Amanda: To each their own. I also think that Burning Man sounds like hell, but many people I know consider it the highlight of their adult lives.

Unhealthy food is universal. Every culture offers it.

XX

XX

I have found someone that understands that my body is my own, and that my love is true and belongs only to him (yeah, we're monogamous-types, which added more difficulty to finding long-term mates for me). It's convincing those around me that I'm not trying to steal their mate that's become my challenge these days.

So many issues, so many stories to hear.

Trixie: Yeah, border patrol stuff makes me nervous. I was on a Greyhound bus in Southern California in 2002. Some kind of immigration people pulled us over. They "randomly" selected everyone who wasn't white and pulled them off the bus for inspection of their papers. Glad that wasn't a day when people were reading me as Hispanic. (Which I've only recently discovered that I'm not. I did a DNA profile, and my maternal grandma's family isn't Hispanic, they're Native American. My Nana never knew that- she was told she was Hispanic, but that's genetically impossible. Now I can bitch at people, "Hey, *WE* walked across the Bering Strait during the last ice age! Lazy boat-riding immigrants!" Ha. Wish there was a DNA test to know for certain which tribe, rather than just guesses based on my haplogroup.)

Ai: You're welcome.

Professor: Thanks for the praise.

I naturally advertise my weirdness to anyone who inquires without thinking about it. But I'm a social retard too, so it's not like I've ever been able to conceal that I'm an outsider.

I don't understand why people would have any problems with dating a sex worker. But I generally don't understand popular thought at all.

Vegas is not the most loathsome place in the entire world. Not by a long shot. It's candyland (moreso when the economy is better).

XX

when you say sterilised, is that just a turn of phrase for your personal decision not to have children or you have been surgically sterilised?

Just out of interest in the context of the post because i wasn't sure what you meant. you don't have to answer me if it's personal, like i said, it's just to clarify the ambiguity

love your work btw, massive fan, keep it up :)

I was thinking San Francisco, since I love that city, but who knows.

I wonder when Scarlot Harlot is having her next Sex Worker Fest? (http://sexworkerfest.com) It would be a great add-on to an event like that which is already sex worker specific, and it gives people all the more incentive to travel across the country if it's a part of something else awesome.

I was tossing around the idea of doing a roundtable for sex workers and current/former sex worker partners at MOMENTUM con, since it seems like the people who date sex workers or are likely to are the hardest ones to gather together and reach about this, and that seems like one place they're likely to be - and a place where sex workers would feel comfortable (they're proactively addressing sex worker friendly space issues, and plan to have a sex worker liaison who is actually an active sex worker. Would you be interested in lending your voice and experiences to the discussion? Because that would be awesome.

A weekend retreat or unconference around this issue would be amazing, and I think you're a skilled enough planner to pull it off.

Slowly, I'm getting better at accepting myself and everything that that entails, but I wanted to say thank you for being so abnormal and so obviously comfortable with yourself. You'll probably always be a main example in my mind of beauty and self-pride.

Furry Girl, if you're able to get the quality of models you want at $100 per shoot, then more power to you. Optimize that dollar. I'm willing to bet you could place an ad in a number of places for $50 and you'd still get a decent return.

I'm further willing to bet you could buy 10 Fleshlights (or similar 'toys') at discount, post an add that you're looking for 10 individuals to shoot using the item and the compensation would be the toy itself (they take it with them) and you would still get a large response. I've actually seen this work in lieu of payment, and everybody was happy.

Gorgeous, smart and a sense of humour! Woah!

You read the book about Alaska... an uncle lived there for a number of years and the saying goes, 'Whats it like trying to find a man in Alaska? - Well, the odds ain't good and even the goods are odd.'

Great collection of pics as well. Aren't people prude when it comes to naked shots. Shame...but not on us.

“As a waitress you just have to suck it up (so to speak) and deal with it because that's your job. If you are a prosttitute , I imagine it's kind of the same; but you have to do whoever is paying because that's your job. It's not your choice anymore , who you do, because you have to make a living at it. For me, that would take a lot of the fun and enjoyment out of sex. I'd rather be a slut who gives it away for free to the people of MY choosing. It's not objectification of women that's a problem for me -it's the commodification of sex that lessens it for all of us. This is by no means an attack or criticism on you or any other sex worker, it's kind of a defence for those of us who may like sex too much to make a living from it.”

I am very glad I read this because it makes perfectly explicit an attitude I have often encountered. On the occasions when I have argued with someone that sex work is not inherently unethical or immoral &c., a very common fallback argument seems to be something like this: “It’s not that it’s wrong, it’s just that it cheapens sex.”

Now that I am faced with an explicit form of the argument, I have to say that I find it nonsensical. You like sex too much to do it for a living? If anything the opposite might make sense (it’s surely possible to dislike sex too much to do it for a living). Say rather that you personally would not find it enjoyable in a commercial context and I would nod and not argue, but generalising it seems dangerous.

Similarly, I do not have and have never had a desire to hire a sex worker. This is not because I think there’s anything wrong with sex work. I’ve known happy sex workers. It also isn’t because I think it’s dangerous or unclean. (Those sex workers I’ve known? I’ve learned about sexual health and precautions and regular checkups from them; I certainly didn’t have anything to teach them!) It’s just that, to me personally, the social and psychological factors of mutual attraction and being desired are so important that the thought of having sex with someone who does it for money rather than (merely) because they want to does not appeal. This should not offend. But if I go on to say that only losers are interested in hiring prostitutes, that it takes some sort of pathology, or perhaps that people who do just lack my appreciation for the full sexual experience…then I’m just a pretentious cock. (It would be easy to retort that it is some narcissistic or insecure flaw in my own psyche that makes me require a woman to be attracted to me rather than simply regarding sex as sex.)

It’s tempting to think so, of course, because it allows me to think of myself as better than certain other people, but I do my fallible human best to suppress the urge to think that “if other people view sex differently than I do, it must be icky and inferior”.

By analogy, someone might be greatly, tremendously fond of home-cooked meals prepared with love and care. I personally fail to see why this would necessarily translate into a dislike for restaurants or take-out food (though certainly you or I, as individuals, might have strong feelings on the matter).

On a side note, “commodification” is a truly awful word (and often a truly awful concept).

A good sex worker, IMHO, is to take those reactions and build them into a powerful and erotic experience that is fully subjective. As you said, "good porn often encourages the viewer to subjectivity the people in it.." Shall I say "AMEN"!

But, I'm comfortable doing that because my job is legal, I never do anything illegal (like letting another lady work in my home) relating to my work, I don't have children who could be taken into care and I don't intend to have any, and I don't have a day job. The worst that could happen would be it getting back to my neighbours, and if they reacted badly then I'd have to get a hotel room for incalls. The end of the world? Nah.

I think a lot of clients are really damaged by how sex-negative society is. It's really sad and I feel bad for them but it really doesn't help me do my job when they can't talk about what they need :/

Wow.

gives me some ideas for what i might wanna shoot when i finally take that elusive cruise of my own... probably around the Mediterranean once I'm in europe by the fall.

I organized panels at the Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City where I debated one of them, Robert Brannon, where I managed to expose factual errors in his presentation as part of my own. That swayed the audience, who were mostly folks sitting on the fence, in my favor. Since then, the APFers have never come back there.

In most cases, they won't agree to a public debate, but if they do, there's no harm in shaking hands for public show. It's not smart to come off looking like the bad guy.

Unlike other issues (abortion, gay rights), the Left as a whole still hasn't made up its mind about sex work. As long as there is no consensus that Dines & Co. are just plain nuts, challenging them in open debates is important work. And while you're at it, folks, try to get PAID for it. Don't let Ron Jeremy have all the fun debating Pastor Craig Gross or Susan Cole.

One of the people in that documentary is actually the wife of one of the ministers from the church I grew up in. Nice lady, incredibly as a matter of fact, very intelligent. I don't know what happened...

Also, being the somewhat solipsist person I am, I forget that most people interact with way more people than I do, so that would increase the chances.
I only "know" about 50 or 60 people max, and when you take away internet acquaintances, It's down to like 20, mostly relatives who wouldn't even recognize me now and like 4 friends.

So yeah, I'm probably wrong.

Thanks for making this!

I dig that statue in capital hill though. I would add the Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe to the list of weird seattle stuff, considering they have a mummy! or more so, a putrefied dude.

I think that your point is a bit more valid for physical situations than online ones like FG experienced. In person, an experienced sex worker can get a vibe from a guy, and can better control the situation if a dude is really shy. They can improvise, and gauge by reaction.

But online, I think that's harder to do, especially if you're just going by text on a screen. I'm a very timid, insecure person myself, but I'd at least be able to type as much as "please show me your pussy, and uh, maybe your ass?".

Also, the background of the sex worker really matters too. Folks who come from a stripping/ booth show background are likely used to just kind of doing stuff, whereas other people may need more direction.

The whole point of cam shows I would think is to have that one on one connection with the sex worker, where they're doing what you want. If you can't even vaguely tell them what to do, why not just watch regular, non interactive porn?

I don't think you come across as mean or spiteful on here.

Also, Carlin was the shit. I am so bummed that he's gone. He was a very unique individual. Some of my first worthwhile thoughts as a pre-teen were a direct result of things that he said.

Good story.

Now my desperation came not (I hope!) from some intrinsic unattractiveness: I'm tallish, athletic, a professional with considerable discretionary income, reasonably well dressed, generally confident and sociable, and (I'm told) not unattractive to the eye. Rather, it came from being in a marriage that had become sexless (tried everything) with children that I adore, and out of fear of losing the children should I leave the marriage or be caught in an affair. Ten years of this! Ten years of soul searching before paying for it...and then, the nerves and shyness that came the first few times were like being a young teenager again. However, I had enough self awareness to tell the escorts this, and to let them know that I needed them to take the lead, and not to rush me. I think many more men than you realise need that. It's harder than you think. My guess are these men are shy about their needs, and knowing your are more experienced than they, expect you to take the lead.

