In poison there is physic, and these news,
Having been well, that would have made me sick,
Being sick, have in some measure made me well. – William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part 2 (I, i)
A collection of links, comments and items relating to previous columns.
The Biggest Whores (September 6th)
In this column I reported that Craigslist had bowed to governmental pressure and blocked its adult services section from being accessed in the United States, though it was still available to everyone outside the reach of American censorship. But now the website has apparently bowed to pressure from the Canadian government and prohibitionist groups and removed the section entirely, thus allowing all those who advertised in it to return to posting free and unmonitored ads in other sections of the website. An article in yesterday’s New York Post reported:
The popular classified ad website Craigslist has pulled the adult services section from its websites around the world; the section has been removed from international Craigslist sites in Canada, Asia, Europe, South America and Africa. The adult services section was removed from US Craigslist sites in September after complaints from 17 states that it facilitated prostitution. The section was replaced on US sites with the word “censored,” but its removal from international sites came without announcement or comment from Craigslist. A spokeswoman for the site declined to comment on the removal of the section.
Craigslist apparently believes this will silence the fanatics, and it certainly may as the crusaders move on to annoy Backpage. Of course, it’s also possible that a few of them will recognize that most of the whores who advertised on Craigslist are still there in the personals, massage, etc as they used to be and demand that Craigslist control them, such as by creating a ghetto in which their ads can be confined and then requiring payment so courts can order the info turned over to them. Oh, wait, that’s what they just forced them to close. Oops.
Think of the Children! (September 30th)
In this column I wrote:
The dogma of [the Cult of the Child] preaches that children are as emotionally fragile as soap bubbles and the merest hint of sexual imagery before puberty can cause irreversible trauma; its adherents also believe that teenagers (whom they equate with “children”) should be lied to, spied on or even criminally prosecuted to prevent them from engaging in any kind of sexual behavior, and some even believe that adults should not be allowed any form of entertainment or reading material which is inappropriate for even the youngest child, on the grounds that a child “might see it” and thereby be petrified as if he had looked into the eyes of the Gorgon. Child cultists can be recognized by their stated belief that any degree of tyranny is acceptable “if it saves even one child,” and by their fondness for promoting unconstitutionally broad legislation lugubriously named after dead little girls.
Until the Cult of the Child again goes into decline, you can be sure we’ll keep seeing proposed legislation of this type.
Yesterday (October 20th)
In this column I opined:
What’s going to be needed [to achieve decriminalization] is for some big moneybags like Bill Gates to get behind sex worker rights so we can advertise and thereby attract a bunch of empty-headed Hollywood stars who are looking for a new cause to adopt. In the minds of the hoi-polloi, the opinion of one celebrity who knows nothing about the subject is worth the life-experiences of a thousand veteran whores, and once the cause becomes “sexy” enough all of a sudden people will be coming out of the woodwork to support it.
Here’s a case in point from yesterday’s MTV News. Neither Lady Gaga nor Katy Perry have horses in this race; they’re not in the military, they’re not homosexual and they’re not male. Yes, it affects lesbians too, but let’s be honest here; the opposition to the repeal of DADT came overwhelmingly from men for reasons which should be obvious. Yet somehow, the public considers the opinions of pop-tarts with no personal experience in the issue to be more important than those of activists who actually know what they’re talking about.
Something Rotten In Sweden (November 13th)
In this column I talked about the rise of “Swedish Model” rhetoric in American police departments; by pretending that all whores are degraded victims, they can hide the outrageous sexism of prostitution laws from the gullible. One example of this infiltration is the increasing popularity of “john schools”, government programs which hire brainwashed ex-streetwalkers to scream neofeminist victimization propaganda at men arrested for soliciting prostitutes. Brandy Devereaux recently published a column in which she reports on a recent proposal for one of these so-called “schools” in Colorado, then explains her ideas of what a real “john school” might be like.
Barbie (December 5th)
In my column on Barbie I mentioned that I played with mine as though she were an action figure, and then I saw this hilarious spoof advertisement for toys that, unfortunately, do not actually exist. For those who slept through 19th-century English lit, I should mention that Charlotte, Emily and Anne Bronte avoided the Victorian prejudice against female authors by publishing their works under the male pseudonyms Currer, Ellis and Acton Bell.
Not So Different (December 8th)
For years now internet escorts have employed sites like Date Check to screen potential clients, and now our amateur sisters have gotten into the act with some of the very same sites, proving once again that the line between prostitution and dating is far too fine to justify criminalizing the former but not the latter. And just as governments think escorts are mental incompetents who must be protected from ourselves, so they apparently think the same about women who date online; New York’s “Internet Dating Safety Act” now requires dating sites to post common-sense safety tips, like “meet in a public place,” for those who are too dimwitted to be dating without a chaperone in the first place. And the nanny state being what it is, I’m sure other states (and eventually the federal government) will follow New York’s lead.
