I get it. "Feminism", to you, seems to mean SELLING THINGS TO WOMEN- things that arguably play on their insecurities and reinforce heterosexism and shame.

Have fun profiting off human beings whose labor conditions are unknown to you. Yeah, I'm so sad I'm not a feminist like you.

Enough. I'll leave you to your high dudgeon.

I note also that you are STILL misrepresenting me and my site. You know nothing about the sources of our content or the ethical decisions we make regarding it.

Answer me this:

Have you been inside the member's area at For The Girls recently? Or ever?

Did you even look at the tour or our FAQ before writing this piece?

If you didn't then it means you have settled down to make your case without actually doing any research.

If you did then it means you have deliberately misrepresented For The Girls in order to construct your argument.

If this piece were published in the print media I'd be chatting to my lawyers right now. Since it is, however, just a rant posted on a blog I can only come here and point out that you are publishing untruths.

Fact is, Furrygirl, you need enemies, it suits your politics. Your blog is all about "taking on the enemies of sexual sanity" and it casts you in the role of the more-alternative-than-thou saviour. In order to define yourself, you have to attack the "other". It's "us versus them" with you. You need to set up straw men so you can knock them down and then claim the high moral ground. The other day it was Amber Rhea. Now it's me. Tally ho.

Never mind the facts. Cherry pick your arguments. Argue from authority. Ignore any counter-arguments. And then later, go for the ad hominem attack.

You're an atheist but the creationists would be proud of you.

Today, I'll be playing the part of the straw man. Because of me, you won't have to actually give any serious thought to this discussion or make your case in a reasoned manner.

This isn't new behaviour. I saw it five years ago (not 2003 as I once thought) and it's why I just gave up and stopped trying to discuss anything with you. And here you pop up again making exactly the same statements as in 2005 - almost the exact wording, actually. One of the webmaster boards is still running, despite what you claim. I also still have the extremely long (and somewhat sarcastic) reply I wrote for the FW board in May 2005.

Actually, the original argument was very good for me. Your challenge made me think about what I was doing. I made some changes to how I did business. Perhaps, five years ago, I was monolithic in how I approached the whole idea of porn for women. I re-examined things.

I don't think you did any of that. This blog post shows you didn't engage with me. You have simply rehashed your old arguments and then made up a few lies to back yourself up.

Stupid thing is, we are actually on the same side. I was even considering joining your new affiliate program the other day, sending some traffic towards Cocksexual.

Ah well.

No doubt all this doesn't fit in with your idea of who I am and what I'm about. So go ahead. Hate away. Make yourself into the hero. Stand up for your rather narrow definitions of what is acceptable and continue to misrepresent me and my site. Pretend that things I may or may not have said half a decade ago still apply.

In the meantime I'll continue to run For The Girls according to my own definitions of feminism - not yours - and cater to the thousands of my members who enjoy it.

And I will also continue to network with all the other female filmmakers and webmasters who are creating their own vision, including those you named at the bottom of your post. Jayme makes vidcasts for us. Tristan, Buck and Shine Louise Houston appear in interviews on our site. We are many facets of the same idea - trying to offer a female point of view in our own way.

You are the only one who wants to exclude. You are the only one attacking.

And if your idea of sex positive activism means telling lies and ignoring the legitimate viewpoints of others, it's time people stopped listening to you.

I have never said that you, or your subscribers, are not ALLOWED to be turned on by romance porn. That's always the angle you take, as thought that's even the issue. I'm not trying to take romance porn away from you by force, but thanks for trying the "Help help I'm being oppressed!" angle again.

EVEN LEAVING ASIDE YOUR ANTI-SEXUALITY CONTENT THEMES, let's look beyond the presentation and talk product.

What the hell is so "feminist" about porn that's made under you-have-no-idea-what circumstances?

You don't make porn- you buy or license it from producers in America. You have NO idea what goes on on the set, NO idea if your models are mistreated, NO idea if they were pressured to do anything they didn't want to do, NO idea if the producer ripped off any of them or tried to talk them down on payments the day or the shoot. Do you even know how much your performers got paid? How many models on your "feminist" porn site have you personally interacted with? Without referencing your model releases, do you know the names of any of the performers on your site, just off the top of your head? Or are they just pieces of ass for you to repurpose, repackage, and resell?

How can any product call itself feminist or ethical when the working conditions under which it was made are unknown?

I have already written about the old accusations of stereotyping, "porn for women" as a genre and other stuff on my blog. A couple of examples:
http://www.msnaughty.com/blog/2008/05/13/porn-for-women-the-backlash/
http://www.msnaughty.com/blog/2006/05/27/but-what-if-stereotypes-turn-you-on/

The only true thing asserted by Furrygirl in this post about the content at FTG is that we buy existing photos and movies. That's true. We're Australian and it's very difficult and possibly illegal to make our own contet here (I discovered that after making an erotic film last year - a film that featured relatable people and fucking, Furrygirl.)

We choose content that turns us on. *Us.* The two straight women who run the site. You may be surprised to discover that we're entitled to find that sort of thing sexy, as do the thousands of women who join our site, even if you don't consider it to be feminist. Potato, po-tah-to. We don't edit out the sex but we do edit out the goatse butt shots on the guys because we don't find them sexy.

We also publish a large amount of exclusive written content that is incredibly diverse, sex positive and female friendly. Our written content has been the main focus of our site for many years.

You are entitled to your opinion about whether FTG is feminist. That's fine. But make your arguments using facts rather than rehashed misconceptions about our site from 2003.

You don't have any idea about the content inside For The Girls. What you are saying is wrong. Instead, you have just written a long post completely rehashing your misconceptions from six fucking years ago.

