While I still say that Jasmine in Independence Day reigns supreme when it comes to a positive, realistic portrayal of a sex worker in a mainstream movie, I wanted to do some gender balancing and write about another favorite sex worker character.  I asked my Twitter followers if they could guess my favorite man ho, and no one could.  Like Jasmine in Independence Day, this character is from a family-friendly, big-budget movie, not a "kooky" comedy, a thriller/horror where a cliche killer targets sex workers, or a movie that's R-rated and centers on sex work as a titillating plot device to illustrate how fucked up a person is, like the depression porn that is Leaving Las Vegas.

My favorite "male" fictional sex worker character is the android prostitute Gigolo Joe from Steven Spielberg's Artificial Intelligence, played by Jude Law.  (Law played a sex worker in another favorite entertainment, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.  The saying on my blog, next to my photo, is a quote from that book/movie describing the bisexual hustler Danny: "A good time not yet had by all."  However, that's a true crime book/movie, not a favorite character of fiction.)

Artificial Intelligence is a retelling of Pinocchio set in the not-so-distant future where realistic androids, called "mecha," have become a normal part of the servant class relied upon by wealthier people.  A tech company decides to test a prototype mecha child, named David, which is the first of its kind programmed to feel genuine love and permanently imprint on a set of parents.  This scifi fairy tale follows David's quest to find "the blue fairy" from the children's book, whom he believes can turn him into a real boy as she did Pinocchio.  David does all sorts of charming and precocious things as he bonds with the family of one of the company's employees, but things go awry when the couple's biological son torments David until he repeatedly creates dangerous situations while trying to defend himself from the cruelty of humans.  Rather than having him destroyed as they're supposed to, David's human "mother" cares about him enough to set him free in the woods, where he has no idea what dangers await him.  After being discarded, David meets a "lover mecha" named Gigolo Joe as the two flee from both the police and a luddite band that captures and destroys mecha for amusement, all while searching for David's mythical blue fairy so he can "become real" in order to win his "mother's" affections.

What I like best about Artificial Intelligence is that it poses questions.  I don't really have a stance on ethics of artificial life, but I look forward to seeing such debates play out in the coming decades.  What rights or considerations, if any, would you want to extend to artificial life form?  Is "violence" against an android immoral?  These topics have been dealt with via Lt. Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation, the rapes of sexy "female" cylons in Battlestar Galactica, the uprising of machines in The Matrix, and other science fiction stories that ask questions about our moral obligations to technology that we create to be our slaves.  I like the addition of sex work to the topic, which seems like a natural progression, since we all know that as soon as we get new technologies, we rush to figure out how to have sex with it or use it to create or transmit porn.

But, what does the movie say about sex workers, especially this particular android sex worker?  I've edited some of Gigolo Joe's most relevant scenes into the 13-minute clip below.  Above all, I love that a family-friendly movie has a small "child's" only real friend be an fugitive hooker who never expresses a single desire to "escape" his occupation/programming.  (Unlike David, who desperately wants to be more than what he is.  Being an cute and loving mecha child is a terrible curse, but being a mecha prostitute is apparently pretty awesome.)  I also like the idea of stripping away the boring "...but why did you turn out this way?" sad-story-time character development normally seen in movies with sex workers.  Gigolo Joe wasn't the product of a broken home and molestation and forced sex trafficking, he is was created because human society needs prostitutes.  The fact that so many "lover mecha" seem to exist in this world speaks to the profession's permanence and the important role sex workers (be they android or human) fill in society.  Gigalo Joe isn't so much a character as an inextricable part of us.  Very bold stuff for a family-friendly movie to be insinuating.  It's an outsider story where the sex worker character is not an outsider because of his occupation, but because he is not flesh-and-blood, and that deep divide is the serious one, not sex worker versus civilian.

The only thing the movie is sorely lacking with this character is explaining how exactly Gigolo Joe's financial structure is set up.  Is he an independent sentient who keeps his fee, or does he have some kind of agency, renting him out like a DVD?  And what does a mecha prostitute spend his money on, anyway?  These are the answers we need!

