Sex In The Public Square - sex workers - Comments

Mainstreaming

Michael — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:31:43 -0700

Thanks Elizabeth, these are all useful questions for possible future debate on Gracie’s show. One of the issues we discussed was where the pendulum of popular mores is going and how that will position sex work in the future.

One aspect of this is the conservatism that appeared in the late eighteenth century (after an earlier brief life under Cromwell’s Puritans) and lasted till the early twentieth. There is no sign of this reversing itself in the near future despite pockets of opposition that we have commented on here.

We are awash in a popular culture of sexuality, yet its expression remains firmly controlled. As you yourself have commented recently, a changing technology is enabling women to once again gain control over their sexuality and to re-invent the oral tradition of preserving and passing on knowledge. Shows like Gracie’s also provide sex workers and other sex-positive groups a forum to give voice.

We have also commented on how Dr Jocelyn Elders wanted to bring sexuality into the mainstream curriculum, rather than labelling it with the forbidden fruit ‘Adult’ tag. The only way major improvements in the protection of the human rights, health and wellbeing of sex workers will occur is by doing everything possible to mainstream it, repositioning it as normative, even if a minority activity.

Thanks, Elizabeth :) There

Gracie — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:32:12 -0700

Thanks, Elizabeth :)

There were some issues with BlogTalkRadio's server/site, and so the show will be downloaded, edited and uploaded to adjust for that. (Hopefully it is all recorded.) Meanwhile, please be patient with the "dead air" gaps ~ the show did go on (even longer than scheduled).

And look for the return of Dr. Goodyear on a future show. (Please fee free to listen to future Cult of Gracie shows , and past shows , as well! lol) Many thanks to him for sharing his information and his patience during a glitchy show.

Elizabeth, Chris, when are you going to be on? :P

Brilliant show!

Elizabeth — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:13:37 -0700

Gracie, Michael, excellent show! A few points I thought were especially important and that I'd love for our readers who weren't able to listen to know about:

There's plenty of research out there that refutes the myths about sex work and yet people don't pay attention to it. It seems people act on sex related matters -- and maybe on many political issues -- based on their emotions and not based on reason. How do we change peoples *feelings* about sex, sexuality, and sex work so they are receptive to sensible policy?

Many feminists who we believe truly do want to protect the interests of women act in ways that harm women because they buy into the myths mentioned above. Is it possible to educate those women so that they really can advance the cause of equality and reduce harm to women? Or is this, too, a matter of affecting emotional states and not a matter of reason?

Moral panics are fueled by concerns not only about sex but about population size (growth or shrinkage), about population composition (race, ethnicity) and so the sex work controversy and the immigration controversy are inextricably linked and are together reflected in the trafficking panic. How do we counter that?

Exchange is a part of all relationships. How do we help people understand that the exchange of money or other goods for sex is not uniquely different from all the other exchanges that we make in intimate relationships?

How do we build solidarity among workers across industries, especially when they seem to believe that their interests are at odds instead of being unified?

Oh, and how do we create spaces for accurate information about sex and sex work when the most commonly referred to sources, like Wikipedia, often allow that information to be altered or deleted? At least that one will have an easy answer soon. (The other questions are answerable but take more time.) We are starting our own wiki info site, SexCommons.org, a joint project between us and Center for Sex and Culture, where you will be able to find accurate and sex-positive information about all things sexual and which will also archive photos and videos of historical and social importance (yes of course that may also include erotic material).

I absolutely encourage anyone who wasn't able to listen live to click the link below and listen when they have time:

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.

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.

I thank you all for your

Gracie — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:22:28 -0700

I thank you all for your comments, here and elsewhere. I just wrote a follow-up piece on the program which includes more from other sex workers (including Jessi from the show) and clients based on the forums at MyRedBook. Also, there are other sites which have linked to the articles (as they were cross posted); I've compiled a list of links here.

More to come... *wink*

20/20

kristen — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:51:13 -0700

Unfortunately, I did not see 20/20. I don't think that there will ever come the time that Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, Katie Couric, etc. would ever find any positive things to say about being a sex worker whether it is legal or not. It is an unfortunate fact that our society cannot look at the reasons it would be beneficial to legalize prostitution. We are still stuck in old world thought processes and I wonder if we will ever come out.

I look at this scandal with Eliot Spitzer. He really was crucified because of the hypocrisy of it all. He went after people and bullied them while behaving like the moral authority. Isn't it a silly thing that he was forced to resign because he paid for sex. Is it really anyone's business other than his wife? Our new governor had affairs. Is that more acceptable because when he committed adultery, he didn't pay for the actual sex act? That is what Diane Sawyer should have been looking at.

As far as unbiased reporting, you won't see it when it comes to these issues. She wants to be seen as a role model and a champion for women's causes. In reality, if a woman chooses to be a sex worker, than isn't that her choice, and shouldn't we be empowering her and doing everything possible to make sure she is safe in her choice?