Just as well there is no screen shots from the Female Webmasters board. That discussion went for about 10 pages wherein I tried to explain to you where I was coming from but you simply refused to engage with me on this topic. And then later you just went for personal insults.

Furry Girl, I don't have the time to get into another argument with you about this. I was happy to let you go your own way and do your own version of porn. I've never had a problem with it. Indeed, I wish you well with your new site.

But enough with this crap. It's not true.

I like how you also mentioned "male-centered porn" as an equally bad idea.

Great post (:

It would be really nice if I could briefly sum up Buddhism, wouldn't it! But, amazingly, I can't. The issue I have with what you say in your article (but not in the comment, where you specify "worldly" pleasure) is that you don't acknowledge the possibility of pleasure in Buddhist practice itself. And we are, sometimes, talking about an awful lot of pleasure. The difference being that this pleasure is a by-product of practice, not the goal of the practice.

It's great that you have your wonderful and varied sexual outlets, and I agree with you that they should be available for all. But speaking for myself, sometimes I just don't get what I want. And when that happens, do I want to let my attachment to sex make me miserable, or do I want to try and examine it and see what's really going on inside me? Is that sex-negative or sex-positive?

"Saying "the right thing" when you're trying to win the support and money of liberal westerners doesn't count, in my book". Of course it counts. It's a whole lot more than Ratzinger's ever done. If the DL is, indeed, a filthy black-hearted homophobe, then getting him this far is a good first step. Let's keep going, not start a witch-hunt.

Thanks, Nine! if anyone else had made a bingo card, it had to of been Ren.

1. Third square under "O" is missing the word "to" (... women *to* hate their bodies).

2. Add a url to the image so you get credit when it is reproduced and plastered all over.

- Tenzin Gyatso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_topics_and_Buddhism#Tibetan_Buddhism)

I'm not convinced that Buddhism is homophobic, or that the Dalai Lama is particularly homophobic, or that either is homophobic to any degree that's really a problem. Maybe I'm wrong. But you've made such fundamental misunderstandings regarding Buddhism that I really don't believe anything you have to say on the subject. "Anti-pleasure principle..." and "I might not have a Buddhist "hell" to go to for engaging in my active/deviant sex life, but I also won't achieve enlightenment" are two notable howlers. As references, you use only other wannabe iconoclasts. Not that iconoclasm is always bad.

By all means call for sexual reform in Buddhist societies - it looks like the chances for change are good. But don't wade in with ill-researched screeds on things you don't understand. It makes you sound like Fox News. Stick to bashing wooly-minded liberalism and homeopathy!

Personally, I still call myself a feminist - because I don't believe that feminism is about having to force yourself into a mould constructed by other people. I see it as a way of upholding the importance of a person's choice, of bodily autonomy and mutual respect for others. What I do for money, who I fuck and what I wear have nothing to do with feminism, because they are what make me comfortable, they are what I have chosen and they are what I feel is best for me.
But we can argue semantics until the cows come home. Bottom line is about prioritising our own beliefs, sexualities and passions over compartmentalising our lives into a convenient philosophy.

In anycase - you rock. Keep it up!

Serpent: perhaps rather than bingo, the list could also make a good drinking game for the conference?

Either way, you've set a new high bar, fg.

-arvan

As a volunteer for San Francisco Sex Information I especially appreciate your insight and opinions.

Keep up the good work and I will check in on your blog from time to time.

-D

But then again, this much will hold true for anyone who is sufficiently passionate about what they do - and I imagine certainly for more than a few sex workers.

Anyway, I've been following your blog for a while now, and although I'm young and inexperienced I have to say I always find your posts engaging and enlightening. I want to thank you. I used to be an anti-sex Christian myself, but have been converted over the past few years (not an easy process I can tell you). Yay for experimentation!

I actually do liken "feminism" and "patriotism", but not in the same sense you do. Both "feminist" and "patriot" are terms that are embraced/appropriated by people of all stripes - right, left, anti-government, pro-government - to use as a banner to wave for literally whatever their cause is. So, to me, both words/concepts just lose their meaning because of their ability to be applied to everything anyone has ever thought about any political issue.

Oh. Fuck. Yes.

In any case, I certainly wasn't implying you ought to read it or need to read it. Not even close.

One of the most interesting things about this blog post is that you and I have so much more in common than I think you assumed... That is, the point I was going to make (if you'd told me if you'd read the book or not) was that I figured out why the body-image crap pisses me off so much. I happen to be *obsessed* with the fact that almost all the vulvas out there are bald—they were *not* that way when I was last single. The reason it angers me so much is because I don't play into it like I "should." And the point I would have made to you about my feelings about porn if you had continued the tweeting discussion had nothing to do with you, what you should read or shouldn't read, or anything even remotely connected with you beyond the fact that I think we have things in common.

So, it's an interesting blog post. And I'm sorry you get bothered by people who think you should do or read x or y or z whatever. I happen to be the same way about mass media events. I've never seen Lady Gaga, for example. I didn't see one single image from Haiti when the earthquake first hit. We all have to make choices about what we do with our time. Judging each other harshly when we make different choices is a total waste of time in my book.

Anyway, keep on with the good work. Not all feminists are assholes, by the way. :-)

Warmly,
TsaphanBabe
the sexually submissive feminist

I'm very interest in your work especially because as a newly single woman I'm seriously distressed that the only way women seem to be comfortable is with bald vulvas or something close to it. It's not like I even really *like* pubic hair, but, ffs, it almost looks abnormal now to have hair! Gahhh. Makes me really angry.

Anyway, glad I found you on these here www.

Enjoying your blog by the way, it's funny because I'm a hardcore feminist yet I agree with one hell of a lot you say. Keep up the awesome.