Click the screenshot to watch the .mov file in your browser, or click here to download and watch in Quicktime (.mov) format, which is 22mb.  Spoilers about the movie contained within, obviously.

What this movie tells us about sex workers, Gigolo Joe, and the society that created him:

* Sex workers can be patient and compassionate lovers.
* Sex workers can be amateur therapists.
* Sex workers can encourage people to leave abusive partners and find something better.
* Sex workers appreciate tips from motel owners about how to avoid danger.
* Sex workers can tailor their appearance and demeanor to please different clients.
* Sex workers sometimes have to deal with vengeful, crazy spouses of their clients.
* Sex workers don't like licensing schemes, and will operate illegally if it keeps them safer.
* Sex workers aren't shy about listing their best qualities for you.
* Sex workers can participate in quests to help others realize their deepest desires.
* Sex workers can be very resourceful and know where to go in town to find anything.
* Sex workers can get a lot of business from conflicted religious people.
* Sex workers can get arrested.  (And if you're a good friend, you'll spring them from police custody.)
* Sex workers instinctively know how to operate futuristic helicopter submarines.
* Sex workers can be heroes who help people in times of need.
* Sex workers are safe to have around even the most adorable children.

"Browsing through the most gorgeous ties I'd ever seen I realized what was bothering me.  Growing up I was taught that the worst thing you could be if you were a man was a queer, and the worst thing you could be if you were a woman was a whore.  Then came my moment of epiphany: It was now my mission to have the time of my life being both.  No one but my closest friends would ever know I was doing this - it's not like I'd ever write a book about it.  And doing something so stigmatized, detested, and illegal, which already described my life as a gay man, also felt like a way to accord my country the same disregard it accorded me.  It wasn't as if being a monogamous gay man in love was seen as any better, so fuck it, I'll be a gigalo.  I took two ties to the cashier and handed the clerk a hundred-dollar bill.  Good riddance to the hungry years."

-- Richard Berkowitz, in his book, Stayin' Alive: The Invention of Safe Sex.

"...SCTNow, along with similar anti-trafficking concerns, uses a simplistic language of good and evil in its discussions of trafficking.  In this way, its selling of the anti-trafficking movement closely mirrors the selling of the 'War on Terror' in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.  Instead of untangling the resentment against American imperialism built up globally through centuries of exploitation, many Americans rushed to accept the nonsensical explanation, put forth by politicans and pundits, that terrorists 'hate us because they hate freedom.'  We wanted enemies that we could name and locate so that we might destroy them, not lessons in humility and self-reflection.  Likewise, today’s mainstream anti-trafficking movement appeals to middle-class Americans with the idea that trafficking happens because there are bad people out there just waiting to take your kids away from schools and malls.  Thus, its prevention efforts focus less on the systemic realities of poverty, racism, domestic abuse, and the dire circumstances surrounding runaway and thrownaway youth, and more on installing high-tech security cameras at schools and stationing more security guards at malls.  And it measures the success of its activities by the number of criminal convictions it achieves, rather than by the long-term health and well-being of the women and children who are most at risk."

-- Emi Koyama, in Trade Secrets on bitchmagazine.org

It's been a busy month, but I wanted to post a photo from last week's Google protest in Seattle.  The protest was just myself and @ishfery, a sex worker I'd previously only met on Twitter.  (And, ornery cunt that I am, I'd wondered if she was real, since "in a post-Alexa world," I've come to suspect all sex worker bloggers who don't post photos of themselves are possibly creepy dudes.)

If you haven't already, check out the Google campaign page on SWAAY.org.

The protest of two went well, and I was certainly happy to not be alone.  Being a lone protester makes you look like some kind of crazy trying to "educate" people about 9/11 being an inside job or something.  One protester is a nutjob, two protesters are lovable underdogs.  While I can make a banner I can hold by myself, it's hard to hold a banner straight and hand out fliers at the same time.  What this photo doesn't show is that I had another sign on my back, hastily tied onto my scarf, reading, "Google Don't Be Evil!"  The reason for the sign on my back was not just so Google employees in the building could see it, but because a little birdy alerted me to the fact that Google Seattle's web cam covered this portion of the bridge.