If I respond differently to sex workers than I do others, it's in a positive light, much in the way I feel about artists and outsiders. I don't assume we're similar at all, but I feel a vague aesthetic kinship at least.

And also, bullies fucking suck. I still get pissed of about some of the shit that happened to me in school.

I can understand being indecisive, but not for that long, and certainly not if I were paying. Ultimately it's cool that you got paid $50 or so for a little bit of awkwardness.

Admittedly I am also wondering if it is someone who is not familiar with the English language enough to hold conversation. :(

However,

You'd need alot of magical thinking to convince an entire movement - from diehard radicals to pure assimilationists - that spending their precious energy, time and resources to oppressing (or at least, not supporting) feminine gay men will actually liberate all gay men everywhere
(or another example, to oppress black gay men would help to liberate all gay men everywhere... even a white gay racist upon hearing this might see the inherent logical flaw).

If a gay "activist" who really only cared about masculine gay men's activism tried to openly use this argument, even with some bullshit sprinkled on it most gays would eventually go "huh? how will oppressing the queens liberate me again? aren't they ALSO gay men and a part of the movement?!"

What makes it work with feminists I think, is that while for most of history, in times of sexual and gender oppression whores and pornographers were the most feminist and sex-positive people around, today the women in those industries are not even really seen as actual women, as feminism deep-throated whole general society's collective anti-sex worker prejudices

(how many sex-pos. feminists also studied human sexuality enough to understand sexophobia and become sex radicals? probably most of them. I wouldn't be surprised that if you surveyed all self-identified feminists and took out anyone who identified with another anti-oppression movement all you'd have left would be sex-negative "radical" feminists)

The other problem, is a problem that affects all minority groups and is sort of obvious but I'll state it anyway: most feminists are women. They want to un-learn the oppressive indoctrination they were given. But it's hard; they can't unlearn everything at once. One issue that seriously needs to be addressed (even more so with women than men) is sex-negativity. Feminists as a whole have issues with sex workers because they have issues with sex and sexual behaviour that many of them still need to address.

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe some gay "activist" really has some gays convinced that feminine gay men are one of the biggest sources of their oppression. Even if so, it wouldn't seem to be as bad as it is with feminists - if it were you'd see a schism, with feminine gay men, like sex workers (and like lesbians should have done had they known the price to their sexuality to be paid to join the Girls' Club), would form their own independent activist organizations, and would apply feminist/gay lib. principles to help them but would want nothing to do with the gay lib./feminist Movement/Establishement...

I too agree that racially insensitive and general ignorance are a real turn off.

Christian suffragettes wanted to have the right to vote so they could help protect the White race which they believed was in danger of extinction throught race-mixing and lower birth rates. They also wanted to lobby to keep Asian men and other non-whites from voting (at least in Canada; it might have been slightly different in America).

They were also very, very concerned with the degrading effects of alcohol and drunkenness since they believed it loosened even the purest man's morals and allowed him to commit all sorts of crimes against innocent womenfolk (a proper Lady, of course, simply didn't consume alcohol or get drunk at that time).
They also argued that alcoholism increased crime (okay, technically true depending on how you look at it).

They believed the only way to fix this was to abolish, or prohibit it. Hmmm, I wonder how that turned out...

Also, I'm amazed that in all of the minority rights movements, feminism is the only one where an activist can openly talk about oppressing people from your own minority group while telling people that doing so is actually helping the cause to end oppression for all members of said minority group - and a large portion of activists will actually believe that person...

Imagine a male gay rights advocate blatantly telling other gay men that feminine men are hurting the cause and must be actively oppressed, and that doing so will reduce homophobic oppression and help the cause - would other activist gay men, even the ones who secretly don't like feminine gay men, think that that makes any logical sense?

I try to be a good trans ally and I think that gives me some good transferable skills to being an ally in other ways. What I think seems to work best as an ally is shut-the-fuck-up when the oppressed are speaking, don't tell them what to do, don't react too quickly to what they're saying - take the time to digest it, consider their experiences and learn from it.

If you personally think that snark and aggression are counter-productive, you have no right to say that to oppressed people (they'll have heard it countless times before anyway). The best way of being an ally is by asking "what can I do?" and by representing the interests of the oppressed when they're not there to do it themselves, or don't want to.

I'm still learning though, so would love to hear if there are ways I can do things better.

Anyway the point is, it sounds like many sex-worker allies really fuck up by telling the people they are supposed to be trying to support how to do things - obviously the number 1 mistake.

Us liberal types aren't very good at managing our egos. We need more listening practice and less spouting-shit practice.

It annoys me to live in an age of public discourse where people are coddled and told that every idea is valid and just as likely to be correct as any other idea. Ideas are not lottery tickets - each with an equal and random chance of winning. When it's almost unheard of to unapologetically state that a given idea or person is flat-out wrong, the intellectually-lazy public believes that the truth always lies in the middle. Not everything is a compromise. Not everything is a debate. Not everyone's opinion is a beautiful and unique snowflake - sometimes, it's just yellow piss-filled slush.

Very well stated and I completely agree with your comments.

"concern trolling" I am glad to have a name for that annoying tactic.

I wish your views could reach a larger audience. I don't know what venue would be the best. I have said before, you are very good.

As for my attacking anti-sex worker academics as out-of-touch with the day-to-day lives of sex workers (because they are), I don't see how anyone can debate the truth there. Creationists don't despise Richard Dawkins because he's an "out of touch" academic in regards to he's talking about - he's an evolutionary biologist who talks about evolutionary biology. He's talking the talk and walking the walk. Your comparison makes no sense.

But I wasn't trying to imply that the antis have a better case because they have more academics than you. (I'm not sure they do have more academics.) I was just saying that, for me, your analogy between antiporn and creationism fails, because creationism doesn't really have any serious academics at all. So there's nothing to stop me from dismissing creationist arguments as nonsense right off the bat. And I can be fairly sure that, if they don't make sense to me, that's because they really are nonsense and not because I don't understand them.

Consequently, what I'm bringing up is a semantic issue about how one uses the word "ethical." Of course ethics matter in the production of porn. But why do you need the phrase "ethical porn"? It's not the porn itself that, in some cases, is unethical; it's just the process of producing it.

It's the same way with running shoes: if they were produced by slave children in sweatshops, that may make the act of knowingly purchasing them unethical, but it doesn't make the shoes themselves unethical. It sounds ridiculous to talk about "ethical shoes." (It doesn't sound ridiculous to talk about "ethical art," because the content of art can have ethical implications. But you have argued that the content of porn does not have ethical implications.) So why talk about "ethical porn"?

I would say, provisionally, that all porn is ethical. That doesn't mean that all porn producers are ethical.

The issue with involuntary sex workers is not sex. The issue is forced labor. Whether that labor is sex or not, forced labor is the crime. It is important not to conflate sex with slavery. They are not the same thing, but opponents of sex work often blur these concepts either to strengthen the reaction to their argument or out of undisciplined analysis.

Voluntary sex workers also have rights. If sex work is legalized, then they can address, access, negotiate and reinforce those rights through the same institutions of law and governance that other workers have at their disposal. The usual arguments about abuse of voluntary sex workers exist because they are denied access to legal protection, organizing into a union and being certified, insured and regulated like any other business. The greatest gift one can give a sex worker is legalization.

A great many people feel compelled to speak out on what they believe is proper concerning sex. When sex is brought into the conversation, social customs that support and reinforce traditional and largely unquestioned responses and opinions about sex. If the subject is a man's many sexual partners, the conversations are usually favorable or dismissed as "something that men do". If the subject is a woman engaged in sex, whether this is for money or not - most conversations tilt toward the negative - and often very much so. Our societal structures applaud men for sex and punish women.

Feminism then, is about a woman's right to choose her own life and be accepted by society as the equal of men. It is the right of any person calling herself or himself a Feminist, to choose their own opinion about sex work. It is not however that person's right to impose that choice onto anyone else, for the same reason that they do not have the right to force anyone else into sex work.

No one can ask or tell us to have sex for money for the same reason that they have no right to force us into any form of work. It is our right to choose for ourselves, regardless of what anyone else thinks. In return, we must grant that freedom to everyone else.

That said, I do think that perspectives from the outside can be valuable. I'm also interested in what you think about the situation I'm in. I've found myself working, on non-sex related issues, with a woman who has a high local profile as an anti-sex work activist. We've pretty much never discussed her positions here, other than for me to say "I'm not sure I agree with you". However, on all the issues we have worked on together we've developed a very high level of mutual respect. I've worked with literally thousands of activists and she would have to be one of the most impressive - not just effective, but insightful, strategic and humane.

Now I have deliberately avoided discussing sex work with her, both because I'm worried about fouling up the working relationship, but also because I figure as a male consumer I'm about the worst person to have the discussion. But it does seem to me that when someone has established their bona fides on other issues it is worth reaching out to them on something like this. Whereas, that's not the case for someone who may pay lip service to other causes but is pretty monomanically focussed on one.

It's perhaps also worth noting that the woman in question, while clearly anti-sex work, is also seen by many as a moderate. At one point I mentioned the local hard-liner (in regard to something different) and she said "I try to stay away from her", which also made me think there might be prospects for some reaching out if done by the right person.

And, I don't think that it is fair to say that activist sex workers and active porn performers should be merely shunted to the side merely because they might not speak as well as some sex blogger activists;

I'm obviously biased in thinking that I'm at least as articulate as any of the whine-core sex bloggers, but the issue that I was being attacked by them for was that it's wrong of me to be sarcastic or confrontational, and that I was "harming the cause". (Which "cause" it is that I'm "harming" and how I'm "harming" it with the use of sarcasm has never been explained to me, though.)