[links]"

Funny, as somebody who wasn't involved with S2.0, just reading your own posts about the topic looks to me *exactly* like you were carrying out some ideological policing and really dumping on Match for lack of ideological purity. While the whole bruhaha about the pole dancing stuff struck me as kind of petty, from the above posts, I can see exactly why some people are PO'd at you.

Oh, thanks for clarifying, in your condescending, passive-aggressive way. Now I understand that when I criticize you on my blog, it's a cruel personal attack, and when you criticize people on your blog, you're merely "raising concerns". Thanks for the laugh.

And actually, it so happens that I don't feel like you have any business whatsoever "raising concerns", since you abandoned Sex 2.0 after the first year and didn't participate in making it happen the second year. You don't get to bitch and moan about transparently-organized projects you refuse to contribute to. You had EXCEEDINGLY AMPLE opportunity to steer the vibe of the conference in whatever direction pleased you most- you could have done a session (or two), a pre- or post- con get-together, or reached out to potential speakers you do approve of and personally invited them to give a talk. Everyone was free to do whatever they pleased- the whole thing was organized on a list serve and Google docs where ANYONE could get their two cents in. If people didn't follow any of that, they still could sign up for leading a session the day of the conference. And what did you do? You sat back and "raised concerns" on your blog about how what other people worked hard to create just wasn't good enough for you, most notably the hard work of Match, the conference organizer.

What it looked like to me is that you wanted to sabotage the conference by starting it off with a dark cloud of drama because you just couldn't stand that a man could organize a sex-positive event as well, or even better, than your perfect enlightened feminist self did.

http://www.beingamberrhea.com/2009/04/28/thoughts-on-sex-20-past-present-and-future/

http://www.beingamberrhea.com/2009/04/30/thoughts-on-sex-20-thoughts/

I think a personal blog is the very definition of 'private' on the internet. Really classy coming along to someone's personal space and telling them what not to write about.

A lot of people know Amber is one of those cliquey feminist politicos. Still, she isn't the enemy by a long shot.

Yeah, what she did to Match was fucked up. She should own up to it. Still, this rant is kind of coming out of left field. Why start this kind of flame war?

A friend.

I've followed RevEv's blog for a while and I'm familiar with Amber's postings, and have gone over and read her blog a few times. Yes, Amber has a prickly personality that can definitely alienate people. That is unfortunately a common personality trait among online feminists in my estimation.

On the other hand, from the even the most casual reading of Amber's mentions of pole dancing, it was readily apparent that she was doing this as a 'civilian' and not a stripper. I have never mistaken her for a sex worker and never though she was trying to create that impression.

Well, you know me and feminism....I pretty much do not give a crap about feminism as it is on the net or lots of other places. You also know I think Match is a dang cool dude. WRT to Alexa, I have inentionally ignored a lot of the goings on because my drama meter is worn out at the moment...but I know I went through the whole spinner (still do on occasion) with the whole "she must be a man" "isn't a sex worker" thing myself.

But I feel like this I suppose...I can be a REAL asshole and have been in some REAL ugly throwdowns with people over all kinds of shit wrt Sex Worker Rights and Issues...and she's had my back. That goes a long, long way with me. I am not one of those folk who requires everyone get along because that shit just ain't gonna happen...but I will show loyalty and support for those who have done the same for me, esp if I consider them a good ally.

My main criticism of Amber's is her general sense of victim feminism, combined with - although I know we disagree on this - her insinuating that she's a sex worker. Amber's one of those liberal more-enlightened-than-thous who seems to devote herself to seeking out things to feel oppressed by so she can complain about them. (I wouldn't be surprised if Amber feels oppressed by tall buildings and ketchup bottles because they look too much like penises.) That annoys me to no end, and is emblematic of what's wrong with feminism in Western cultures in this day and age. It also annoys me that she can find a way to rationalize anything or anyone she disagrees with as "sexist"- which is hardly a good debate skill.

One example of this sort of victim feminism is Amber bragging on Twitter repeatedly about filing sexual harassment reports against male co-workers if they say anything not up to her standards of political correctness. I don't have the time to scroll back to 2008 to find the specific Tweets I'm talking about that made me decide to unfollow her over the issue. (For all I know she still does this- but I haven't followed her in over a year.) Crying wolf and filing frivolous sexual harassment complaints is a great big "fuck you" to people like me who have been actually sexually harassed, and it makes any woman in her workplace who has a genuine sexual harassment issue less likely to be believed. It doesn't make a one a tireless crusader for womankind to pretend to be oppressed, it devalues and mocks actual oppression. (That's a lesson I wish I could cram down the throats of a lot of people on the left side of the political spectrum, not just Amber.)

As I said before, Amber starting Sex 2.0 - which I do think is a great conference - was really negated in my mind by her attempt to sabotage the second conference because -gasp- a man organized it. If people want to talk about infighting and attacks on allies, looks no further than Amber's shit-talking on Match back in May of this year. Amber started Sex 2.0, and then decided she didn't want to organize one again. Match, being an awesome sex-positive guy and ally, took up the conference to make sure it didn't die after Amber moved on, and then was shat on for doing so. What a epic dick move on Amber's part. She pre-emptively decided that the conference organized by Match was going to suck, and attacked him in her blog for being a man and not identifying as a "feminist". She whined about how she didn't like the direction the conference was going in. But guess what? Amber didn't actually participate in making the conference more to her liking, or more feminist, or whatever- she didn't do anything constructive, she only attacked Match for not being good enough. It's absurd. Amber abandoned ship, but freaked out when she didn't like what other people were doing with the ship she abandoned. (Which, of course, she re-captured eventually. It was hilarious to read after the Match-organized Sex 2.0 conference that Amber had elected herself dictator of the Sex 2.0 Steering Committee Foundation, or whatever she calls it, so she can introduce a lot of bureaucracy to make sure that she's the one calling the shots in the future.)

