possibly-related posts
comments
18 Responses to “backpage, ashton kutcher and prostitution”
Leave a Reply
Your e-mail address is not collected, used or listed with your comment.
When writing your comment, you can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
July 1st, 2011 at 9:48 am
[...] Amanda Brooks investigates some of Ashton’s claims of teen victims, as well as providing a good analysis of the money angle [...]
July 4th, 2011 at 8:01 am
[...] Brooks provides a solid overview of the recent [...]
July 4th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Well written, I feel for victims of trafficking, but their self-professed saviors need to get a clue, I’m thoroughly convinced the male savior complex toward sex workers is more a way of self-assurance than genuine desire to eliminate the problem.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:03 am
Ashleigh — Thanks! I love your assessment of the real problem: male saviors! Ha!
Though this is just Ashton (and the occasional man who loves to rescue Thai child prostitutes). Most of the big-name anti-traffickers are women; women who have a real issue with female sex workers.
XX
July 8th, 2011 at 6:28 am
[...] Voice and Ashton Kutcher fight about sex work. Sex workers respond to celebrity white knights and hypocrisy and good campaigns against sex [...]
July 27th, 2011 at 7:03 am
Amanda – As usual, very well said, especially about the effects of criminalization.
Every public affairs issue is going to be driven or at least heavily influenced by those who have a stake of some sort in it. To malign people based on this is naive at best, but as you pointed out, much more often it is done to shade hypocrisy and false arguments.
Ashton’s allies are having a very negative, actual impact on consenting sex workers (as opposed to the fancied impact on children and others that they posit for themselves). I really think that this human trafficking stuff is currently the most-pressing anti-prostitution / anti-decriminalization issue. Especially when looking at the growth of this false savior industry and the convenient adoption of its blather by some politicians (Gavin Newsome, Dick Blumenthal, David Cicilline, et. al.). And how it impacted both the debacles in Rhode Island in 2009 and regarding Craigslist last year – whichever of these was the worse
. And how pervasively the trafficking stuff is brought up whenever there is a massage parlor busted almost anywhere in the county, no matter the age of those arrested. (Side notes: this has been happening at least since 2005; I would say that in at least 90% of the massage parlor cases I’ve dealt with or reviewed – either in the courts or in permitting processes – this stuff is brought up, almost always with easily seen through disingenuousness; there is one of these situation developing now where minding-their-own-business spas are being harassed by a local do-gooder group – fronted by a preacher, naturally – adopting Polaris Project data and arguments without actually doing anything practical to help those they presume to speak for.) And finally, when you consider the advances (slow and small, but still) against the law enforcement / anti civil liberties crowd in favor of less imprisonment for non-violent crimes, etc., mainly because of the economy, and how this could potentially benefit decriminalization efforts.
So, it was very heartening to see anyone standing up to the Ashton Kutcher-Donna Hughes-Polaris Project crowd, especially when they have obviously put a serious effort into it and kept their nerve and verve. I think it would help substantially to have a politically-focused, coordinated, pro-decriminalization advocacy group or subset of an existing group to work with or parallel to an entity like VV. But I guess for that, maybe I better re-read your invisible majority post.
July 28th, 2011 at 3:41 am
Lee — Thank you!
You’ve said everything so very well. Ashton is a loudmouth but the Polaris Project is scary. They’re silent and insidious.
Much discussion has been made about starting a decrimn lobbying group but anyone with the power does not want to step forward (even if they help out behind the scenes) and sex workers themselves get no respect. SWOP-USA has formed, or is trying to form, a lobbying group separate from the non-profit — not sure where they are in their paperwork.
As for any group working with VV, there are a few sex workers speaking with them but no one group (to my knowledge). Not sure that VV has reached out either — they should. After all, they have a ready-made group of supporters who pay advertising! I am very very glad that VV isn’t taking this sitting down. For sure.
XX
August 2nd, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Hi Amanda,
This is off topic but I tried to email you today and it bounced back.
I had an interesting article to share.
Cheers,
David
August 9th, 2011 at 7:17 am
Amanda – Thank you, too! To take your last paragraph first, who better to work with, than someone you’re already working with?
