There is no feast on earth which does not end in parting. – Chinese proverb
By now many or even most of you have heard the news which broke first thing Monday morning; as stated in the official press release,
New holding company Voice Media Group…announced that it has signed an agreement to purchase the publishing and related sales properties owned by Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC. The purchase includes the iconic Village Voice Media alternative weekly newspapers and their associated websites, as well as the national advertising arm of the company. The buyout is being led by Scott Tobias, who has been Village Voice Media Holdings’ chief operating officer and will be chief executive officer of the new Voice Media Group…Backpage.com, also currently owned by Village Voice Media Holdings, is not part of the buyout. Backpage.com will go its own way as a separate company with separate ownership.
It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that the move had something to do with the continuous attacks on Backpage, which became the favorite target of prohibitionists after they succeeded in getting Craigslist to delete the erotic services section they had forced it to establish only a few years before. The newspaper business is not what it once was, and threats of advertising boycotts and all manner of sound and fury from fanatics can’t be all that reassuring to publishers. What concerned me when I first read the news was the question of how it might impact the Village Voice chain’s editorial stance, which has been relatively pro-sex worker rights for some time now. I did a little research, however, and came up with this farewell letter sent by Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin (owners of Village Voice Media Holdings) to “colleagues, friends and critics”, which I think does provide an answer:
…[We] have spent much of our time in the past few years huddled with attorneys in ongoing litigation over the First Amendment, free speech on the Internet and Backpage. We have federal court victories for Backpage in Missouri and Washington and are awaiting a federal judge’s ruling in Tennessee. Throughout this struggle we have also locked horns in numerous media venues with the National Association of Attorneys General. This particular fight is important and not one that we intend to abandon. At the same time, Backpage’s battles are an enormous distraction to publishers, editors and readers of Village Voice Media…Consequently, we have decided to sell our newspaper publishing and online media company…and…depart to devote our undivided attention to the defense of Backpage, which is not part of the sale.
If it seems that we now spend as much time with attorneys as we do with writers, the truth is we have always kept the company’s footing through litigation…we have successfully defended more than 45 lawsuits filed by lawyers attempting to silence us. But it is also true that the Backpage attacks are different from conventional press issues, if only because the attacks are orchestrated with the often unlimited resources of government funding. As a consequence, the struggle is not an easy one. The outcome is not assured. Litigation is extremely costly in time and money. But this fight is the next step…For these past few decades, we have fought to ensure that our publications stood for the principles of unfettered speech, open government, accountability and freedom of the press. We have also challenged conventional wisdom, whether delivered by pontificating pundits or self-righteous scolds…
After reading that, I don’t think we have anything to worry about; it seems highly unlikely that Lacey and Larkin would have sold their baby (the company’s first weekly, Phoenix New Times, was opened “in 1970 as a protest over the war in Vietnam and in reaction against the mainstream media”) to a group of people whom they suspected might roll over and turn yellow just to make a fast buck as most of the journalistic world has. I believe the new ownership (which is, after all, just the old management) will continue to oppose the prohibitionists, perhaps even more so now that they needn’t concern themselves with accusations that their only motive for defending sex worker rights is profit.
Lacey and Larkin close their letter by saying to their soon-to-be-former staff, “Enjoy the hell that you raise.” I’d like to wish the same thing back to them, and to tell them that I’m very glad they’re on our side.
Meanwhile, my company announced on it’s homepage today that it was a founding member of this thing:
http://www.etravelblackboardasia.com/article/86616/global-business-coalition-announces-human-trafficking-initiative
Ah well… maybe it will do something other than make poor Issan girls lives miserable? One can dream.
I hope some historian is archiving these; they’re going to be an interesting historical curiosity in 30 years or so, just as we find fad-articles from the ’70s and ’80s fascinating.
Well, the Internet Archive seems to Archive almost everything. I found a lot of pictures of my girl when she was in her 20’s from old copies of her Websites in there. Of course, the archiving process is imperfect, but it seems to work pretty well when it isn’t being actively blocked:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/business/media/internet-archive-amasses-all-tv-news-since-2009.html?_r=1
Maggie,
I wanted to get your opinion on how the economics of escorting and prostitution in general would be impacted if it were decriminalized.
When drugs are made illegal, their prices increase because there is more risk for the seller. And when drugs are legalized their prices drop. Would this apply to prostitution?
On the other hand, I think you’ve mentioned that making it illegal doesn’t stop women from selling their sexual services. Does this mean we could expect an increase in prices since more men would be willing to visit prostitutes?
I am little confused and was hoping you could help.
Thanks.
Though there’s a lot of nonsense from both sides on the issue, the simple facts can be ascertained by looking at Europe and Australia. The most expensive and cheapest ends of the market don’t change at all, and one sees the appearance of inexpensive brothels which focus on high turnover rather than quality. Escorts who cannot or will not develop a good reputation have to charge less or go to work for brothels, while quality escorts charge about the same as they do in the U.S.
Nutshell version: most women make the same, but low-quality girls who rely on the clandestine nature of the business to keep prices up will make less unless they dramatically increase their workload.
Thanks for that last answer. I have another, more personal one for you that I think many other men can relate to.
First of all, I firmly believe that all consensual behaviors should be legal, so this isn’t an argument against decriminalization.