Bits and Pieces, Part Two (December 10th)
For weeks there have been conflicting stories about what Julian Assange has actually been accused of, but now Sweden has finally bothered to release a report detailing the exact claims. Assange calls the case a “smear attempt” filled with “incredible lies,” but even if the report is exactly true (and it may very well be), that doesn’t change the fact that Sweden, as pointed out in Saturday’s column, doesn’t expend nearly this much energy catching alleged rapists who have not embarrassed governments.
The Red Umbrella (December 17th)
I don’t really approve of the concept of “hate crimes”; after all, if a man kills me just because I’m in his way I am no less dead than if he kills me because he hates me. But if we’re going to have any “hate crime” laws at all, it’s only fair that whores be among the protected groups because, as we discussed on Friday, we get far more than our share of violence. Well, the city of Liverpool is now treating violence against sex workers as a “hate crime”; what a difference from the United States, where the police themselves are among the worst perpetrators of that very same crime!
Scorch’s Thoughts:
-I still have to work very hard to change my mental images of prostitution to assimilate the truths of the difference between street walkers & escorts. But I’ve never been a part of social circle that would lend itself to high end escorts.
-I’m doing better with the idea that there are plenty of women who escort, and that they’re no different from other women. Soccer moms included.
-I’ve totally accepted the idea that grown women both have the right and (some) have the desire to support themselves through sex work. I also agree that one would have to have the constitution to deal with its occupational hazards, but that obviously is true of any job. As you have pointed out, not that far from certain Medical care professionals.
-I’ll never accept the idea that “sex work is no different from any other kind of work.” I however completely accept the idea that going to college & getting in a bunch of debt with no guarantee of job, however admirable, is often financially stupid.
-Reading this blog has just expanded my knowledge of what I already had rightly perceived of the ridiculous hypocrisy of what is considered a criminal act under certain contexts, and completely rewarded & supported in other contexts.
Pussy is used to sell EVERYTHING. Yet when women themselves take hold of that fact(the OWNERS of the commodity) and capitalize on it, somehow *they* become criminals. That makes my brain hurt.
-The biggest suckage is that marriage is now forever an altered concept in my mind…but, I’m glad I’m free & understand what I’d be signing up for!
-I knew before I met sweet Maggie that marriage often ends up in financial rape for the man, and I was also well aware of what Maggie has delightfully & accurately named “Platinum Pussy Syndrome,” one of my new favorite phrases. I have thus since come around to the idea, although it at first was anathema to my overly religious mindset, that whores are much more honest than wives, potential wives, actresses, and of course gold diggers. A true professional will tell you upfront what her favors cost, and really has no desire to pursue you for anything further.
-I’m starting to understand why some women would hate whores…because an honest Courtesan actually ends up shining the light of truth on women that are whores in everything but verbal admission.
..So to close out 2010, Sweet Maggie, I have to say thank you. You have broadened my worldview in a way, and through a vehicle, that even as recently as four years ago, I never would have even dreamed was possible.
I’m really very glad I could help, Scorch. When you and my other readers say things like that, it makes the hard work all worthwhile. 🙂
Wow Scorch, that is awesome! Welcome to the world of mental expansion and empathy. You don’t necessarilly have to agree with anything and everything that goes against YOUR grain, however having an understanding of how other people think and be able to have a working knowledge of how those that think differently than you actually think goes a long way towards tolerance. Not just for prostitutes but towards any human being that chooses a path all their own without harming others.
Yeah, the world is a really big place. There are approx. 6.8 billion people, and I will live and die and know less than a tenth of a percent of all the people in the world…so being judgmental, I have discovered, is the greatest path to ignorance.
But I cannot stress enough that what I appreciate as much as the knowledge is the *honesty.*
To say that all females are professional escorts is clearly untrue…but to say that the vast majority of women aren’t using their sexuality as a bargaining tool to get what they want is delusional.
If females are trading sexual favors in exchange for other commodities, yet some are vilified and criminalized and others are rewarded and supported, what the Hell is the difference??? The behavior is the same, the only difference is one of application & degree. Hugh Hefner has a fresh crop of 18 year olds that he Viagra fucks EVERY. DAMN. YEAR. Yet somehow, escorts are illegal operatives?? Give me a break.
I’m a lover & a seeker of truth, but that desire will always bring one into conflict with conventional wisdom and the movement of the masses, as most of that behavior is based on fear, and a lack of personal responsibility. Allowing romantic notions, or romantic and/or sexual fantasies to be the deciding factors in one’s relationship decisions is what causes shipwreck, and it’s helped me to see many of the mistakes in my life, and more than anything else, why so many married people end up unhappy.
Some dear friends of mine are apparently planning to divorce, and after listening to some of the details, I can really see why…it just could’ve been avoided with some more honesty upfront, as well as along the way.
So having the chance to read about Maggie’s thoughts & life experiences, as well as yours, has changed me for the better. I kind of mourn in leaving my naive notions behind, but what kind of fool would I be to continue to cling to ideas and concepts that simply aren’t true?
I guess my real dilemma still is, “What form of relationship will work for *me?*”
I’m reading some of those things you linked to. Hhmmnn…
Here is an example of the sort of thing that bothers me in news reports, editorials, etc.