And then here, with the Alexa issue, she dismissed the well-reasoned and multifaceted concerns of lots sex workers. That was what did it for me- this "ally" calling out *US* and telling sex workers what to do. Allies need to know their place, and as I've said repeatedly, that place is first and foremost to LISTEN to sex workers, not dismiss our concerns when they run counter to one's own opinions.

Yes, Amber does blog about supporting sex workers rights, but it's not like she's Arianna Huffington or some well-known web personality who can reach a millions of people with her posts. I appreciate even small acts of solidarity with sex worker issues, but really- some people act like Amber's this hugely influential person to have on "our" side. She's just another woman with a small blog about her daily life, and I'd hardly consider Amber's few good points to mean her bad points should pass without comment.

If we're needing actual examples at this point...okay.

She started Sex 2.0 which was a place where, I , sex worker, pretty much felt free to go and speak and not worry about being attacked.

Whenever I have been attacked by anti-sex work people, and it has happened a lot, she has had my back and come in to defend both me and the points I was making. Even called me out on my over the top viciousness from time to time which is not always a bad thing.

She has introduced me to other sex workers and other sex worker allies, and via her is how I actually met a whole lot of people invovled in the causes we all seem to participate in.

So yeah, there is more than "I like Amber" going on here.

You got a beef with someone from the movement, ally, worker, or former worker, do it in private.

In other words, get a room.

Lisa: *rolls eyes* You consider criticizing Amber's siding against sex workers to be a sob-worthy "step backwards", I consider Amber's history of fail, including her ATTACKING A SEX WORKER ALLY FOR HIS UNFATHOMABLY OFFENSIVE CRIME OF BEING A MAN, to be a step backwards. Looks like we disagree.

I continue to be amused that no one defends Amber's actual ACTIONS, but only iterate that they like her as a friend- which has nothing to do with the issues I've brought up. EVERYONE has friends somewhere, so Amber having friends is hardly a rebuttal to her having shitty politics. Way to prove me wrong that Amber coasts by with special exemption from criticism because she knows some of the right people.

I'll always wonder who's exposed more people to sex worker rights issues- Alexa or Amber? That would be an interesting metric of which faux ho blogger is more deserving redemption or damnation.

We have all made mistakes. The mistakes I have made that I regret to this day are the mistakes of turning what should be a political fight into a personal attack. Most especially if the personal attack is made against someone on our side-ally, worker or former worker. I am certain that everyone who has responded here has had their share of personal attacks from the anti-prostitution forces. We don't need to do that to eachother.

Consider this to be a step backward for all of us.

Btw, if anyone's wondering about my authenticity, they can ask a bunch of people. I'm using my real name right now, and I was at the Desiree Conference in 2006.I can even tell you about a prominent sex worker activist who has driven along with me to calls, if people want to check on me. So I may be a naive fool, but I am an escort. & as for Amber Rhea, I think we can dislike each other/disagree with each other, both allies and sex workers, without airing our proverbial dirty laundry in public.

I take it that Amber whiles away her day at her white collar tech job policing her male co-workers for any thoughts of which she disapproves, and then reporting them to human resources when they invariably accidentally offend her delicate sensibilities.

You've got me! Alert the authorities!

As to other nitpicks about what I may or may not have said or done, I'm not going to bother trying to "defend" myself. You'd think no one else in the world has ever chosen an imperfect word (I replied to Jenny on Twitter that I recognized that "feud" was not the best word). If, within a community, one can be drawn and quartered for using a less than ideal word, then that's not a community I'm interested in being a part of. Fortunately the sex workers' rights community is not a monolith and, as usual, I'll let people draw their own conclusions.

Caty: Well, I'll give this to you- you are the only sex worker who thinks Alexa isn't a fraud. So, even if the writer behind the Alexa blog is actually a sex worker, what about Alexa using another sex workers photographs and passing them off as her own? What about Alexa stealing photos from all sorts of adult sites and using them to get traffic to her blog? Even if she's a real escort, which is actually fairly irrelevant to me, she's a liar and a thief who rips off sex workers.

Jenny: Thank you for your comments- it's good to know there are three of us now who don't understand the glitter of Amber Rhea and are willing to say so in public.

Like Jenny, I also followed Amber for a while on Twitter, because so people I like respect her. I stopped following her when I just couldn't handle reading Amber tweeting about regularly filing fake sexual harassment reports against her male co-workers whom she doesn't like. I have been ACTUALLY sexually harassed in a workplace (as a teenager), and I wanted to reach through the computer and slap her on behalf of every woman who DOESN'T get believed about sexual harassment because of stupid liberal twits like Amber who abuse such accusations because of their own man-hating issues or PC oversensitivity or whatever motivates her. I take it that Amber whiles away her day at her white collar tech job policing her male co-workers for any thoughts of which she disapproves, and then reporting them to human resources when they invariably accidentally offend her delicate sensibilities. The straw that broke my back was when Amber reported two male colleagues for a conversation of theirs she was eavesdropping on where they were complaining about their wives nagging them too much, and one of them said something about how he just tunes his wife out now when she nags. REALLY? HOW THE HELL IS THAT *AMBER* BEING VICTIMIZED IN THE WORKPLACE? HOW IS THAT SEXISM? Amber's filing fake sexual harassment reports against men she doesn't like is a tangible blow to women everywhere so far as I'm concerned.