I didn't see the broadcast, but...

barkingstar — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 21:33:25 -0700

While I do have respect for Diane Sawyer (think how many times she must put up with ignorant, uninformed, and outright sexist comments & questions about women in media), and I DID NOT see the broadcast, it seems the basic premise of Gracie & Rose's blog is true: "The stigma of sex, especially as it is in this country, clouds the thinking of most people; we just didn't expect the clouds to render Diane Sawyer free of her journalistic integrity; indeed, of any rational thought." As a sometime journalist myself, I do respect the profession. I readily admit that often, due to deadlines, we go with our first inclination on a story. Most people, I would fairly well assume, when asked "what is prostitution like?" would offer up the cliches of "abused, drug addicted, exploited...." And the men (and women- hey it COULD happen) who frequent these providers remain disregarded, as if the customer doesn't have any place in the story. How many of the customers are poor, drug addicted, abused themselves? How many are NOT? As a journalist I always ask myself the hard questions, try to think of the exceptions, not just the rule. So it very well might be that most prostitutes ARE drug addicts, poor, abused, they are NOT the end of the story. And, even if these women are fairly representative of the profession, so what? The argument against legalizing their work is almost always along the lines of "oh those poor exploited women, we're protecting them"- from what? As if keeping their work illegal DOESN'T keep them exploited, abused, unhealthy?

Now in a response to a Elizabeth's response to my response to Lisa's blog, I said that the one time I actually paid for physical sex was NOT pleasant and that I would hesitate to do it again, this, in no way, means I think the work should remain illegal. I think it should be completely legal, taxed, regulated, and, in some cases, for some people, promoted! I can see where, when, & why a professional sex worker, especially one unhinged from the illegality of the work, could be a positive endeavor for a person willing to pay for the service.

I think Diane Sawyer missed a GREAT opportunity to look at women (and men) who ENJOY their work, do not fit the stereotypes, and then to use her analytical skills to ask about legalizing. And, yes, she still could have reported on the poor, abused, drug addicted. It's called "balance" and "objectivity" and digging for a unique angle on a oft-reported-on story. Hell, think of all the money, human lives, and political bullshit that could have been saved if more American journalists asked the hard questions, looked at alternative sources, in the run up to Bush's OBVIOUSLY flawed decision to invade Iraq. Shitty journalism equals shitty politics, period.

Links are fixed

Elizabeth — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:47:31 -0700

Thanks for letting me know they weren't working. I've been having trouble that way with one of my browsers and had forgotten about the issue. They're fixed now. (Of course you already knew where to go, but for others it matters!)

As soon as this was

Gracie — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:38:47 -0700

As soon as this was published (we each published this at our own blogs & I also posted at BlogHer) I send an email to ABC. I will, of course, check out BNG too. (Your links do not work, but I know my way there *wink*)

Bound Not Gagged asks for Sex Worker Commentary on 20/20 site

Elizabeth — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:19:59 -0700

Gracie and Rose, thank you so much for the analysis of ABC's 20/20 feature.

How dare they situate the episode as if this were really about the range of prostitution in the US, or about the wide range of sex worker voices that need to be heard.

Related: The sex worker advocates at Bound, Not Gagged, are calling for action. Click here for the post. Specifically, they're calling on sex workers who saw the show to post comments on the ABC News page for the 20/20 episode and also on the BNG thread. They're overall message: You be the reporter since the mainstream media reporters aren't doing such a great job.

Sex worker blog authority

Elizabeth — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:21:20 -0800

Gracie, thanks so much for linking to that post. I've been thinking a lot these days about what it means to have "authority" outside the mainstream media or academic circles, and it's an interesting puzzle, but I think by focusing on the intended community of readers, as you do, and by focusing on tools like Technorati, as you do, you're hitting the proverbial nail on the head.

Scholars often judge the authority of a piece of research by how often it is cited by other researchers. This can be in a very very small field, so it isn't about raw numbers, really. Tools like Alexa and Technorati do essentially the same kind of thing for bloggers: show how many times a piece is accessed, or how many links refer back to it. Again, the smallness of the interested community doesn't necessarily diminish the authority of the piece.

Those are not perfect indicators of course (lots of people might link to a very superficial piece just because it's amusing, for example) and this also makes me think about the responsibility we have as interested writers/thinkers/bloggers/sex workers/etc. to be out there reading and commenting on each others'work. I know how easy it can be for me to forget that part as I focus on my own writing or other work, but those discussions are another way for readers to judge the authority of an original piece. It's sort of akin to the kind of question/answer sessions after a research presentation, or the letters in response to a research article.

Thanks for raising these issues. They're really important as we keep expanding the space -- online and off -- for discussion of sex-related issues! The workers at Bound, Not Gagged have done a great job at expanding that space, and I'm glad you drew more attention to Amanda's post. Just the kind of thing that helps to build recognizable authority!

This is my site, and nearly

Gracie — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 02:26:50 -0800

This is my site, and nearly a decade later, I'm still pretty damn proud of it ;)