“A survey by Psychologies magazine this summer found that one in three children aged 10 in Britain had viewed pornography on the net.”
So how did these kids find the porn? Were they looking for something innocent and stumbled upon it? Were they seeking it out? Was some paedophile showing to the kid in an attempt at seduction? The article doesn’t say. It kind of gives the impression that the kid likes windsurfing, typed “watersports” into a search engine and… EEEEWWWW!!!!! But we aren’t told (and of course it’s unlikely that every kid who saw porn saw it for the same reason).
I’d certainly agree that if anybody qualifies for hate crimes protection, it’s hookers. Jack the Ripper, anybody?
OK, on my way to read about john schools.
One also has to wonder:
A) how “porn” is defined (do topless women count? What about this blog?)
and
B) how was the survey performed? Did they ask kids “have you ever seen pornography” without explaining what the word means?
Good points. My guess would be that they asked the parents, but then it’s only a guess. Defining pornography… Broad definitions help you get big numbers, of course, but kids do seek out material most of us would call porn. I was six and knew where my Uncle L hid his Hustler.
You can be sure of one thing. Craigslist caving into the crusaders is not going to placate them. It’s only going to make them more vocal and it will certainly spawn more crusades.
What is becoming painfully clear is that crusaders are learning that free speech protections can easily be defeated by focusing governmental, social, and media intimidation on private sector networking, access, and financial enterprises. Freedom of expression is now subject to the whims of a vocal minority instead of being enshrined as a basic human right. Since the internet is THE modern mechanism for all communications, whoever controls it, controls all speech. No legislation is required when officials can simply lean on private businesses to do their bidding.
Internet freedom has already peeked.
All for the children, of course.
Unfortunately, the internet’s popularity made that inevitable. Censors used to do the same thing with television. 🙁
They should pass a law that all censors must have their own computers raided & checked first.
I’d go for that. And all vigilante groups that try to get them dirty purvurts, too.
Re: hate crimes
If a man kills you because he hates you, you are no deader than if he kills you because he got up on the wrong side of the bed. But if he kills you because he hates you, and then takes the time to scrawl “THE JUDGMENT OF THE GREAT WHORE” in a smear of your blood on the front wall of your house, and he happens to be part of a crazy religious group which is suspected of periodically carrying out pogroms against whores, then the effect on other whores in the community is (or is assumed to be) very different than if he had simply woken up on the wrong side of the bed.
That’s the idea behind hate crimes, as I understand it: they are ordinary crime + intimidation of a whole community, such that to leave it unacknowledged as a thing in and of itself is to abet the oppression and persecution of that community.
That’s a very good point, and I would certainly support treating such intimidation (cross-burning, lynching, etc) as a separate crime with which the killer might be charged. But all too often “hate crime” prosecutions are merely an attempt to delve into the psyche of a criminal who committed no such overt actions and thereby inflame the jury’s emotions against him, and those are the sort of procedures I don’t feel comfortable with.
I think hate crimes have become like all other crime. The prosecutor doesn’t give a rats ass what the circumstances of the crime really are. He only cares about whether he can make a particular charge stick and how much it will benefit his career. The hate-crime label is nice because it can turn an ordinary crime into a huge PR coup for his upcoming reelection.
Hate crimes are attractive for prosecutors when there aren’t any high profile sexual “predators” handy. I put “predators” in quotes because that category now includes people who jack off in the closet to pictures torn out of the children’s clothing section of a Sears catalogs.
So very sad, and so very true. 🙁
To my understanding, which could be wrong and please correct me if it is, is that hate crimes are committed against a section of the community simply because they exist. So in my mind it’s ordinary crime + the perception of the perpetrator. A man who attacks a prostitute simply because he hates prostitutes would be a hate crime, as opposed to picking a woman that just happens to be a prostitute. Don’t hate crimes have stiffer penalties? Seems to me it would behoove the prosecutor to establish it as a hate crime. I don’t know for sure. Luckily I’m viewing a shift in societies comments on certain news articles moving away from the “hating prostitutes” and more towards tolerance. I think it is due to sex worker blogs such as this and others that are reminding people that we are people with feelings and frustrations also. As human beings we all have something in common.
“I put “predators” in quotes because that category now includes people who jack off in the closet to pictures torn out of the children’s clothing section of a Sears catalogs.”
AHAHAHAHhahahHAHAHAH!!! Holy crap that’s so not funny but it is!! HAHAHHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAHAH!!!
I just hope we don’t decide to nuke Japan again over Kodomo no Jikan or some such.
Lady Gaga may be a ‘pop-tart’ as I take it to mean by splitting the two words apart for the denotation, but I think the connotation reached by putting them together again misses the mark.
Celebrities are capable of weighing evidence and thinking things through too. Some more than others. From what I’ve read of LG (and ‘read’ is the word more than ‘heard’ – not really my style), I’d put her toward the ‘more’ end rather than the ‘less’.
I’ll agree with that. Being a celebrity doesn’t make you right, but it doesn’t make you wrong, either.