We probably handed out about 100 fliers, and had some really position conversations.  One woman introduced herself as a budding filmmaker in the early stages of putting together a documentary about the partners of sex workers, and the troubles she was having trying to find people willing to go on camera to talk about those dynamics.  A number of Google employees either emailed/tweeted, or said supportive things in person.  One took a stack of fliers to hand out in the building.  (At the end of the protest, I went to give the reception desk fliers to explain why we were there, and they already had them.)  Everyone was extremely nice and interested, and the only detractor was a homeless-looking older man who told us to get a "real job."  It sounds like the San Francisco and LA protests went well, too, and SWOP Bay Area has some photos online.

I'm now wondering what the next step should be.  It being the Christian holy month, the world is half shut down until early January, so trying to do anything this week would be pointless.  I'm curious if another round of protests is something people are interested in, and when to schedule that.  (Second week of January, I'm assuming, since many people go out of town for Christmas and New Years.)  I'm also wondering about effective ways to utilize internet-based activism as a part of this campaign.  I am steadfastly against pointless, masturbatory "activism" like e-petitions, and with Google being such a massive company that doesn't exactly engage in dialog with the public, it's hard to know where to focus energies.

What I do know is that I'm happy to be working on a campaign that engages in real solidarity with sex workers in the developing world.  Though Google's shitty NGOs do things that harm sex workers right here in America, the brunt of their harm us directed as the poorest and most marginalized people in the world.  Some of the current crop of sex worker "activists" engage in "activism" in the form of attacking people online about which words they're allowed to use and how awful they ought to feel about the erratically-defined issue of "privilege," but it's just bullshit posturing that accomplishes nothing other than making a few people feel self-righteous.  If you surveyed sex workers in the developing world and asked what American activists could do to help them, I'm pretty sure that not one respondent would beg us to spend more of our time bludgeoning each other with freshman-level identity politics and feminist dogma on Twitter.  I love having an issue around which we have discuss the tangible effects of neocolonialism and Western do-gooderism, and what it really means when these NGOs say they want to "rescue" sex workers.  I don't know where the campaign will lead, and if we'll be able to pressure Google into supporting non-missionary, harm-reduction and rights-based services for sex workers, but this is the general direction I'd like to see American sex worker activism go.

My friend Jacob Appelbaum made a comment during his talk about Tor at a nerd convention that stuck with me because it concisely and politely explains what white Western political folk like myself should be doing with our time: "You should consider using your privilege to help other people."

I've spent almost the entire last 5 days researching the groups that Google is now funding.  Please see the campaign page and read something I've put a lot of time info!

Why are sex workers' rights supporters upset with Google?

Google announced last week that they are making the largest-ever corporate donation to "ending modern day slavery": an impressive $11.5 million dollars. We applaud and support Google's desire to fight slavery, forced trafficking, and exploitative labor conditions, but Google's funding recipients include three NGOs that cause serious harm to sex workers in around the world: International Justice Mission, Polaris Project, and Not for Sale. As small sex worker support services struggle for funding to serve their communities, it is offensive to watch Google shower money upon a wealthy faith-based group like the International Justice Mission, which took in nearly $22 million dollars in 2009 alone. (In contrast, the St. James Infirmary, a San Francisco clinic that provides free healthcare to sex workers, operated on only $335k in 2010.)

Does Google know what their money is really supporting? Let's take a look at what you won't read about on the front pages these groups' glossy web sites.

Continue >>>

Also, I'll be protesting outside of Google's Seattle building on Wednesday from 2-4pm (on the bridge next to it, to be specific).  There are also protests in other locations, too, so check the campaign page.  Please join me so I don't have to feel like a lonely sad protester.

This morning, I saw a tweet from a nerd that I knew was going to mean bad news: Google is donating $11.5 million to "fight modern slavery".  And what have we learned that politically-loaded phrase usually means?  It means "fighting to imprison and further criminalize vulnerable sex workers in the developing world."

Looks like the next campaign idea I've been looking to find for SWAAY has just popped up.