I'd like to point out that the most famous and influential public intellectual when it comes to advancing and defending sexuality rights issues is Dan Savage, and he's sarcastic and abrasive as fuck. Which is, by the way, part of why he's so much fun for people to watch on television, or to read his books, columns, and blogs. I don't see the sarcasm/confrontational issue as one of "good for the cause" versus "bad for the cause", I see it as "dry, self-important, and over-rehearsed" versus "relatable, direct, and unpretentious". It's a different style of public voice, and one I personally think more people care to hear about. (Again, there's a reason Dan Savage is the top sexual intellectual, and it's not just his opinions, it's his style.)

FeministWhore: Agreed. Sex workers are the ones with the matter closest to us because we're the ones with our lives and livelihoods at risk. I've seen a lot of "sex worker allies" obtusely miss that fact lately, as they dole out condescending lectures about what sex workers ought to be doing for their own liberation.

D: I have no idea what you're trying to ask me. Now, after comparing porn to Nazi propaganda, you're asking why ethics in porn matter? Huh?

All I have to say is that I'm very pragmatic and outcome-oriented when it comes to approaches. We all know now what Stop Porn Culture is out to do both on a cultural and legal level. So the question becomes how do we effectively oppose this in the interest of countering the stigmatization and *very real legal threats* against sex workers, and also against sex industry consumers and kinky people more generally.

If there's a moderate group in the anti-porn camp who you can actually reach and turn them away from this destructive course of action, then by all means try. Success in this is its own justification. But if this doesn't end up being the case, and these people are still campaigning for these laws while feeling better about themselves for engaging in "meaningful dialogue", then all your nice conversations with these people are worse than useless.

Or even worse, we start seeing sex-positive activists refrain from fighting these laws for fear being "too extreme" and alienating their friends on the "anti" side. I've already pointed out one series of blogposts over at Highfeist (link) by an ostensible sex-positive feminist who nonetheless ends up becoming an utter apologist for anti-porn feminism and derides the whole idea of any "pro-porn" activism as mercenary activity on the part of sex industry shills. That kind of "moderate" reaching out the the other side is an example of exactly what is *not helpful*.

And with that said, its why I'm *really fucking skeptical* of talk of working with these people on areas that we superficially agree upon, like the need for comprehensive sex education. Which in any event, I have a feeling that what the antis are calling for will be something very different from what sex-positives are calling for, exemplified by their talk of getting an anti-porn curriculum into the schools.

The "Are you ready for this?" DVD is the most relgiously political one, but here are a few of excerpts:

Statistics on american belief in evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9uIMR8yCPg

The Good Book Song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxXrTRFVUkQ

Tim Minchin Interview: Athiesm, Comedy and Religiosity in America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOiyC8yXQx8&feature=related

Truly. Watch them, they are fantastic.

The feminist/anti-porn activists like to dismiss people like me - the more loudmouth, public, loving-our-jobs sex workers - and say that there are only a wee handful of us, and everyone else is a raped, beaten, trafficked (and probably underage) streetwalker with a drug addiction. The reality is, there are people like me, and there are the abused streetwalkers, but most people in the sex industry that I've encountered are simply humming along, going about their jobs, and mostly pretty happy with their work. It's the silent majority. I was once talking to a completely non-political woman who'd been doing porn for more than a decade, and she expressed genuine confusion that there were people who thought she was being oppressed and abused and needed saving. You don't have to be an intellectual to see why paternalism is annoying and bizarre.

I started providing late in life (just turned 54). It was my choice from the beginning to do what I do. The timing was as perfect as it was going to get. When asked, I as often state I'm a provider as that I write or make jewelry. I have a strong supporting cast of friends - and clients. As a relatively new provider (8 months "old" in June 2010), I know I have a lot yet to learn. I can't remember the last time I was as happy with a career choice as I am now.

I don't "get" the feminist argument against sex work or porn or any of that; I never have even when I wasn't working in it. (I seldom get into any political argument because I'm "left," "right" or "center" depending on the topic.) But, to be told that my choices aren't the "correct" choices - by so-called feminists who (I thought) stood up for freedom of choice - is lost on me. I do what I want and let it go at that. Someone else doesn't like it, so what? These are my choices; I'll live my life according to my values and in the manner I deem best for me. Let them live theirs the way they deem best for themselves.

How is that so difficult to understand?

Which is why I'm glad to have found another gal who isn't afraid to speak up. "This is me, this is what I think on this subject and I don't care if you like me or my views." Keep it up, Furry Girl!

D: I have no idea who you are, but you seem to be coming fairly far into the middle of a debate with some pretty "101" level arguments. Yes: the debate about porn is ultimately about two things. One is conditions of production, which is essentially a labor and exploitation issue. The second is about the effects of pornography on its viewers and the larger society. Of the two, I think the first has some merit, in that porn, like all other industries, has labor rights issues that need to be addressed. The second, sorry, I really don't take seriously. There is actually precious little evidence that porn has much of any negative behavioral outcome that sets it apart from other media.

As to arguments about behavioral effects being addressed, well, the pro-porn side has addressed anti-porn research claims extensively for over 20 years. The latest round of addressing this can be found on this post over at Scienceblogs, which describes, among other things, a meta-analysis of prior research by Neal Malamuth that doesn't demonstrate any strong effect on male aggression. I'll also note that that blog post was on the receiving end of a complete shitstorm generated by the wonderful people of the feminist blogosphere, notably I Blame the Patriarchy. Jason Goldman, a mild-mannered science blogger unused to the ways of the feminist blogosphere found that the attacks in his comments section became so nasty that he actually unpublished the post for a few days before thinking better of it. So that's the kind of grief you can expect when you do address the issue.

The most frustrating thing about the two prongs of this argument is that it creates an oft-used derailing tactic: effectively debunk or address concerns on the "porn causes violence" issue, and suddenly we're told that the *real* issue is exploitation of women in front of the camera, and we're ignoring that. Address labor conditions, and somebody will drop out of the sky to tell you you're ignoring social effects. That gets old, really.

I can actually appreciate what both of you are saying..though I am sttll at the end closer to FurryGirl's side of the debate than Maymay's, based on the actual behavior of the main spokepeople of SPC towards their critics in general and sex+/actual sex workers in general.

I do think that Pledgemistress did have the best intentions when she attempted to reach common ground and find a "middle ground" with the antiporn crowd, and the effort by those of us on the "pro-porn" side to at least attempt to by magnamonous and not stoop to the levels of the other side is commendable as a tactical move...if only to isolate the other side and emphasize their recalcitrance.

As for Elizabeth Wood's opinion that perhaps we should stifle self-criticism in the face of the common enemy: Well, I happen to adore Elizabeth, but I don't think that constructive criticism from activist sex workers will hurt our cause any. In fact, I think that it is just as bad to have an artificially induced consensus that glosses over diversity and genuine differences of opinion as it is to have gut-cutting internal battles over minutia and nonsense (the "Menshevik syndrome"). Especially since active and activist sex workers, as FurryGirl noted, are the ones whose asses (and pussies and even dicks) are actually on the line here.

The problem is, though, that people like Gail Dines and the folks at SPC (like most other antiporn "feminist" radicals) aren't going to modify their views about porn and sex workers one bit merely because a sex worker happened to shake their hand...in fact, they will probably interpret Pledgmistress' act as a sign of converting her to their narrow position and gaining leverage in the overall debate, rather than reacting and reaching a "middle" consensus.

There may even be more moderate elements of the antiporn feminist movement who may be open to a more conciliatory position or even accepting the legitimacy of pro-porn feminists or even activist sex workers...but they were NOT the ones sponsoring or speaking out at this conference.

As for Elizabeth Wood's statement that perhaps we must stifle self-criticism in the name of unity against the common enemy: Well, I happen to adore and support Elizabeth, who herself has been the target of personal attack and slander from the antiporn forces, but I'm not convinced that constructive criticism from activist and active sex workers like FurryGirl will weaken our struggle. In fact, I happen the believe that not having such debates as this one would do just as much to weaken the struggle by allowing deep fissures to fester and ultimately blow up from within.

And, I don't think that it is fair to say that activist sex workers and active porn performers should be merely shunted to the side merely because they might not speak as well as some sex blogger activists; because it is they who put their asses (and pussies and dicks) out on the line, and they are the ones, as FurryGirl noted, who will pay the full price of being the specific targets of antiporn legislation.

Anthony

Your response to my comment makes considerable headway in addressing some of those issues. But in fact, people do cite peer-reviewed studies and use them to make semi-credible arguments that porn does harm. You're certainly not obliged to debate those people, but I think it would be useful if someone would. (I hear precious little actual debate on this issue.)

Dickens always did seem like the sentimental equivalent of porn to me anyhow, albeit unusually eloquent porn. Homer, however, is in classical Greek and dactylic hexameter, so he's clearly superior. And then there's Sappho...

I keep re-explaining my position, and you keep not hearing what I'm saying. I don't believe in trying to "humanize" people whose lives are devoted to taking human rights away from other people. Some people are simply, flat-out, no-ways-around it, dangerous ideologues that are clearly my *enemy*.

Would you, as a supporter of queer rights, believe that the best way to advance that struggle is by reaching out to people who commit (or encourage) unprovoked hate crimes against queers? Or, as a non-racist, think that being more friendly with Klansmen and attending KKK rallies is the best way to stop racism in society? I can't understand where you get this idea that the best way forward for the sex worker's rights movement is by focusing limited energy and resources on being friendly to the *most* hysterical and devout people opposed to sex work.