But if I am honest, then I have to admit, that I am envious of escorts because they make so much damn money. A part of me feels that $300-400/hr is “unjustified.” But obviously there is market for it, so it has to be “justified.”
I make a good living and if I want to have sex with an escort, then I have to work all day and then spend all of the money I earned that day for an hour of an escort’s time. So an escort could have the same lifestyle as I do by simply servicing one client per day. I can’t help but feel envious.
Now I could go to a cheaper prostitute, but from what I read anyone who charges much less than $300 will just lay there like a dead fish and that’s no fun.
I really dislike feeling this way and the logical part of me understands that since prices are arrived at on the free market, then that’s what it costs. But can you help me come to terms with this on the emotional level or does that require the services of a qualified therapist :)?
Are there some things I am overlooking? Anything you can point out that would help me come to terms would be appreciated.
Do you resent your doctor, who probably does some half-assed diagnosis for more per hour that? It’s either worth it to you or it isn’t. Maybe the cheaper options would be adequate–a naked woman isn’t the worst thing you can find in a bed, even if she’s not first-class.
As a client – it’s not your business what the escort makes. The world is not fair. Some people earn more money than others and that’s the way it’s always been – it’s the way it always WILL be until some evolutionary leap occurs that makes everyone motivated to work for the common good of all.
Until that day – you’ll have hard chargers who make a lot of money. Lazy asses who make a lot of money. Lazy asses who don’t make a lot of money. Hard chargers that can’t seem to make a lot of money.
This is the way of the world. Tame your envy.
I often wonder how season ticket holders to sports franchises will complain about the cost of ticket prices and a rich player’s salary, yet still contribute (in a small way) to his salary by spending what he feels is too much on a game.
Men will spend a lot of money to watch other grown men crush each other, and with a poor view of the action among 70,000+ spectators at that. Men will also spend similar dollars to have a beautiful naked woman underneath, or in front of them.
kurlac, Wilson, and Womas,
You are all right. And I agree 100%.
It’s just a personal issue I need to deal with. Actually I feel better about it already. Just admitting that it bothers me seems to have helped.
Escorts get what they are worth, and for men of means they provide good value. Take Johnny Depp for example, he split from Vanessa Paradis – a woman he never married – and the speculation is that he will be paying her somewhere around $150 million. That is equivalent to 57 years of escort time, even ignoring reduced rates for purchasing large blocks of time at once.
Alternatively, if a rich man were to try the amateur circuit, he would of course be vulnerable to various types of blackmail and extortion attempts.
If a man thinks escorts charge too much, he can of course go elsewhere.
Escorts charge “too much” for me, in that I can’t afford to drop
$300 for… well, much of anything.
Then again, a new computer costs “too much” for me, and it’s only a Fry’s Electronics-specific credit card that let me buy one.
Airlines charge “too much” to fly me to Hawaii, and the hotels in the 50th state charge “too much” for me to stay there even if I won a free airfare.
Even sushi costs “too much” for me to have it very often.
I don’t consider any of these products or services over-priced. I just can’t personally, currently, afford them.* Not the same thing at all. However, when Time Warner took the newsgroups out of their Internet package, while cheerfully pointing us to companies that will put it back (without my having to switch from TW of course) for as little as $15 a month, but they sure as bleeding hell didn’t knock $15 off of the cost of their package, THEN I felt a bit cheated. I would’ve considered switching, too, if TW weren’t the only provider you can get where I live. I went from feeling like my Internet service was NOT over-priced to feeling like it WAS in the time it took me to read the e-mail.
It would be like your local escort saying, “From now on, if you want me to make any noises you’ll have to pay extra. Oh, and my regular price is going up next month.”
.
* And even then, I did manage a new computer because of that credit card, and I can always try to win a trip to Hawaii, though I know the odds are against me. And I can save up for sushi ever now and again. Perhaps, if prostitution were decriminalized or legalized in some not-too-horribly-restrictive way, there would be a “harlotry-specific” credit card which would allow me to pay that $300 off over time (plus interest of course). Maybe there would be contests: WIN A FREE HOUR WITH SERAPH! (void where prohibited, which is currently most of the US).
I happen to think professional athletes, TV performers, lawyers and politicians are vastly overpaid, too. But at least there’s no real limit (other than talent) on the ability to enter those first two jobs, so if they’re really not worth what they make, they won’t make it for very long.
Lawyers, like doctors, are licensed (and like all licensed professions, licensing exists to limit competition, not to protect the public), so don’t expect their quality or price to improve anytime soon. As for politicians, don’t get me started.
Somewhat OT, but I do want to let you know — NPR’s Talk of the Nation radio program is airing a segment today on “trafficking”.
See http://www.npr.org/2012/09/26/161824831/human-trafficking-still-a-problem-in-the-u-s
From the title of the segment, I expect it to be well laden with bovine excrement.
But it is a call-in program, so maybe someone with facts and a reasonable view can get through.
The segment is better than I had feared. Guest Noy Thrupkaew made clear from the outset that all prostitution is not trafficking. Much of program is devoted to other types of trafficking as well, general labor trafficking, etc.
It’s good to hear a voice of reason.
Today, Clark Kent would be working for Village Voice.