In the next few days, I'll have a better idea for a response to Google getting into the anti-sex worker business under the banner of "stopping sex slave trafficking," but for now, I'd appreciate any more information on the groups I'm not familiar with.  For one, I'm not sure if I even have a full list of the organizations Google is funding, so if you know someone at Google, I'd appreciate having them check.  Google's own charity giving web site has the list below, but I'm not sure if it's a complete one.  It's not exclusively anti-sex worker groups, but IJM, the Polaris Project, and Not For Sale are known foes.

ActionAid India
Aide et Action
BBC World Service Trust
Slavery Footprint
International Justice Mission
La Strada International
Not for Sale
Polaris Project
GoodWeave

Please post information in my comments area, I want to flesh out this subject so we know who exactly Google is funding, and what those groups do to sex workers to "save" them.  If you're not already familiar with how Western NGOs hurt sex workers in the developing world, please browse the video collection at Sex Workers Present, which is mostly from South East Asia.

"On the subject of ethics in sex work research, we usually think of the insensitivity and careerism of researchers whose interest is in obtaining information they will take credit for.  I want to point to another problematic angle: the issue of whether those being researched are honest with researchers.  Why, after all, should people who are being treated as objects of curiosity tell the truth?

[...]

To put it another way, keeping secrets may help sex workers gain independence or control over projects to help them.  Talking about sexual risks with people who think it's wrong to ever take any risks may cause them to treat you as irresponsible.  Admitting the desire to stay in sex work after getting out of the clutches of abusers can render you ineligible for victim-protection programmes.  The best policy may be to omit certain information from responses or to put on the expected front.

-- Dr Laura Agustín, in Alternate Ethics, or: Telling Lies to Researchers on lauraagustin.com

If you don't already follow the funny/sad/personal Sex Worker Problems blog, I will agan remind you to do so.  There was a post with a question about how to explain gaps in your resume if you move out of sex work and apply for straight jobs, and I shared my two cents about one could tackle that problem.

I’m almost 28, and I’ve been a sex worker since I was 18.  I have no plans to leave sex work any time soon, but the “what would I tell potential employers” thing always seemed like a no-brainer to me, so long as one doesn’t mind lying.  Here are two completely plausible lies that a potential straight employer has no way of disproving...

Read the rest here.

"...I got a job as a 'featured extra' in a brothel scene for the pilot of a TV show starring an Australian Dane Cook equivalent.  Over several takes with each camera angle, I had to walk by as he tells my character, 'Sorry you knew your uncle too well!'  The entire crew went wild the first time they heard it.  Everyone in the room was all, 'BRA-VO!' like he was the Neil Armstrong of sex worker incest jokes.  The general public—the same people who think Sasha Grey shouldn’t be allowed to read Dog Breath to kids—are probably going to think it's totally hilarious and 'edgy.'  I didn't laugh once at any of the lines in two days of shooting.  Comedy is my passion, yet I felt like an old schoolmarm.  I was one of the only people who couldn’t see the emperor’s new clothes...

The opposite of bro jokes isn't a humorless PC academia bubble; it's good jokes."

-- Kat, in The Morning After Podcast on titsandsass.com  (Also see her personal blog at katstories.tumblr.com)

In a similar vein: Danny Wylde recently wrote about serious gross creepiness he experienced while working in a mainstream entertainment environment.

If there's one thing the Occupy movement has taught us, it's that lots of people have a very poor grasp of logic.  For example, the most common rebuttal to my disagreement with Occupy is something like, "Oh, so you love fascist police states?" or "Why do you hate the poor?"  This one is called false dichotomy - creating two fake "sides" and painting your opponent as having only two choices.  (Another example: people who claim you're either a feminist or a misogynist, and that there is no other option.)

To help my readers better understand common fallacies of logic so they can be better debaters and thinkers, I figured I should illustrate them using arguments we commonly field as sex workers.  Hat tip to The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe and Michael C. Labossiere at Nizkor.

Argument from ignorance: claiming that something must be true because it can't be proved to be false.