When I first joined Twitter I followed Amber, many of the people I knew and respected followed her, so I did too. I also believed initially she was a stripper, eventually realized she wasn't but it took a while to figure that out. I had attempted to engage Amber a few times and was unsuccessful. Eventually I unfollowed her because..

a. She wasn't sex worker (in the beginning I pretty much followed them exclusively)
b. Engaging her was useless
c. I wasn't really that interested in her feed overall

I never had any contact with or thought of Amber again until the other day whe she "@" replied me on twitter about "Princess Cariboo"

http://twitter.com/amberlrhea/status/6910990647

This I found really annoying for several reasons.

1. It assumes "Alexa" is a sex worker and totally discounts any of the concerns people had raised about her legitimacy as an escort.

2. It's scolding and judgmental

3. She called ME out by name (as if she knew me) and said I was in a "feud" when up until this point I had only said on my personal blog, a month prior that there were people pretending to be escorts online and I had NOT linked or said WHO I thought was doing it. In fact I know there are others besides "Alexa"

It was "Alexa" who had strangely linked me in her "rebuttal" (3 times) when I was but one of several girls Monica Shores had interviewed about writing a sex worker blog. So it looked as if "Alexa" was where Amber was getting her information.

She was distressed? Over what she said was my personal "Vilification" of a ghost. I responded back at her with a couple of my thoughts and that was that.

Part of this issue is people who are not sex workers trying to be the "face of sex workers" and telling us how to act. I felt as if Amber, not a sex worker just had told me how to act. I dont know who Amber's friends are and really I dont care. Is she a friend to sex workers? I dunno, in that instance she was certainly a friend to "Alexa"

Jenny

The proliferation of all this bullshit about Alexa (and also about my local colleague) has really dismayed me. We have more important things to think about as a movement. If only I wrote in my blog more often, so I could make a pt of NOT writing a post about this!

I think we're all pretty free to draw whatever conclusions we want about Amber, Alexa, you and anyone else. I'm guessing Amber is giving Alexa the benefit of a doubt. That's perfectly fine with me because Amber is her own person and makes up her own mind. She also behaves according to her own personality and code of conduct, not mine (or yours). I haven't met a human being yet who hasn't mistreated someone else and that includes me.

Dec 17 was just a week ago. There are much bigger issues at stake.

XX

Thing is, sex workers are not an monolith...we're pretty diverse. WE cannot even all agree on How All Shit Should Be Done, so...what? Allies are supposed to back ALL? Me, I don't see that happening I mean, FFS, Melissa Farely considers herself an "ally"...do I want her around? NO.

As for Amber and "insuation"...whatever. Amber is pretty damn blatant about NOT being a sex worker.

The issue is- what about when "allies" side AGAINST sex workers? Amber dismissed the very valid criticisms by real sex workers of Alexa's lies and blatant thievery because that didn't fit into Amber's own theory of how sex workers should behave.

I'm not anti-ally at all. I'm bothered by people who call themselves allies siding against us and telling us what's what. That's not the role of an ally. Their primary function, above all, is to LISTEN to sex workers- not blithely dismiss us when our concerns run counter to their own personal philosophies and opinions.
It's interesting to me that no one has defended Amber's (most recent) shitty BEHAVIOR, but only said "she's my friend, I like her."

As an actual sex worker, I'm glad to have allies like Amber who contribute their time/energy to our cause and work to understand the issues we face. I don't think there's anything "faux" about it. White people marched in the Civil Rights movement and straight people support their gay friends when they come out of the closet. That's why they're identified as "allies."

XX

Enjoy the pissing contest.

However, I can say I've never seen Amber, ever, try and pass herself off as a sex worker and often seen her say flat out she is an ally, not a sex worker. She pole dances for exercise and fun...so? I will also personally testify to the fact that at least in my case, she's been one hell of an ally and often one of the first people on the scene when I am getting eviscerated in attempts to defend my rights to do (and like) my job. I'll admit I glossed/glazed over a lot of the Sex 2.0 drama because, well, I felt like it. I like Amber, I like Match, so be it. But if Amber "needs" actual sex workers to stand up and say "um, yeah, I consider her a real ally" then I guess I am here doing it because I think of her that way...because that is how she's conducted herself with me. WHich hey, goes a long way in my book.

You keep saying I've insinuated that I'm a stripper, even though I've never done that. *shrug* You can go on believing it, if you wish, even though it's completely made up. Your argument seems to be, "She says [x], but *I* know she REALLY means [y]!" Be sure to keep me apprised of how that special insight continues to work out for you in interactions w/ people.

Her sole rebuttal here that my criticism of her actions is invalid because I don't like her. So, according to that logic, if I disagree with Gail Dines, an anti-porn activist whom I also dislike, is my criticism made null and void?

Since the "but you dislike me!" is nearest thing Amber has to leg to stand on in this debate, people should ask themselves why. It's not like I just randomly hate people and stir up internet drama to amuse myself, or that I dislike Amber because she stole my boyfriend or some petty personal issue.

I dislike Amber, in short, because of her insinuations that she's a stripper to gain credibility, because of her caricatured brand of feminism that says that anyone who criticizes any woman is an evil sexist pig, because she ripped Match a new asshole and pissed all over a conference he organized BEFORE IT EVEN HAPPENED, and most recently, because she DISMISSED THE OPINIONS AND CONCERNS OF THE SEX WORKER COMMUNITY because they didn't fit into her "analysis" of how Amber, as an outsider, thinks we should act in unquestioning solidarity with thieves and liars. That last one really did it in for me, and took me from casually disliking her to being truly pissed off.