This ongoing debate feels much like the aftermath of Prop 8 when so many people were condescendingly telling queers that they shouldn't be angry at religious bigots, and that one should never be intolerant of intolerance, because, in some silly greeting-card-level-platitude logic, then the bigots "win". Dan Savage wrote a bunch about the absurdity of such a mentality, I wish I had bookmarked some of his blog posts on the subject.

As for Pledgemistress being "directly effected" by anti-sex radicals, I find the comparison belittling. If anti-sex radicals get their way, I'll LOSE MY JOB AND GO TO PRISON. I have literally *everything* to lose, and her potential worst case scenario is what, not being allowed to hold kink events on her college campus? Conflating the two is insulting. It's like when people throw tantrums because they found out that such-and-such free web service won't let them host adult content. Can't put porn on freecoolbloghosting.com? Can't throw kink events on school property? Boo hoo. Pay to host your porn somewhere else, find a non-school location to hold your kink event.

how would you phrase it when someone gushes on excitedly about how happy they are to get to meet anti-porn radicals, socialize with them, and shake their hands?

I'd call it humanizing, Furry Girl. In fact, I did call it humanizing.

Your homogenization of SPC conference attendees—apparently both the utterly malicious and your would-be allies—is the exact same tactic as SPC's generalizing all sex-positive people as criminals and would-be rapists. Assumptions aside, like I said on Twitter, if you want to win this war of attitudes, you'd do well not to mimic the attitudes of your enemies.

To those of us ACTUALLY IMPACTED by anti-sex worker activism it's beyond insulting to see an "ally" wet herself with excitement over how cool and smart our oppressors are.

Two things. First, implying that pledgemistress was not "actually impacted by anti-sex worker activism" is a ludicrously uninformed, not to mention demeaning, statement. I refer you to my many blog posts about Donna M. Hughes' anti-sex worker activism (the person pledgemistress attempted to shake hands with), which very directly affected her. Second, anti-sex worker activists are smart, and that's what makes them so very dangerous; pointing this fact out seems to be insulting to you only because you wish it weren't so.

Moreover, I'll quote from Elizabeth Wood:

we need to stop fighting amongst ourselves in public. I have no idea how to achieve this[…]. While I truly believe that robust debate and dissent within a group leads it to make its best decisions, I see how counter productive the public disagreements by visible individuals and competing organizations are when we hold them in public and especially when our position is already marginalized.

[…W]e are hampered by divisions between identity groups on our own side. The diversity that the sexual freedom movement makes evident is beautiful. How do we make it an advantage instead of a liability?

Elizabeth asks a good question. The first thing I can think to suggest to her, and to you, is that spotlighting diversity itself could be a powerful weapon against any force that wishes to generically demonize a group of individuals, and that perhaps viciously demonizing groups is itself counterproductive to the goal of spotlighting the diversity that would serve sex workers so well against anti-sex worker activists.

Finally, I'll note that I've engaged in this discussion because I consider you a friend and an ally, and because it frustrates me far more when I sense allies harming the progress of causes I work on than when I see the opposition harming us. All I asked of you on Twitter, and all I'm asking of you now, is to reconsider the vehemence with which you publicly denigrate those who work towards advancing sex worker rights, and all people's sexual freedoms. And I guess, having made that request as clearly and fairly as I know how to make it, I'll now recede from your blog.

You keep repeating, over and over, how "unhelpful" I am. I think our problem here is that we're on completely different pages of what we're trying to do. If the goal is to make friends with anti-sex worker activists who want to take human rights away from others, then indeed, I am unhelpful. But that's not my goal.

Since there is zero evidence to suggest that porn causes people to act differently, I'm simply not concerned with having philosophical/theological debates with people who want to believe porn causes social ills. It's another red herring. If they can present some real peer-reviewed data, I'm happy to look at it, but I'm not going to debate someone's emotional feelings that are unsupported by evidence.

But, as for whether plenty of porn perpetuates inaccurate ideas... of course it does. It's entertainment. Being erotic entertainment, it features people who are good at athletic/camera-friendly sex and have idealized sexual characteristics like big tits and big dicks. Action movies perpetuate inaccurate ideas of how physically strong men should be. The World Cup perpetuate inaccurate ideas about how good one can be at playing football. Every single form of entertainment throughout history "perpetuate inaccurate ideas" about how _____ the audience can be in comparison to the characters, whether it's a cheap porn movie or classic literature. Otherwise it would be completely uninteresting- you don't want to read a book or watch a movie about people that are unremarkable and plain in every single way.

The problem lies in people who act as though pornographic entertainment is somehow totally different from say, Dickens or Homer. It's unfortunate that feminists and others work to convince women that they should feel ugly and oppressed by porn, rather than by explaining to women who get insecure about their own bodies that porn is just entertainment, not an instructional manual.

she wants to befriend anti-sex worker radicals

I think you're playing with fire using assumptive language like that; you're loading a lot of assumptions onto a lot of people in a complex situation, and I know you know how unhelpful that is. I also know you don't care much for bridges, so please don't turn the water you're swimming in into a pool of fire.

Anthony: Agreed on respect being mutual. If I enter a room with people who have made successful careers out of trying to take away my human rights, and I don't smile at them, that's not *me* being an asshole. It reminds me, again, of Prop 8 and how religious nuts were whining about how queers and straight allies need to "tolerate" intolerant bigots and never criticize the Mormon church. Uh, no. There is no moral obligation to tolerate intolerance.

Also, ethics aside, it is my understanding that criminalizing photographs and/or films of acts that in and of themselves are not criminal, is unconstitutional.

I'm glad to read that I am not the only one that feels this way.

cheers,
Matt

I was helping my roomie try and find a porn gig and researching rates, and it floored me how far from transparent things were. She'd come up with figures like "I could make $500 and they'd pay my travel for this shoot..." and I never could find where she got the information. (And now, I'm beginning to think she may not have had much to go on.)

IACB...never meant to disregard VB's personal tastes nor to dismiss her much welcome activism, which I have always acknowledged from the beginning.

Maymay....showing kindness to the opposition may be all fine and good, but I'm one to believe in mutual respect being exactly that: MUTUAL. When one side wants to basically deny you your right of existence and deny you your right to be a free human being, and says so openly, I'm not so sure that the best response is to respond with "love" and handshakes. Especially when the return handshake is more than likely going to be boobytrapped with a firecracker or a buzzer.

I appreciate what Pledgemistress was attempting to do in projecting an magnamonous image and playing the idea of attempting to reach common ground...but ultimately, as a pro-porn male and a progressive, I simply cannot and will not accept those who will not accept me as any less than a human being. Anything else give them that much more legitimacy to attack my (and other pro-porn folk's) right of existence. The idea should not be to talk with fascists, but to DEFEAT them. That's not "divide and conquer", that's self defense.

When they become a bit more reasonable and recognize our side's legitimacy, then we can talk...but not until then.

Anthony

Looking at the weekends' Twitter stream, I can understand why you feel slighted, but I think your response hurt your cause more than it helped. When sex worker rights advocates (including sex workers) mirror the vitriol, if not the malice, of anti-porn activists, they are not successful in winning the war of "changing attitudes," which you correctly point out is where this "war" is being fought.

There is a certain power in kindness that many sex workers seem to be forgetting, and equating kindness to one's opposition with devaluing one's own benefactors is simply an incorrect and IMHO totally inappropriate thing to do. When sex workers' anger encourages them to play into anti-porn activists' "divide and conquer" strategy, then I feel it's important to call them out on it, since when anti-porn activists attack sex-workers, they are attacking us all.

One of the issues that interest me - transparency - is pretty much not addressed even in porn-maker circles. I wrote about transparency and pay rates last year as I was deciding whether to start another porn site: http://www.feminisnt.com/2009/somewhat-disjointed-grievances-on-porno-pay-rates-transparency-and-a-pinch-of-boring-labor-politics/

If we want to have open discussions about labor and production issues - rather than endlessly rebutting baseless accusations that watching porn turns men into rapists - we need to drop the loaded terminology and use proper descriptive words.

Although I'm unconvinced that "anti-porn movement" stalwarts actually want to have that discussion, it's a discussion that many of the loudest speakers on the "pro-porn" side of the fence seem equally inept at having. I'm similarly frustrated about that, as you are, and I agree that the loaded terminology is often (although not always) unhelpful.

For what it's worth, I've tried calling out both sides of this smoke-screen issue for their respective obfuscation pretty regularly, but not quite so diplomatically as certain others have done. Unfortunately, I've not felt so very listened to, and I sense you feel similarly there, as well.

As I've said before, sex workers aren't actually the most reviled people in the world - it's our customers. If you read anti-porn/anti-sex work arguments, they paint the most villainous portraits of men. (And, of course all customers are men and all providers are women in their rigidly-gendered argument.) We might be the fucked up and fallen, but ultimately, the argument is that we're helpless brainwashed victims of the inherently evil oppressor that is maleness.

It's going to take both brave clients and compassionate sex workers to reduce client stigma - but I don't believe sex work will be fully legalized until client stigma is greatly reduced. Thank you for raising that point.

Personally I'm out to my immediate family, out to my SO, out to my friends, out to the IRS and on my other financial documents, occasionally out to strangers depending on the situation.

I wasn't out to my SO's friends because of his concerns but I've (finally, I was about to explode) been experimenting over the past year with being open-if-not-out with them. I started with jokes, then with "jokes," then with hints about work, then with comments about sex work issues, then with a few stray facts, asides and anecdotes. At this point it's an open secret, which works well because I can be out, discuss sex work issues, even to a degree go on about work, without having broken a promise I wish I'd never made.