"There are no good studies on how many child sex slaves are being tortured by pimps and traffickers in our city, so we can only assume it must be in the tens of thousands."

Appeal to belief/popularity: arguing that if a belief is common, it must be true.

"Everyone knows that the watching porn turns men into rapists and abusers."

Related: Appeal to common practice.

"Okay, maybe our numbers aren't perfect on how many men rape their wives after seeing pornography, but sociology isn't a perfect science."

Argument from personal incredulity: if someone can't understand an issue, it is impossible for anyone to understand it.

"I would find it extremely degrading and oppressive to show a stranger my body for money, therefor you couldn't possibly not feel degraded and oppressed by your work."

Begging the question: asking a fake question that can only result in answers that make your opponent look bad.

"Have you always believed that raping people for money is acceptable?"

Argument from authority: a supposed authority believes something, so it must be true.

"Many professional feminists with PhDs believe that all sex work is sexual slavery, so that must be the correct position."

Purposefully confusing correlation and causation: two factors occurring at the same time does not mean that one factor is the cause of the other.

"Ted Bundy admitted that he loved pornography, therefor, pornography caused him to murder people."

Guilt by association: discounting a position because it is has something in common with beliefs held by "bad" people.

"Sexual predators and pimps wish there were fewer laws regulating the sex industry, why are you on their side?"

Red herring: introduction of an irrelevant issue to distract from topic at hand.

"Sure, you say you're in favor of adults having the right to perform in porn if they choose, but what about the helpless children who are raped in abused in the production of child pornography?"

False continuum: claimed inability to see any difference between two concepts, such as consent and non-consent.

"When money is involved, there's no such thing as true consent, so no one is actually consenting to sex work and it's all rape."

Over generalization: declaring a position based on very little or select information.

"The only prostitutes I've ever noticed in my city are the drug addicts turning tricks on skid row, so all sex workers must be transient drug addicts."

Appeal to consequences of a belief: something must be true because a person doesn't like what it would mean if it weren't.

"Decriminalizing prostitution must be bad for society, because I would hate to live in a world where sexuality is accepted as a commodity."

False dichotomy: reducing a complex issue to only two black-and-white positions.

"You say you're against shutting down Backpage.com.  How can you think it's acceptable for pimps to be trafficking in child sex slaves?"

No true Scotsman: dismissing evidence you don't like as not real.

"Sex workers are oppressed and beaten by their pimps on the street, so you must not be a real sex worker.  You are not representative."

Appeal to emotion: making an argument based on feelings.

"Would you want your own little girl being sold by a pimp on the internet?  Unless we stop the traffickers, your family could be next!"

Non-sequitur: an argument that doesn't make sense at all.

"This strip club must be shut down because here is a school several blocks away."

Misleading vividness: appealing to an especially dramatic example.

"A 13-year-old girl was rescued by police after she was kidnapped and forced at gunpoint to sexually service hundreds of men to earn money for her captor, who regularly raped and beat her.  Therefor, any scenario that involves selling sex is inherently exploitative."

Slippery slope: claiming if you accept idea A, you must also accept idea B.

"If we decriminalize sex work and accept the practice as normal, then we'll have to do so with other forms of sexual deviance, like pedophilia and bestiality."

Straw man: rebutting an imaginary position that is easier to debate than the real issue.

"These pro-trafficking activists think that sexual slavery is a choice, but we believe in human rights and human dignity."

Middle ground: the belief that the truth must be somewhere in the middle.

"Some people say that watching adult pornography causes men to rape children, and some people say that's not true at all, so the truth is obviously that watching porn only causes men to rape children half of the time."

Tautology: restating your premise as its own evidence.

"Sex work is degrading and wrong because getting paid to have sex is immoral."

Ad hominem: attack the person, not their argument.

"And what would you know about anything?  You're just some stupid whore."

The moving goalpost: continuing to change the way you qualify proof or correctness as an opponent chips away at your argument.

"Okay, so there may not be 300,000 child sex slaves in America like we've been claiming in all of our fundraising materials, but even if there are only 3, it's still a massive problem that warrants just as many donations and grants."

Go back to older posts »