When put to a test, Amber obviously don't care about listening to sex workers if the opinions of sex workers differ from her own- she cares about asserting Amber Rhea's own vision of how sex workers should act. It's just more of the same paternalistic bullshit that I despise- WHOMEVER it comes from, "ally" or anti.

I guess I want to start by saying that I'm happy to find a public place to have more of a substantial conversation this week. I haven't wanted to post at any of the other blogs or do anything to really feed the attention frenzy that's been created for people that I don't care to be associated with, regardless of how fake or real they are.

But these conversations do need to be happening and I'm happy to see people that I trust here weighing in on a new level. I'm very, very sad about the nature of it all and I don't want to downplay that, so I'm just acknowledging that this sucks for everybody and moving on.

I respect Furry Girl's position here and actually appreciate that she's pretty much acknowledged that she's got an issue with Amber that is deeper than any tangible harm Amber had committed. Furry Girl, I hear ya on some of the stuff in general and your filters for BS are right on in a general sense. But I really don't and never have felt that Amber is misrepresenting. In fact, while reading your post I flashed back to the countless times I've seen Amber post a comment starting out with: "I'm an ally, not a worker and here's what I think..."

I feel like she's been transparent and I'd dispute any claim that she's not credible. Which is not what you're saying really I feel, you actually just don't like her. It's fine for you two not to like each other. I wish I would have contributed to helping heal some of these issues back when we were all in DC because I was aware of their festering. Hindsight, hm. You're both awesome, I've enjoyed reasonable disagreements with both of you and found you both to be true to your word. I don't expect many of your mutual friends to take sides on this. It's gonna blow over.

So- what I want to talk about also with you lovelies is the actual real issue that I have with the recent drama.

New girls are out there all over the place looking for info and pursuing big, sometimes unrealistic dreams. Real people are putting their real lives on the line to make changes to keep us all safer. It's a lot easier for girls who are out of the biz and can say "former" obviously, but the girls still in the biz are scared and feel threatened. And people seeking legitimate advice/support don't know what's real and what's not. How do we support and be accountable to/as people who are keeping it real without it having to be this polarized "this one is real BECAUSE this one is fake" situation?

I don't want to be caught up in all of the catty drama, alluring as though it may be. But I feel strongly called to send a lifeline out to people who feel lost or alone or just in need of something to relate to who are not finding genuine, experienced people through popularized outlets. It seems like our various respective projects have always had this aim at the core, but I wonder if there's an unseen gap somewhere that if filled would curb some of this fallout? I don't know, I don't have a solution to offer up, I just needed to get out of my own head about this and find a place to discuss it with rational people.

And finally, just to get this fucking peeve off my chest:

Who trusts an individual that accuses a group of people (whome she refuses to actually meet) disorganized as a defense?!?!? I'm sorry, but "I've never met any of those people, but screw them they're disorganized anyway" is juvenile and demonstrates a serious weakness of character. Add that to the many other weak-character traits demonstrated in that fucking response. I'd be more mad if it didn't all make me laugh so hard.

Thanks for providing space for this semi-off topic rant. I'd love to respond to thoughtful, useful responses here. But if people come here to have a pissing contest I'm going back into my hole and ignoring this shit.

Best to Furry Girl and Amber and the NY peeps. xo

This post was mentioned on Twitter by furrygirl: My own Alexa-ish blog post, "Speaking of faux ho bloggers, what about Amber Rhea?": http://vb.ly/10jy...

Yeah, this whole post is about how I don't like people supporting sex worker's rights- you totally have my real agenda figured out.

I don't see you as a faux ho with lousy politics because I dislike you, I dislike you BECAUSE you're a faux ho with lousy politics.

As for Alexa, I wouldn't say I'm an "ardent supporter." I had not been following the drama, and was confused when I saw posts about it coming thru Twitter. I offered my support to Alexa because I figured as an ally to sex workers and a non-sex worker myself, it's not my place to judge or to be the arbiter or who is or isn't a sex worker, and better to give the benefit of the doubt. That's pretty much been the extent of my involvement. I exchanged some @ messages back and forth w/ a few people, trying to understand the backstory. Not much else.

Anyway. This post sounds like "Waaaah I don't like Amber." Which is fine. I'm just not sure why you needed to take so many words to say it.

"Alexa" is a non- sex worker who has made many posts in support of sex workers. Amber is a non- sex worker who has made many posts in support of sex workers. They're both faux hos to different degrees, but I don't see them as terribly different.

The only nice thing I have to say about Amber is that she started the Sex 2.0 conferences. However, that is practically negated in my mind. Want to talk divisive bullshit? Try Amber's blatantly jealous attack on Match for single-handedly organizing the amazing second Sex 2.0 conference, where she slung drama at him by pre-emptively deciding the event would be shitty because she deems Match to be less liberal and enlightened that her. FUCK THAT. Match is too much of a gentleman to piss back at her on the matter, but, well- I'm no gentleman, and I will.

I never made a "plea" to "stop" faux ho gossip on Twitter. I'm sorry if it bothers you that I proposed that we use a donation to the St. James Infirmary as a "swear jar" for ALL OF OUR EXPENDED ENERGY on the latest drama making the rounds. I hate to sound overly self-righteous here, but wouldn't it be nice if every time there was some epic sex blogger drama, all participants and commenters on the drama made a "swear jar" contribution to a nonprofit that does tangible good for sex workers? Melissa, I appreciate your work as an activist, but you're one of the people who'd be making the most contributions to a sex blogger drama swear jar.

Audacia:

I know Amber's one of your close friends, but I'm not going to refrain from calling her out just because I like you. I could write for DAYS about the things Amber has said that I don't like, but I've avoided commenting about her in public until now. Practically everyone else was already aware that I despise Amber- so, no offense, this isn't as out of left field as you might think. I just never brought it up with you because I didn't see anything productive coming out of that, for either of us. (I am hardly alone in having criticisms of Amber. Others just don't say them within earshot of you.)