In my opinion, looking for someone in or with power to start with is going to put the cart before the horse. Partly from cravenness (the nature of some of the individuals who are attracted to those positions) and partly from the circumstances of those jobs themselves (ever present barrages of suitors), those in power – with the most to lose – are going to be the least likely to take this kind of a risk. The start has to come from the dedicated believers; if necessary or beneficial, when the time is ripe, anyone with the money can hire professional lobbyists or media people; those in power are the icing on the cake. It seems to me that this is how groups on issues like legalization/decriminalization of marijuana, gay rights, abortion (both sides) have been successful. (For what its worth, the guidelines for Political Action Committees are tedious but hardly insurmountable – or maybe I deal too much with these bureaucratic forms and processes.)
But having a group that looks and sounds professional is a major boost. As unfair and superficial as it is, too many people (and especially media and politicians) base their reports, opinions and subsequent actions and alliances on the sources of information and analysis rather than on the substance of what is being said, and they are rarely going to take the time and effort to find their own facts or fact check others. And you don’t have to look any further than the anti-prostitution people we’ve been talking about to see this – no facts (often outright fabrications), highly biased reports, but slickly spun presentations and cunningly targeted audiences.
August 10th, 2011 at 4:57 am
Lee — And this is the whole problem with moving forward. Sex work activists (myself included) tend to be disorganized, have a lot of other things going on and many have problems with forms/rules. We don’t have the money to hire professional lobbyists. Our grassroots efforts are great — but go in a lot of different directions. An entity like VV would be extremely helpful, they don’t have much to lose and they have money!
And then there’s the whole professionalism thing, part of the issues which I covered in my invisible majority post. Sex work activists lose major points on the professionalism aspect, unfortunately. Dour academics run circles around us on this — effortlessly. They also do a great PR job. I envy their ability to lie with a straight face and present a quickie survey of a few people as “facts.” The hideous irony is that most sex work activists are way too honest to do this because they realize anything they say affects real people.
Ugh. Just woke up and I’m only frustrating myself.
But please keep talking, maybe a workable solution will emerge a some point.
XX
August 31st, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Perhaps, the most common form of human trafficking is the legal trafficking of sex workers into jail cages. The enforcement of anti-prostitution laws is a lot like human trafficking. Just like traffickers use deception to gain control, that’s exactly what vice cops do who are tricking sex workers into thinking they’re clients only to arrest them and hold them captive against their will. If this doesn’t resemble human trafficking, I don’t know what does.
Resources are being so wasted it comes to human trafficking. The U.S. government under the TVPRA is giving a lot of money to law enforcement to arrest sex workers and clients under the guise of fighting trafficking. This leads me to wonder whether ending trafficking really is the main motive. In the meantime, organizations that really do help trafficking people are struggling just to provide safe facilities for survivors of trafficking. An anti-trafficking activist I knew was telling me all about this, about how they really need resources to provide safe houses. With all the millions or billions of tay payer dollars supposedly being allocated toward ending trafficking and helping trafficking survivors, why are people and groups truly interested in stopping trafficking struggling just to provide basic needs, such as safe houses?
Also, there’s little to no focus on developing policies that make trafficking less likely to happen in the first place. So much of the focus is just on responding after the fact.
September 1st, 2011 at 5:07 am
Vegan — Thank you for pointing out how the laws are used to traffick humans. I totally agree and have felt this way myself.
Agree with everything else too. It’s very obvious to sex workers (trafficked or not) that the laws and the money put the focus on the wrong places, helping no one, harming a lot of people who wouldn’t be harmed otherwise.
XX
October 20th, 2011 at 7:00 am
Amanda (belatedly) – I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think the problems you mentioned are insurmountable. Dealing with the organization, forms, and administration is not something that everyone involved should/would have to deal with. I can think of several other tasks that would also best be done by someone who is interested in them (apart from everyone’s shared interest in the goal of the organization as a whole), who has some experience in them and who is good at them – i.e. website building and maintenance, media outreach, media appearances, research, outreach to potential allies, outreach to sex workers who might want to be involved.