I've found out which of my SO's friends know other sex workers, and which ones are or have been sex workers (the answers surprised me). I've seen some attitudes change in that small circle just through humanization and exposure to a different perspective. I think sometimes we look at out-ness as an all-or-nothing thing instead of as the continuum I've found it to be, and there's a lot of room along that continuum for those in almost any life situation to be just a little more open, a little closer to out, even if only selectively.

Never got that impression about Violet Blue *at all*. Anyway, have you seen most of the stuff she links to or promotes via advertising on her blog? Mostly European glamour porn, with a touch of Abby Winters and American alt-porn. About the only thing in recent memory I've seen her promote feminist porn-wise is Pink and White's videos.

Violet hasn't been saying, "I know the one true enlightened path of how sex workers are allowed to feel and express themselves." That was, however, the popular opinion from non-sex worker "allies" about SPC in the weekend's Twitter conversation. (A conversation dominated by a student sex blogger who tweets as @pledgemistress. Yes, I'm a major snob here - I take extra umbrage at being told what to do by people I've never heard of.) Violet doesn't declare herself to know what's better for sex workers than do sex workers themselves, she's addressing the issue from the perspective of women who love porn.

Anthony

I, too, am sort of gobsmacked at the attitude of far too many liberals/progressives that the only way to approach an issue is to respect "both sides" and reach a "consensus" that is agreeable to "everyone". Don't they understand the basic fundamental fact that when one side has far more power and influence to control the terms of the debate, any bit of "compromise" will ultimately end up slanting towards that side? Of course, if those who promote the art of "compromise" are already compromised themselves towards the antiporn position (despite their branding themselves as "pro-sex" or "feminist" to deflect charges of being in toto with the abolitionist position), then it's not too surprising that they would tend to place their own turf protection over defending actual sex workers and performers who don't fit quite nicely into their particular "progressive" agenda.

Now, as to Cyn of HighFeist's three part slam of Violet Blue and OPO (and her not so veiled defense of SPC, in spite of her supposed "pro-sex" positioning): well, call it so typical of "good cop" feminists doing the dirty work of the more radical antiporn abolitionists by claiming them to be "just plain folks" and underdogs battling the Big, Bad. Porn Industry and their supposed Capitalist Shills..as if BP or ExxonMobil or Walmart were dependent solely on porn profits for their survival. Her response is simply "approachment" led to its ultimate conclusion, where attempting to "break middle ground" with antiporn "feminists" leads inevitably to adapting much of their core ideology and throwing actual sex workers under the bus.

At least Violet Blue is willing to call a spade a spade and a douchebag a douchebag....even if she is on occasion tooting her own hore a bit too much, and even if she is mostly representing her own "porn for women" turf rather than more broadly defending sexual expression and sexual media's right to exist as a whole.

Also...having had more than my fair share of battles with the more extreme antiporn abolitionists (just index my SmackDog Chronicles blog (http://redgarterclub.com/SDChronBlog2dot5) under "antiporn feminists"), I can clearly see that there is no need to reach a "middle ground" with those who want to simply wipe you off the face of the earth. Not to mention, thier policies and ideas directly lead to innocent people being harmed for things they do not do, for thoughts being punished merely for having them rather than accountability for actions and deeds, and their political alliances are far more towards the most reactionary and restrictive, who will simply use the power and influence granted them to reenforce reactionary beliefs. I'd much rather simply expose to the daylight their lunacy and call them out on their bullshit and take the resulting hits for the home team.

Anthony

(Sorry about the long post)

I disagree with Audacia in that she says its not a good idea to take on the likes of Dines and Hughes directly. (That's presuming you don't have the privilege of being attacked by Hughes directly, which several people have been on the receiving end of.) Well, sure, there's little point in engaging in discussions with them, and even directly debating them can be a drain, but at some point, one is going to have to argue against the ideas that they are putting out into the public square, because those ideas are going to be used to hurt you.

Its about winning over people who are on the fence, or at least getting those people not to support the kind of legislation the antis have coming down the pike (something that they're going to be proposing in Washington DC tomorrow). And fighting the cultural atmosphere that makes that kind of legislation possible.

Ah yes, that's all too familiar, except insert "when you're in Los Angeles." Go, Furry!

Oh how I wish it were so.

That's hilarious that it's actually just mainstream porn without the sex. I can see her steepling her fingers now.

so I don't know if there is a word to describe being double sarcastic, or not unsarcastic or whatever, I just wanted to be clear that I totally and completely respect and agree with your decisions to take a stand for what you believe in. Online my comments and statements are often taken wrong or as a passive aggressive way to slander. That was a pretty "heavy" post topic and due to the seriousness I felt I should explain that I am an idiot sometimes and don't realize there are topics any humor thrown in is not appropriate.

hopefully you didn't take it wrong, keep going strong!!!

what you are doing is important

dusty

I am not saying that I can more clearly draw legal lines or whether or not our countries legally established rights need to be changed, I am not advocating any lifestyle or religion or taking sides with anything at all.

But I am saying that when the ones who are affected by these situations of contention (the happenings that the line between right and wrong cannot be agreed upon even in a way to disagree)
when these who are affected are not allowed to move on anywhere (in real life or ether) without facing principally the same situations on a daily basis which such treatment justified to ensure that the past remain "still no consensus if the past was wrong or right" WELL THAT IS ONE EFFED UP SITUATION and I would rather swim in boiling lava, I would rather not live and be dead of this world than cross any bridge or stay on any side with those who choose to remain spiritually dead but physically alive.

in principle I commend you friend.

because only those with hearts like yours (who hearts will always be in principle right) and in loving ways always guide you to act (I will give my opinion here because I believe it is better to commit an action of a love or deed of love that hurts nobody (that the world and laws may or may not define as wrong) for better to do love than any action that is considered legal, just, or praised by the majority when it does harm.

Funny Girl the Saint, I would swim too for the reason that this time you do, and anytime my heart told my not to choose comfort with discomfort was the only way right.

thank you

dusty

Just dropping you a note of support in standing up for what you believe (which is wise regardless of the circumstances, and in this case I think the circumstances are unassailable).

In the past, I've seen close up a completely unrelated controversy involving Carnal Nation. I've come to the conclusion that the organization (not the contributing "reporters", who are just commissioned writers) is functionally delusional, and nothing in your tale changes my mind.

They are acting as if they are a major news organization, like (say) the New York Times, for whom there may well be grounds to argue the freedom of speech issue. But they are not the NYT, and their stated audience is allegedly the sex positive community.

Which leaves them with a problem: either they can claim to be support freedom of speech at all costs OR they can claim to address the sex positive community. They can't have it both ways, but they don't seem to appreciate that the reality is that they are one of thousands of outlets for material, and eventually their habits (as you illustrated) will drive away the contributors upon who they depend. And they will fade away...

(By the way, for those who try to defend them: the "freedom of speech" argument also could have been addressed as it is by serious and ethical news organizations, i.e. by permitting the asshat to write his "stalking bounty" piece, and then publishing it simultaneously with a rebuttal written by *them*. I don't think this is a particularly good approach, but it is one that would have made it clear what their views are, and potentially could have resulted in pulling the fangs of the asshat).

M

In the mean time, like others I'm guessing Paglia might interest you?

I think my schedule at the DA con is all full hanging out with people who believe in science and logic and reason - AND don't defend companies that stalk sex workers, or events that welcome companies that are anti-sex worker. I never really cared if you want to be a magic crystal healing escort, that just meant I never wanted to socialize with you unless absolutely necessary. (Why do you think I haven't been to your potlucks? Ever consider that branding SWOP NW like a new age support group might turn off other sex workers, too?) After seeing you doggedly defend an event that kissed the ass of an anti-sex worker company, I now have absolutely zero interest in interacting with you for ANY reason. But, good luck - and I do sincerely hope something useful comes out of the $2000 donation you were handed by the people so you oh-so-coincidentally just happen to support.

Thank you for removing yourself from the mailing list. It is clear that you are most happy being a renegade. Admirable for it's own reasons, though as our primary focus is networking across the range of sex workers and available support for the good of all, clearly I was misinformed when I was told that you were someone who would be supportive of the work that NW-SWOP is doing.

Re: The tantric practitioner socials - you never were invited to those and wouldn't be. The Healers Exchange is a much smaller and completely separate project which has nothing to do with the work of NW-SWOP's handful of dedicated internet whores, other than as those groups have naturally overlapped via participation by specific individuals.

I do not know why you hold so much animosity towards myself or the NW-SWOP efforts. That offer for a drink at DA is still on the table and you are welcome to contact me directly if you ever choose. I'll stop engaging with you here as it seems this should be a personal conversation, should it ever happen.

My wishes for a prosperous and bright spring time to you.
"Mary"

i just like the idea of fucking for money. i dont need it, i just want the excitement. So instead of going with complete strangers i do not kno, i decided to 'service' about 3 of my frds who really wanna fuck me. (my agency frd included) the other 2 are in relationships. i am not sure if i'd do it for sure, but i definitely think about it. (posted an ad on Craigslist jus to see if i'll get a response, but like i mentioned, i dont like the idea of strangers)

I loved the bit about picking the bits of ideologies since that's my philosophy. Unfortunately it does seem to upset almost everyone at some time or other. If they are prepared to discuss rather than condemn out of hand that is good enough for me but heck, if they can't see past their own dogma that's not my fault is it?

Good night!

I'm getting my bleary eyes off the computer before I manage to mangle another thought.

In re-reading, I do see where I truncated my message.
"more so than what you have done with this blog."

That was to have said "more so than what you have done with this blog post."

I can see how you read what you did into my response and I apologize.

I'm sorry you thought I was dismissing your blog, your "cred" or yourself personally, I was dismissing this one post and the good it was doing (or not.) I am a fan of your blog and am supportive of your larger efforts. As I've said several times now, very seriously, I hope that despite our not seeing this particular matter in the same light we are able to work together in the name of our shared passions. If you see me at the DA conference please come say hello, I'd love to buy you a drink so we can chat this out.