To my knowledge, Alexa has never done anything of substance to support sex workers' rights, whereas Amber actually has. In addition, Amber has done so under her real name, in real publics, where she has dealt with real ramifications of her activism.

I don't have to agree with every take a sex worker advocate/ally has on sex work in order to honor that they take risks to support me. Likewise, I don't think Amber gains credibility, as you claim, as a "pretend" sex worker so much as she has had to put up with an attacks for the supportive work she has done.

Additionally, I would never say that your fundraising for St. James Infirmary is unwelcome -- but to offer it as a campaign on Twitter in a plea to "stop the faux ho gossip" -- on the heels of writing this post about Amber? That seems nothing but divisive.

And honestly, about blogging too. If someone is worried about someone finding their blog, they WILL find it.

If you're ashamed of what you're doing, or people finding out what you're doing, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

Incidentally, I think I followed you from my Twitter account at one time. Thanks for being sex-positive.

Regardless, I'm glad he wasn't angry.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by furrygirl: I wrote a new blog post, "Daddy's little capitalist", about my dad finding out I do porn: http://vb.ly/5n7...

Good luck to you.

I'm getting into the Panty selling business, and I hope my father doesn't find out. We'll see what happens.

I've known a few workers in the sex industry, mostly back when they were college lasses doing the stripper thing for a buck. And it was always interesting to see the contrast between the highly intelligent, interesting, motivated women I knew and the shallow-end bottom-feeders that ran the clubs and so forth. (Not to even bother mentioning the clientele...)

So even the idea that someone could be approaching the industry from the standpoint of intelligence and reasonable ethics is -- absolutely fascinating. I wish you all the very best with your ventures, and I'll be keeping an eye on this blog simply out of ongoing curiosity. It would be marvellous to think that someone could really turn a buck on smart, ethical behaviour inside porn.

But getting back to the topic, if your so deride this person for not linking to you (which is fairly common practice among the narrow minded, new atheist blogs have it done to them all the time), why didn't you link to them so we can see the femanazi in action mode?

When we have hired more well known models they have always been happy to work for our (very reasonable) rates because they aren't divas and they like to work. And realistically there are huge regional differences in sex work wages. The labor is no different, but I'm only going to make small change at the titty bar in some dusty small town while I would make $$$$ in Las Vegas for the same thing. We can't pay what Vivid is paying and they understand that. We're also not doing the same things and we aren't expecting them to douche, enema, and put in 8 hours on a shoot.

I think one of the big issues about money and sex work is when people are doing it just for the money. But then a big issue with any sort of labor is when people are doing it just for the money. If I take any square job because I just really need the money I'm going to be miserable and feel exploited because I'm doing it out of desperation. I guess that being nude and in sexual situations makes people feel more vulnerable so it seems like more of a problem than being exploited by sprawl-mart.

McDonalds, Wal-mart and tons of others pay their lawyers huge sums of money to beat back those legal challenges and to fix the laws in state and federal governments. I made no mention of any guaranteed success. Some large industries are very good at screwing employees. They spend good money to continue to do so - and it's still a savings over paying their employees better.

However, some industries have had success getting the attention of OSHA or a union or an advocate of some sort to alter the relationship with their employer. There are no guarantees there, either.

You seem to be pretty reasonable, decent and forthright with your terms and employees. Some will like it and some won't, but it really won't be because you did something wrong. Who knows? Maybe you'll end up making a huge, positive impact in labor relations in the Adult industry.

btw...great post - as always.

-arvan

Huh, I don't see how you reached that conclusion. Walmart, McDonalds, any industrial agriculture company, any company that makes a lot of money, really, tends to have a lot of money precisely because they pay workers very poorly and offer little/no benefits, and use sweatshop labor or employ migrant workers for a fraction of the country's minimum wage. To be overly broad, the more financially successful a company is, the less it probably pays workers and the more likely they are to engage in exploitative labor practices.

Which, of course, if why I like being a small business, and prefer stocking products in my store from other small businesses, rather than just carrying the "natural lube" from XYZ Mega China Corp.

There are a lot of industries where the owner of a business is under no pressure to be direct or honest with the employees (restaurants, nightclubs, bars, small businesses of all sorts...). It seems like you will run into the same arguments about the topic that are steeped in the details of Adult. That is the language and topic of your daily workplace.

The issues you describe, sound to me (and I'm no expert) like those of a small business owner in an industry that has unregulated employee standards. No unions, no state or federal regulations, no public advocacy calls for standard compensation.

You're a small business owner and it will fall onto your shoulders to navigate your way through all of that. Hopefully with your integrity intact.

-arvan

I realize I don't pay the most in the adult industry, but VegPorn.com and EroticRed.com also don't make much money. They're niche sites that I run because I care about them, not because I think they'll make me rich.

Also, if I pay $100 for something that Kink.com pays $500 for, I'm still paying out a greater percentage of my web site's sales, so I don't feel like I'm ripping anyone off. I think that's another issue people don't take into account- the overall ratios of what a small company pays versus what a large company pays, compared to their profits.

I agree that judging based on fame is absurd, especially in the adult industry where there are so many differing degrees of fame. After all, having achieved fame in "mainstream" hardcore doesn't necessarily make you any more desirable of an asset in the alt scene, it could even work against you. Anyway, keep doing what you're doing, the adult community could learn a lot from you.

Laughing here. I'm a writer - very minor, as yet - in SF, fantasy, and so forth. And every time somebody asks me about it, sooner or later we get around to the bit where they want to tell me about their novel. And how they really ought to publish it. And who do I think they should see, once they've written it?