I think that the professionalism, and the tie-in to your invisible majority post, speaks to the organization of an organization as much as it speaks to the presentation parts that you mentioned. If every part in the band has to be played by sex workers only (let alone known, established sex worker activists), and the first thought is how can we classify those on our side, give them a classification term, and establish a hierarchy, to me you shoot yourself in the foot and turn away many people who agree with you and might be willing to help if welcomed. (This also strikes me as an effect of the over-bureaucratization of our society.) Look at the opposite side: pretty much anyone who hates sex workers is welcomed with open arms (clenched fists and gnashed teeth might be more accurate, but you get the idea). I know that every sex worker, and every sex work activist is not like that by any stretch, but many are, and so back to your invisible majority. And incidentally to the fallacy of people who think they don’t want to be involved in politics – everyone is affected, so everyone is involved, like it or not; its just a matter of whether you want others entirely making the decisions for you, or whether you want to help (in some form or fashion) push things in the direction you want them to go.
You are spot on with your comments on the academics and their presentations – and it’s to be expected, as they are trained and practiced in it. But to use a military analogy, it seems to me like what you’re saying is that the honest sex workers you speak of are trying to address everything with equal honesty, like an army attacking evenly across the line, instead of focusing their strength on the enemy’s weak points (of which there are obviously plenty). It doesn’t have to mean lying. On the other hand … I seem to remember seeing bits and pieces of an argument conducted by sex workers with great energy and passion … over who had the right to call themselves an activist – certainly in the academic style that one was.
The last thing for now, is that I think anyone who is pushing for any public policy change that has an economic argument to be made in its favor, has a much better chance to be heard now, for that – far more so than for at least the last 20 years. And just off the top of my head I can think of people or groups whose support might be gained with these arguments for this issue.
October 22nd, 2011 at 5:17 am
Lee — As always, love your thoughts!!
The sex worker movement is built on the idea of 100% consensus and this gets in the way of progress. Issues get talked to death before action is taken; usually that action is so belated by the talking or so watered-down as to be completely unnoticed. Stepping forward, taking the lead and making decisive decisions are frowned upon to the point of often just not being “allowed.” Activists would have a real issue with trusting a small group of people with making decisions if they aren’t directly involved with the decision-making process. Which means there isn’t much delegation. Part of that comes from sex workers’ ability to DIY their entire careers (which is an asset), part of it comes from the whole consensus thing again.
And if we’re talking straight organization/structural hierarchy — there are issues with that, including the simple fact of not having enough people to go around. There are parts that should only be done by sex workers and plenty of supporting parts that should be open to any trustworthy person who believes in the concepts. The “trust” bit of that is a huge gap and one that I share too. The other bit of being more open to others is one the movement does have a hard time with.
Agreed that sex work arguments tend to give equal weight to every issue. We do NOT push hard enough on a lot of points that are major weaknesses of the opposing argument. Once you get into it and start learning about the problems, everything becomes interconnected (because it is) and nothing is simple (because it isn’t). The opposing side doesn’t care and for them, everything is B&W. Rather, their single goal of abolishing prostitution is easy since all roads lead to it. Our goals are more diverse and lead in different directions. Media-training by media professionals would help.
I remember the whole “activist” argument too. Yeah, stuff like that doesn’t help.
Agreed that right now is the time to push hard on the economics of prostitution, particularly on how much criminalization costs. I’ve been seeing comments on news articles leaning that way for the last couple years. People are waking up to the fact that the average prostitution arrest costs $2000-5000. Doing a huge sweep in cash-strapped city isn’t the best way to use taxpayer’s money to fight crime.
XX
November 11th, 2011 at 7:41 am
Saw this on the BBC front page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15692059. I find it both pathetic and amazing that someone could say they’ll give to “my management team”, as if they actually did something important, and the media swallow it whole.
November 13th, 2011 at 6:39 am
Lee — I’m dying laughing. So basically Ashton had to give up his Twitter account to the grown-ups since he wasn’t allowed to Tweet by himself anymore???
Guessing “management team” means “my publicist” though if I said something like that people would automatically assume it meant “my pimp.”
XX
November 16th, 2011 at 10:37 am
More news on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/business/media/backpagecom-confronts-new-fight-over-online-sex-ads.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
At least it affirms that VV will not kowtow.
November 22nd, 2011 at 5:41 am
Lee — BP doesn’t seem willing to roll over and play dead (unlike Newmark and Buckmaster), which is good. But they haven’t made a mass call to the sex workers who advertise on BP — which is kind of missing the point. They’d have thousands of instant supporters if they just asked.
Loved how that Twin Cities paper decided they weren’t going to run sex work ads because those ads “objectified” women (regardless of how many women were placing their own ads). I assume they also heavily monitored their ads for all other products and services in order to not “objectify” women.
XX