Please don't be so quick to dismiss me FG. I may not be well known in the blogging circles though I am very well known in the Pacific Northwest for sex worker safety and support that I've personally coordinated for years, long before there a NW-SWOP organization that could support those efforts. I'm also quite well known nationally providing information and support to sex workers visiting our area. Just not with this name... and if you choose not to engage with the organization for whatever reason, perhaps you will engage with me and the local providers.

"Mary"
or,
that other me you met with the other name

Yes, Clea offered to give the issue its own timeslot, but to quote from the organizing list, one of Carnal Nation's victims rebutted that offer with, "Giving a full session to discussion of this topic is just giving more attention to this misogynist. Is that really what Sex 2.0 is about?"

As I've said in my original post, "One of the defenses of Carnal Nation's presence at Sex 2.0 is that no one had to be interviewed - it was just a media outlet that you could talk to. I've never said I was opposed to Carnal Nation's involvement because I thought they'd force all attendees at gunpoint to give interviews, the point is that Carnal Nation was allowed in the door at all."

Carnal Nation's presence, in any way, shape, or form, at Sex 2.0 is not okay with me, nor was it okay with a number of other sex workers, and people who attended Sex 2.0 anyway, with mixed feelings. There's another speaker who would have pulled out of the conference as well if she hadn't have already paid for her flight and hotel. This is not just something that bothers *me*, it seemingly bothers *everyone* who wasn't a part of the Seattle Sex 2.0 clique. I don't know how I can possibly be more clear on that.

The point remains that Sex 2.0 knowingly let in - AND KISSED THE ASS OF - a media company that supports stalking, outing, and harassing sex workers. There is no possible way to spin that, either with words or with donating money to sex worker groups, that makes that mistake okay.

I'm not interested in being a part of your organization for reasons that I won't get into publicly for the sake of not being divisive. I don't need to "prove" my "cred" to you that I'm doing anything positive for sex workers, but I will explain for other readers. It's ironic to be challenged for my sex worker cred by a person almost no one has ever heard of before this debate.

I will continue my ongoing financial support (even if it's not as much money as I wish it could be) of sex worker organizations and events, and I will participate national sex worker events like the Desiree Alliance conference. I will also continue to blog about sex worker's rights issues to my audience, plenty of whom are actually totally new to the subject and appreciate reading about my life and opinions as a sex worker. I can't tell you how many people have told me in the last 7+ years of operating porn sites (even before I started blogging) how I've changed their opinions of what sort of "dumb sluts" or "druggies" must be a part of the sex industry. In public, I will politely confront strangers who say disparaging things of sex workers, and have had some pretty interesting conversations as a result. As an out sex worker who doesn't hide who I am from my "real friends" and family, I see my life as its own form of activism by not denying who I am.

You can dismiss me all you want because I don't come to *your* social gatherings and meetings, but so what? I have my own circles of sex worker friends I am much happier spending my free time with, online and offline.

[PARAGRAPH DELETED BY FURRY GIRL BECAUSE MARY IS REPOSTING/GOSSIPING ABOUT PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS SHE WAS NOT A PART OF.]

You are misrepresenting Clea's words. I hope Clea does not mind, she can spank my ass personally if she does. Yes, she did say she encouraged anyone who felt strongly about this should meet with Monk, yet she also stated:
"...because I've seen it's clearly important to the participants, I've gone ahead and allocated a session on Sunday at 2:30pm to be a forum to discuss these issues. I encourage everyone interested to come and participate."
and the full statement which you selectively truncated -
"I want to be clear that Carnal Nation is not attending the event as a media entity. There is one person, Twisted Monk, who is attending (with a cameraman), and will be producing a sex worker-positive piece. He will be recording Veronica as she delivers her keynote and interviewing some attendees, by prior arrangement, all with their permission: no one will be recorded who hasn't given permission."

And -
"I certainly understand the concerns that can stem from their choosing Carnal Nation to house their work in light of the issues raised, and these are great things to discuss at the session on Sunday. But there is no agreement or connection between the Sex 2.0 Conference and Carnal Nation any more than there is between the Sex 2.0 Conference and other blogs or outlets participants own or use."

Participant attendees had already chosen to interview with Monk, there were attendees who wanted him there even after you posted your "I'm not going to be there because of this" post, and there were attendees who did not want him there. You simply pulled out of the event before any favorable solution could be discussed. As you are quite clear in your belief that there could only be one right solution, it seems a conversation may not have been useful.

As to this comment:
"Congratulations on your organization getting a $2000 donation from the conference. I hope it goes to good use helping sex workers. But Sex 2.0 Seattle can't buy its way out of defending an anti-sex worker media company with a donation to a sex worker organization. It feels like a smart PR tactic to me."

1. There is a difference between allowing a participant to attend who is associated with an unfavorable organization, and supporting anti-sex worker media, even if you refuse to see it.

2. I'm sorry you choose to be negative even here. The donation was a solid show of support for the work that NW-SWOP is trying to do locally. Period. I'm surprised you are not happy that our local chapter will now have needed operating funds and a budget for the Sex Worker Resource Guide. We did put out a call for volunteers, including writers and artists for the guide and would love if you considered contributing.

I'm surprised that you have yet to attend any of the organization visioning and planning meetings, the human service oriented networking meetings, or the local sex worker socials. Bringing yourself and your ideas to any of these events would do direct and tangible good for improving the safety of sex workers, more so than what you have done with this blog.

Thank you for the graciousness you have shown in posting my replies. I've said all that I can even imagine saying here. While we may not see eye to eye on this particular situation, I do hope to collaborate with you in the future!

With Love,
Mary

Congratulations on your organization getting a $2000 donation from the conference. I hope it goes to good use helping sex workers. But Sex 2.0 Seattle can't buy its way out of defending an anti-sex worker media company with a donation to a sex worker organization. It feels like a smart PR tactic to me.

* On May 19th, I announced that I would not be speaking at Sex 2.0 because of its vague and undefined relationship to Carnal Nation.

* A national sex worker organizer voiced support of me.

* A sex blogger said he didn't like Carnal Nation for other reasons, and asked me for further references.

* I provided a reference to Carnal Nation's exact piece.

* On May 20th, John Pettitt, owner of Carnal Nation, rebutted me and further defended his malicious piece supporting stalking and harassing sex workers. He told me he'd allow me to to do an interview with Carnal Nation about the issue.

* Sex 2.0 organizer Clea posted, "I am sorry to hear that your frustrations with Carnal Nation have led you to leave Sex 2.0 and feel it no longer represents what you want to associate with (the blogger community). I have removed you from the website and the printable schedule." (Um, no, Clea- actually, I was not pulling out of Sex 2.0 because I'm opposed to associating with "the blogger community", but thanks for misrepresenting my point.)

* Clea posted a friendly email directed at John Pettitt: "As the project manager for Sex 2.0, I would like to thank you for writing the group in response to Furry Girl's thread. I agree that it is important for everyone to have the necessary information to make up his/her own mind, and greatly appreciate your professional, informative response. I also respect Carnal Nation's offer to do interviews and run coverage of the issue in writing. I appreciate your intention to promote varying opinions. I encourage anyone who feels strongly about this to follow John's suggestion and seek out Monk [Carnal Nation's reporter for the con] for an interview."

* I posted that John Pettitt is just in this to make money and I would not debate the issue on Carnal Nation.

* Another sex worker voiced support of me and said she would not be attending the conference and condemned Carnal Nation's article.

* I thanked her for her support.

* Someone else posted in support of me pulling out of the con, and sent to the group a copy of an email he'd sent to John Pettitt about how "horrified" he was by the Carnal Nation article.

* John Pettitt spammed the list with a link to a Carnal Nation's first piece of coverage of Sex 2.0.

* I thanked the latest person to support my leaving the conference.

* Another sex worker activist and past Sex 2.0 voiced support of my pulling out of the conference and condemned Carnal Nation.

* On May 21st, I thanked her for her support.

* A previous commenter on the issued posted another supportive message towards me, pointing out rightfully, "It is just as abusive to make excuses for an abuser, or to allow it to happen, as it is to be the one delivering the abuse."

* Another sex worker posted to the list that she was appalled that Sex 2.0 was picking publicity from Carnal Nation over sex worker safety.

* Clea defended Carnal Nation's presence again, including saying that, "So I want to be clear that Carnal Nation is not attending the event as a media entity", explaining how it Carnal Nation was just there to do interviews and would just have one reporter and a cameraman. I guess in her mind, there's a vast difference between being "a media entity" and being a new web site that has a reporter that conducts interviews. You say tomatO, I say tomAto.

* I responded to Clea re-stating that Carnal Nation's involvement at all is an insult to the sex worker community and that the company's presence in any form made the event not a safe space for sex workers.

* I posted to the list that for anyone skipping the con over Carnal Nation being there, to make sure to get a refund on your ticket, and that I had chosen to donate my refund to a sex worker conference, http://www.desireealliance.org

* A sex worker activist who'd previously commented posted again to condemn Carnal Nation and point out that Sex 2.0 had always been, in the past, a con that places importance on being a safe space for sex workers.

* On May 22nd, one of the women who John Pettitt belittled and made fun of while she was being stalked posted a polite statement to the list asking that people not grant interviews to Carnal Nation. She pointed out that she is yet to ever receive an apology for the way John Pettitt treated her.

* On May 28th, I posted a link to my blog post about the issue.

* On May 29th, Mary re-posted her comments from my blog to the Sex 2.0 organizing list.

To Roxxie: Hate speech is indeed protected as in it is not a crime to be stupid and speak out with their hate. However, hate actions are a crime - or at least supposed to be, but, as Furry Girl pointed out, some people in high places don't think so if it involves a sex-worker.