Nobody ever assumes that the task of writing a decent novel might be something that could take both talent and skill. You see, everybody speaks the language, right? And anybody can mash the keys on a word-processor, write a shopping list, send an email to grandma, right? So naturally, writing a novel is just an extension of existing skills...

... you have my sympathy. And for whatever it's worth, my respect. I've got no idea of your skills in the porn industry, but you're articulate and thoughtful, and it was a hoot stumbling across this site. All the best.
df

People are always surprised when a prostitute or porn star is a normal healthy person without addictions or mental illness.

So Sally Hemings liaison with Thomas Jefferson is a different situation than the one Celia, a slave in MO, had with her master. He raped her repeatedly for five years. She finally ended up killing him and burning him up in her fireplace. She was hanged for the murder.

There's some violence for ya.

No nightmares for me, and I get paid $50. I wonder how much Diablo got paid to be on display like a zoo animal.

And I would also recommend A List Apart to those unfamiliar with the practice of web design.

Those lines from you sum up a how I feel about a lot of "feminist analyses" of sexuality.

@Alexa: Many of them are polite about bugging me for free sex, but I still find it irritating. (My site plainly states right next to my contact info that they are NOT to email to ask to have sex with me.) These guys lack the social maturity to understand that just because they want to have sex with ME, I don't automatically want to have sex with THEM. Some of then seriously can't wrap their heads around that, and will "argue" by pointing out how badly they desire to fuck me after I reject them.

I also get random dudes sending me photos of their junk, with the message, "Now you owe me a free membership since I shared with you". They don't seem to understand the most basic principal of economics: it's only valuable is someone wants to pay for it. Photos of the crotches of random middle-aged men aren't worth anything, but the market says that photos of me are worth a $20 membership fee. Likewise, I wish they could figure out that if the market has said that *photos* of me are a commodity that people pay for, *actual sex* with me would be a commodity priced much higher. If a postcard of Paris costs you a dollar, I don't know why people would expect the trip to Paris itself would be free.

I wonder if other types of sex workers ever get this, or is it just a porn chick thing?

Speaking only for myself (as an escort), I don't generally. It's painfully obvious from the get-go that I charge for my time, regardless of how it is spent, so I don't have to deal with the kind of bullshit you're describing here.

What I do get is a lot of guys wanting to "meet me for coffee or tea" to see if the chemistry works, blah, blah, blah. I have to remind them that I charge for my time, not for specific services. I still think that's a lot less bullshitty than what you have to deal with. I know other women who have sites like this that have described the *exact* same thing to me.

I love the armchair businessmen. Every industry has them, ours are just stickier.

It's even funnier when they're also crying poor. I'm always tempted to point out that if their business acumen is so fantastic, they should take their own advice, hang out a shingle and start making enough money to afford me.

I am not the Mother Teresa of adult. If they can't afford me, it's not *my* fault. Thanks for posting this.

There are sites out there that will give him what he wants, but he'll have to pay way more than $20 a month for them. Your fee is more than reasonable for the amount of content you carry. He sounds like a major asshat.

So true. That is why I'm an anarchist and not a feminist.

Here's to quashing controlling hierarchies.

-arvan

"No, complete stranger, I am not a sex worker because I was raped as a child, but fuck you very much for assuming that it's any of your business to ask in the first place. And even if I had been raped, how exactly does that invalidate my career choice?"

It reminds me of the "unpacking your gender privilege" list where one of the items is like, "You're privileged if you've never had a stranger ask you out of nowhere what your genitals look like and how you have sex."

Same thing for sex workers: strangers think it's their right to demand to know our histories of sexual abuse or assault, but you wouldn't see them do that to non-sex workers.

I *love* that. I'm going to have to remember it and use it when I encounter those kinds of dimwits. :lol:

I'll be writing a bit about the Sex Worker Film Festival soon- I've been out of town for two weeks and still dealing with a big backlog of other things.

Your writing is wonderful. I like the grade school papers, too! And yes, I was riveted to Phil's history lessons, too.

I am tempted to be a "feminisn't," along the lines you describe so eloquently. But there is something about the years I came out, politically and sexually, in the 70s-- as a teenager-- that merged sexual liberation and women's liberation for me. I was sincerely shocked by sex-negative feminism, because I considered myself to be holding the driver's keys... how could "they" kick "me" out, when I'd been plowing down the highway since before they woke out of their coma? So I can't quite go where you've gone... but I like to live vicariously.

Will you be writing a review of your time at the Film Fest? I'd love to hear about that from your POV

I’d also note that, at least from my experience, good porn often encourages the viewer to subjectify the people in it. When I watch someone else experiencing sexual pleasure, it’s more a case of participating vicariously in their pleasure rather than being thrilled by the outward signs of it.

Hey FG,

I certainly knew who you were and was trying my best not to be the creepy fan-girl whilst still really excited to meet you. Love your site and your words, you're awesome!

The study may be bogus to begin with, but even assuming it's valid their reasoning is completely invalid.

The only conclusion that could be drawn from the results presented is "some sex offenders have looked at pornography". To show a correlation (not a cause!) you would need to compare "has looked at pornography" between sex offenders and others. To show a cause, you would need to have two sizable groups of people, have only one of them look at pornography, and then compare the proportions that become sex offenders.

As important as peer-reviewed research is, but correct reasoning is crucial.

Related: Less Wrong is a lovely community blog devoted to rationality,

I was nice to hear you proudly proclaim your non-feminism, but sadly the audience and the panel pretty much ignored your comments. They had bigger fish to fry and the jaded ranting of some longhair wasn't going to slow them down.