus romantic image of acceptable mainstream sex. And if corporate policies cater to those biases then the number of spaces where we can truly talk openly about all kinds of sex gets smaller and smaller. This presents a danger not only to producers of erotic material but also to sex educators, LGBT rights advocates and anyone else who finds it necessary to talk openly about sex. It's another good reason that all of us in the business of taking sex seriously need to support one another. We need to be working together to change overly restrictive corporate policies so that they allow at least as much freedom of speech as the law does. The Internet is quickly becoming the place for public discourse. If we fail to protect it as a place for free speech then we risk more than our sexual freedom!

By the way, Chris refers to the examination we made of TOS and AUP documents when setting up this site. You can see my post on that process here.

I wish I could say something

Gracie — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:10:20 -0700

I wish I could say something more helpful or enlightening, but honestly, this has been the case for years. I've battled with banks & PayPal, eBay & other sites about non-fiction books which a person/kid could buy at B&N, publications which won't sell ad space for vibes even though they heavily promoted Sex In The City (including rabbit vibe episode) or have sex columns ~ even free speech issues. Apparently free speech and "let the market speak" doesn't exist for issues of human sexuality.

I'm supportive of the fabulous Audacia Ray ~ of course I am. But this is one battle I've long been fighting & sadly, I no longer am shocked to hear these things. Saddened, yes; but not surprised.

Sexworkers talk back

Michael — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:48:53 -0700

The one conspicuous absence (other than actual facts) in any policy debate or decisions around the world and across time has been that of the voices of those most affected - sexworkers themselves.

Policy makers have seen little reason to consult or listen, and much of the debate has effectively erased the voices (and agency) of sex workers, who after all have been portrayed as 'victims' requiring rescuing, and who, if 'happy' or 'consensual' are immediately dismissed as suffering from PTSD, and therefore unaware of just how 'unhappy' they are.

Structural barriers in a criminalised world make it difficult for sex workers to effectively organise in the way other interest groups do, but this is changing. As Gracie demonstrates, the internet is providing new ways to create virtual communities of practice, and an alternative voice that is becoming harder to ignore. Not so long ago, if a sex worker made it to an interview, it would be in shadow, with an altered voice and assumed name. And now people like Tracy Quan can start off an article in a quality newspaper with "As a prostitute in New York" and actually look happy!

We cannot, and should not speak for sex workers, and indeed sex work is so diverse that one cannot generalise either. However as friends and colleagues of sex workers, we should confront the criticisms that Gracie has identified, correct inaccurate statements and speak out as responsible citizens for the rights of all to be recognised in a just society, rather than be treated as an underclass to appease those who disapprove of their chosen profession.

Beaver!

hali.liana — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:17:45 -0700

Rock on. Love it, love it.

*yah, yah, yah*

No apologies necessary...

Elizabeth — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 02:33:57 -0700

Chris, you have nothing to apologize for. I am so glad you posted that piece about the correcting of the article. I'd missed it altogether, and it's so important! I just wanted to link back to some of what had come before on this site and on BNG.

I agree with you: when that piece came out I think many of us were so excited that we cut the Times a lot of slack. It appeared, on the surface, to do two important things that previous coverage hadn't done: 1, place significant emphasis on sex worker voices and 2, listen to women doing comparable work rather than trying to compare the conditions of one group of workers to another. Unfortunately, as we learned later through BNG and now more officially from the Times through your post, it had in fact not really done either.

Thanks for keeping us updated!

I apologize, Elizabeth. I

Chris — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:41:53 -0700

I apologize, Elizabeth. I should have been more explicit about the fact that the reactions overall were ambivalent; I just wanted to highlight the fact that after all the ream of crap that came out, this was the one article that got some positive response from people who mattered.

Mixed reviews

Elizabeth — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:37:45 -0700

For what it's worth that initial Times story about the "double lives of high-end call girls" had mixed reviews on both this site and Bound, Not Gagged. Shortly after it came out a piece appeared on Bound, Not Gagged posted on behalf of Faith O'Donnell criticizing the peace. A regular contributor posted praise for the story on that site and this one. When I saw the praise for the story posted here I posted a link back to the BNG post criticizing the story. So, feelings about that story have been mixed since it originally appeared. I'm glad to see that the Times has taken it's responsibility seriously and has truncated the story and posted an editor's comment explaining the massive correction. I'm sorry to see that so little is left. That could have been avoided had they taken the issue of sex work and sex worker's voices seriously from the start, of course.

But it brings to mind another issue, and that is that people who are trying hard "not to offend" sometimes make mistakes because they don't understand the nuances of the language they are using. The editor's comment notes that one of the reporters used the term "sex worker" which is the term all three women used to describe their various kinds of work. If that reporter was using the term because he deemed it the "politically correct" term to use when one means "prostitute" without recognizing that it applies to a range of workers, he did a disservice to his readers as well as to the people whose lives he was reporting.

We need accuracy and precision in language and in reporting. When it comes to sex work issues the mainstream media has not done a great job with either. I'm glad to see them correcting themselves. That does represent a huge step forward. But I hope that translates into actual lessons learned and not just a sign that there will be more apologies and corrections forthcoming.

original & fun

barkingstar — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:35:11 -0700

this is great! it's such a play on THAT word! i can almost BET this commercial was conceived & written by a woman or women. why can't we get intelligent, creative, coyly funny commercials like this in America? oh yeah, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, just KNOWS that a woman's "down there" is just icky & dirty.

chuckle Thanks for the

Curvaceous Dee — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 21:59:50 -0700

*chuckle* Thanks for the laugh! Beats the heck out of most of the tampons ads we see down here in New Zealand - looks like we'll have to import some Aussie ones instead :)

xx Dee