Be that as it may, I support your actions, Furry Girl. Keep going strong!

"The fact remains: this year's Sex 2.0 organizers - small group or not - were fully aware that Carnal Nation supports outing and harassing sex workers"

I believe that I attended all but one of the planning meetings here locally in Seattle. I was personally unaware of the concerns about Carnal Nation, or even their planned presence, until you voiced them on the discussion list on May 19th, just three days prior to the event itself. That was well after the event was actually planned and the individuals who consented to interviews with CN had done so.

The organizers attempted to create a discussion around your concerns and you not only rejected participating, you portray those attempts as a further affront to sex workers. I am disappointed in your refusal to engaging in finding a way to address your concerns, while still honoring the rights of those sex workers who individually CHOSE to interview with CN. Personally boycotting any participation or promotion of Carnal Nation makes sense to me (though you are giving them quite a bit of press just in these conversations), attacking the organizers of the event does not.

Thanks to the support of the organizers and volunteers this year Sex2.0 was a completely safe place for me to be - even though a known local stalker showed up at the registration desk asking for me by name. I am happy with how the situation was handled. I am also happy with how detailed concerns about privacy and security were addressed in preparation and during the event.

I have had my own share of stalking and harassment, with individuals using the internet as a weapon against me. It is my understanding that one of the victims directly involved in this situation asked you specifically not to write about this for fear that it would stir up her harasser. Please consider that what you have done here is contributing to the further victimization of those already victimized, regardless of your intent.

Sex2.0 has raised a significant amount of money for the local chapter of the Sex Workers Outreach Project. We are actively trying to improve safety in the sex industry locally, and I thank this years Sex2.0 conference for their active recognition of our concerns - in planning, at the event itself, and without our even having asked via their generous donation of proceeds to our efforts.

I (again) personally invite you to join us at one of the meetings for our local Sex Workers Outreach Project. Your passion is an asset and it is sad to see it creating division among those who share your passion when it would be most powerful used to create meaningful conversations and actions.

With Love,
"Mary"
NW-SWOP

I also worked on Sex 2.0 last year with Match to obtain a sponsor for it and Amber was very adamant about one thing in our many conversations. It was to be a safe space where Sex Workers and their allies could come together. A place where sex workers would feel safe and comfortable to participate. I saw that first hand last year in DC when I sat in the presentation Elizabeth Wood and Ren gave.

Sex 2.0 was an amazing conference last year in DC and prior commitments had made it impossible for me to attend this year for which I am now glad. From what I've seen online of the conference this year the presenters and presentations looked amazing but it was not Sex 2.0 or the vision of what Sex 2.0 was to be that the core group of people who helped Amber create it because you and I both know that if it was CN would not have been allowed to cover it.

Someone said to me last week if even one sex worker felt unsafe to attend then the event is a failure. I see in the google group that Amber requested that the name be retired and Sex 2.0 end here. In light of what appears (speaking as an outsider who didn't attend this year) to be major changes in it this year I agree with Amber 100%. The Sex 2.0 that was created in 2008 and held in 2009 were never intended to be profitable conferences and followed specific guidelines which included specific terms that were to be used.

I do hope that other conferences will grow from Sex 2.0 and Amber's vision. It is important to bring together sex workers and allies in settings such as Sex 2.0 was.

As someone who has taken the unpopular spot in the past of standing up for what you believe in and getting an important message out there I know how difficult it can be at times, especially in this online world. Which can really suck but like everything else in the online world there will be something else next week to grab everyones attention.

Yes, *some* sex workers had no problem attending the conference in spite of Carnal Nation, and *some* sex workers still like Carnal Nation itself for some bizarre reason, but that doesn't negate the problem. (My second personal story, about forcing a friend to pick between friendship with myself and a man who blogged a "funny" guide to raping women? She's a woman. That doesn't therefor translate to, "women think joking about rape is okay." Finding outliers to defend bad behavior doesn't mean the behavior isn't bad.)

Just because you, or a few other sex workers, feel safe in a space with a company that endangers the lives of sex workers, that doesn't mean that all sex workers did, or should. Most people that I have spoken with and heard from in the last 2 weeks, in fact, are appalled at the situation. Many attendees had serious issues with the conference in spite of their still wanting to attend, and I heard from one other speaker that she would have boycotted the con had she not bought a non-refundable flight and hotel.

The fact remains: this year's Sex 2.0 organizers - small group or not - were fully aware that Carnal Nation supports outing and harassing sex workers, and they let them be a part of the conference any way. They could have listened to the community's concerns about safety - which on the organizing list was overwhelmingly against Carnal Nation - but they chose not to. Anyone that defends companies that purposefully endanger the lives of sex workers will always get criticism from me, whoever they are, even if they're the big names in my local kink scene.

Sounds like you are very opinionated and you are using your blogs and relevant sex worker platforms to civily state your reasons for choosing not to attend Sex 2.0. True, you can have a bit of a harsh tongue at times, but it doesnt mean that you arent telling it how it is; telling the truth.

While I am happy that you brought the Carnal Nation situation to the Sex2.0 discussion, refusing to participate and attacking the group trying to plan the event did nothing to improve sex worker safety at the event.

As a sex worker, and as someone who has had a bounty posted for my personal information in the past, I am somewhat familiar with the situation you describe. Fortunately for me the blog I was threatened on seems long gone, however my posted personal information is not. I personally would have loved to chat with you about safety at the event.

The organizers were a very small group and had many things to organize. In my understanding the decision to allow in Carnal Nation was made months in advance by those who agreed to interview with them - including the Keynote speaker.

Stand your ground and speak your peace, though I simply see you attacking the event and the organizers for not handling the situation how you would choose. Personally I felt quite safe as a speaker at the event, I enjoyed the event, and I missed your presence.

With Love,
Mary
NW Sex Workers Outreach Project

Lisa: there are a lot of different efforts around the world aimed at legalizing or decriminalizing prostitution (which are two different things). Check out http://deepthroated.wordpress.com That's probably a good place to start for more on general issues like that.

Aria: Thank you.

Mynxii: You know, all it takes is a few people getting together and deciding to organize a conference/meetup/event, and you can get a ball rolling. The second Sex 2.0 conference, which had nearly 200 attendees, was organized mostly by just one lovely hard-working guy, and an email list of people offering ideas and picking up volunteering slots.

Australia, by the way, is the only continent I haven't been to yet, but I'd love to see it, and curious about working there, too. Someday, someday.

Wow! I'm in Darwin, NT right now.

XX

I'd love to run a sex positive, feminist conference here in Perth, WA - I was inspired by what I thought Sex 2.0 to be... and I still want to do the event, but in part this is because Sex 2.0 really disappointed me. I might blatantly be a feminist, but I don't hold to several popular views about issues I have no experience within - such as women who are sex workers. Certainly I don't for a second believe that they're all either 'victims' or 'oppression colluders' etc.

I'm glad you posted about this and talked about what had happened - it hadn't crossed my blogfeeds prior to your speaking up, and I was ignorant of the circumstances. That said, everything the people from CN said, didn't quite ring true/genuine and I was already unsure what I felt about their involvement.

I appreciate what it takes to continually be that loud voice, how much energy and commitment is involved. I sincerely admire it in you even as I keep working toward it myself.

This is exactly right. You've hit the nail on the head, too, that they thrive on the publicity. This shit really sucks, and I'm glad you're able to so articulately call it out.

Remind me, why aren't police working to unionize and/or standardize and/or regulate prostitution? Clean up the crime, clean up the abuse, make health regulations standard... It really is the only solution I see here. Hell, you could even tax that way.

Networking for sex workers at events like DA is SO much more important than career-climbing. It's about not being alone, trading wisdom and supporting each other. Because of networking I've tried to help others when they need and others have certainly helped me when I've needed it. "Networking" for us is quite a different thing than in corporate America. Which is why we need safe spaces to do it in -- as you've taken pains to point out.

Opening eyes is part of the solution because ultimately that's what changes behavior. And sometimes there is no absolute solution because life isn't a movie. You've offered partial solutions for others to follow: speak up when something offends you (like supporting behavior that endangers others) and don't support companies whose two-faced policies encourage dangerous behavior. It's a good place to start.

XX

PS: As for Mr. Rapejokes...if people want to be friends with him, I guess they shouldn't be surprised when it happens to them too. Ugh. How revolting.

As for the mention of 'proper libertarians' tolerating racism, left-libertarians have argued that libertarianism historically referred to the anti-authoritarian Left, and deviate from the paleo-right-libertarians such as here: http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2010/05/regarding-those-whites-only-lunch.html

XX

I second Lori as well.

XX

XX

I'm still working and sort of writing when I can (work and activism generally eats up a lot of writing time). There are both good and bad things about being "out" and working/writing all under the same name. It's a load of baggage that sometimes is fun to chuck and go pick up a trick in a bar with a totally no-name persona.

That being said, I don't really talk about my experiences, such as they are. I'm more about disseminating information and activism. My work life is nice, cushy and generally boring. Not much to talk about.

I refuse to apologize for being biologically female and choosing a job that rewards me well for that. As for the rest, well, the world is a very big place and the voices in NYC don't speak for the rest of the world (nor do I). I'm sure Audacia would agree.

XX

But we all worked hard to learn our skills, practice what we learned and be damn good at it - much like you and your website. The assumption that any of us would want to give away to some jackass what we worked hard to learn/make/do is insulting and irritating, no matter what the business.

I don't have any moral issues related to having sex for money - I think its a perfectly valid way to make money. Sex workers *work*, it isn't an easy business. I have much respect for anyone who can pull it off.

