Sex In The Public Square - Secondhand Rose - Comments

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.