However, the thing that gets me, and sometimes it seems silly, but I have issues with sleeping with, say, a married man. Couldn't do it. I can't sleep with someone who is partnered without consent from their partner. It makes me feel awful. And its not like you can screen a client for his relationship status.

I am a sex worker of eight years. I did sex work to make money to move across the country for grad school; I did sex work through grad school; I finished grad school and realized I did not want to leave sex work. I married and had a baby, and I am still a sex worker. I find myself often in a strange terrain, as a sex worker of choice. Thank you for putting into such eloquent words how some of us stay in sex work.

I plan, too, to be workin' it well into my golden years ...

Keep on discovering. Am enjoying your essays :-)

JM

I've sought out porn that I think embodies my love the feminine, or at least, my idealized image of femininity (which I know that no one woman is ever going to fit). I'm thinking now about The Unbearable Lightness of Being and the dichotomy of men who are seeking the idealized woman vs those who appreciate each individual's unique traits and seek to know the differences. I appreciate both quests, even if there's no real point to either.

I also want to end wage slavery. If you're an artist or other free spirit who deliberately chooses and enjoys this type of work, I wholeheartedly support you (and that seems clear enough to me). For those who do sex work out of addiction or desperation, I do believe we've failed as a society at some level. That's why I continue to embrace the label of sex-positive feminist (and am also very happy that you reject it and understand why). It's all about consent for me and criminalization of sex work is the primary problem. Are you familiar with the work of Peter McWilliams?

So, here's the reality. If a woman wanted to sleep with me, either I'd be attracted to her and able to get it up, or not attracted to her and not able to get it up.

If I was attracted to her, I wouldn't need to be paid (I'd pay).

If I wasn't attracted to her, paying me wouldn't accomplish anything for her. She'd be hiring a wet noodle.

To leave erections out of the picture. If I wasn't attracted to her, and she was happy with oral only, then I'm not a good enough actor to be anything better than an organic stimulating machine.

To be an escort (and lets pretend for a moment I'm 25 again, and not too bad on the eye) you need to be able to act...or at least engage somehow with someone who doesn't turn you on. Not everyone can do that well. Escorts differ in both physical appeal AND in their skill at putting average people at ease.

I've been with an escort who is so young and beautiful that were I to have met her on civvy street I would have been utterly intimidated. But, I went back to her because she's lovely, not because she's hot. I've been with an escort who has such a high libido that she gets off on you when she's only just met you, and comes and comes...(she looks like a young Audrey Hepburn). I could never have done what she does...it's a rare personal characteristic. Top escorts sell a SERVICE not a body.

That is to say, the point is moot.

JM

I've toyed with the idea numerous times, I'm not certain that I would really say any of them were truly serious, but it's there. I think my feelings have changed over the few years, recently I was mulling the question over again in my head and found myself less certain than I was before. I think the concept itself doesn't necessarily bother me, but I think I would have to be in a certain headspace, which I'm not always in. Because we're not talking about someone I chose to spend my time with on my own, but specifically is paying me to be around (among other things), which is to me is perhaps a strange kind of charity. I'm more inclined to give of myself for free to those who need it than I am to demand payment. And I think perhaps demanding payment, for what I think should be freely given, clashes with my own personal sexual ethics, but it's sort of fuzzy here.

Also, I think repliers to your post may be skewed more towards being interested than the general population due simply to the content of your blog. I definitely think most people are inclined towards sex work.

That said, I believe my current partner would protest. Which I'm ok; it's in our relationship rules that other partners are either kink or porn specific.

But, yes, this little dyke would have said yes.

I find this interesting because I try (emphasis on "try") to be open minded, sex positive, etc. I think people that don't get laid because they are short, fat, disabled, or what have you have been wronged by culture. And yet it's pretty obvious to anyone who knows me that I have a "type", and I feel like I've had some of my most satisfying sex with people that look/act/think a certain way. Thus, I think of people who can escort, or in fact do any kind of sex work, as being more sex positive than I am because *who* they are having sex with is something that carries less weight with them than it does with me.

And yet I don't know if this is reasonable either. I can think of a violinist and say, "Well, I don't want to pursue that line of work, but I don't feel like my lack of interest in music wrongs people." And I've enjoyed reading your refutations to people who think sex is lessened somehow by it being paid for, but I recall artists who have thought the same about music or painting. I guess I think of my sex as if it were a hipster band that would change in ways I didn't like if they suddenly started taking money, but that doesn't make the paid musicians any less important. Both types of thought have made a mark on the world.

Something else about Mistress Matisse that warrants mention - she writes and works under the same name. Like her blog? There's the link right there to her professional site. (Like me? Join my web sites. Like Sabrina? Give her a phone call. Like Calico? Join Kink.com through her affiliate link.)

I can understand why someone would want the distance as writers, but I opted to do everything under the same "brand". I don't promote my blog much from my sites because I don't want to scare porn-surfers with my politics and rantiness when I really want them to buy porn. (Though, Tasty Trixie seems to do just fine with the combo.) I don't feel like I need a "freedom" of distance because my blog isn't about dishing on clients and telling stories about them. There's pretty much zero titillation factor in my blog.

As I'm trying to think if more people write under their work names, or keep the two totally separate, and I wonder if it's partially a "generation" gap. Audacia Ray and Melissa Gira are both well-known earlier bloggers who talked about sex work while they were still working, but didn't say how you could see them as a client. Same with Belle de Jour and Diablo Cody. Now, I can think of more people who write under their work name. Maybe it's shifting a bit towards writing under your work identity, and having a work identity that embraces more politics?

Sabrina: I've also had people ask me if I'm going to write a memoir. I always think, "Wow, I'm only in my 20s and you want a memoir? Am I dying of cancer and no one told me?" (Maybe it's just the word, "memoir", that makes me think it's something you do when you're old or retired from whatever it is you're writing about.) Even if the word memoir is an imperfect one for me, I think there is plenty of room for current sex workers to write about their current experiences. But yes, the *busy* factor! That's the big one for me. The age thing is only partially true, as you know. Sure, stripping or mainstream porn might be focused on women in the 18-25 range, but other fields are still there. There are amateur web porn people who've been running sites for 15-ish years, and they're still going - laugh lines and stretch marks and all. Plus, you'll see plenty of women past college age who are phone sex operators, prodommes, escorts, and yes, even mainstream porn. (At the first Sex 2.0 con, we went out to a club, and Match got a birthday lapdance from a stripper who was still full o' sass and dancing in her 60s.) While the industry is youth-centric, there's *plenty* of options outside the center to keep on working past the ripe old age of 25. There's more "long tail" in sex than anywhere else I can think of. (But, I also wonder if people get self-conscious of their bodies with aging, and that's why they quit.)

Emily: Thanks!

I have come to expect a high level of writing and analysis from you, and you hit it even farther out of the park with this post! Congrats.

I have understood that this is your chosen career, which is one reason your voice is so important -- it balances those who got into the sex business as a means to an end.

Your perspective is incredibly valuable. In fact, I genuinely believe that your choice of career and continued business acumen should be required reading for anyone interested in human sexuality.

I'd have to agree with Sina. I keep coming back to what Mistress Matisse says about writing her book: it won't happen while she's still in the profession, and she has no intention of retiring. I think a lot of us that have no exit strategy are too busy to write our Mandatory Sex Worker Narrative about something we're still doing.

As far as the age thing - I don't think there's anything wrong with aspiring to be the Brett Favre of sex work. (That's actually one of the upsides of the nylon world I think; models don't age out, they just switch to opaques.)

I think this may be it. Besides wanting to capitalize ones experiences.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by furrygirl: Blogged: "Three out of four ain't bad: my thoughts on @AudaciaRay's post on the dominant narratives of sex work": http://vb.ly/282y...

yb: I should write about that in detail at some point - I probably even have a draft somewhere on the topic.

I'd be really interested to see a post on what it is about porn that made you want to do it, and that keeps you wanting to do it. What made you love doing pornography?

Very thought-provoking post.

There's a lot of good arguments against popular feminist thought of the 90's in there...

I had actually lined up a guy to do some stuff with but chickened out... I'm hetero and not at all into guys to the best of my knowledge, which was mainly why I had a problem with it. There really isn't a heterosexual option for dudes as it is, and well, there barely is one for gay dudes anyhow, since it doesn't seem too hard for most men to find other men to fuck if they aren't completely hideous...

But yeah, I guess to answer the question, I certainly considered it.

While I don't want to debate a word (I think PC liberals gets so caught up in language that they fail to fight the real issue), I'm curious as to your position on feminism as a whole. Would you call yourself a feminist if it meant all that you described above? Or do others tainting it ruin that word for you? When I call myself a feminist it's in the exact way you describe it, and more besides. But if someone decides I'm not a "Feminist" because of my views, that's their opinion; I don't want their definition of feminism to become truth and mine pushed even more to the sidelines of society.

I suppose I am asking because the woman who wrote Theorizing the Sexual Child calls herself a feminist yet she and I - and it sounds like you also - have very similar political and social viewpoints. None of this really matters, I suppose. A label won't change what I believe in, even if that label is taken away from me by these "traditional Feminists", and what I believe in and fight for is more important than that anyway. I've just been thinking a lot about it, and reading your work added to that. (Btw, from the description of Erotic Innocence, they don't sound that similar to me. I read Theorizing in a college bookstore where it wasn't $80. But I understand you wanted a different kind of recommendation now, apologies.)

lovely_bookcase: That sounds rather like "Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting", which was already on my list of things to eventually buy and read. Honestly, I don't know if I'll read the one you suggested, since it's $80 and only 200 pages, but thanks.

Thank you to everyone for the suggestions, here, on email, and Twitter, but I'm not looking for *general book recommendations* that I might enjoy, I'm looking specifically for books by authors that are *opposed to feminism*.