Search Eminism.org

  • Enter search term(s):

Subscribe

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

Send Emi to San Fran Sex Worker Festival!

Date: May 16, 2011

Hello friends,

I am attending the Sex Worker Film & Arts Festival in San Francisco later this month to present my workshop on how sex workers and allies can fight back the conflation of sex work and human trafficking that is propagated by the anti-trafficking movement. Such conflation doesn’t just hurt sex workers; it distorts the society’s understanding of what sex trafficking actually looks like and misleads our society’s response to serious human rights abuses.

As some of you know, I’ve been doing a lot of research about the anti-trafficking movement, attending dozens of anti-trafficking events and conferences in addition to reading lots of materials, and I have been presenting my findings at universities and community groups in the last couple of months. There is also an upcoming presentation about the topic at University of Oregon next week (19th) before going to the Sex Worker Festival (May 27th).

In addition, I’ve been posting lots of materials related to this topic on my blog, and I am putting together a zine.

Unfortunately, airfare has gone up so much recently and my trip to San Francisco would cost much more than I had anticipated. I’ve already fronted the money to purchase the ticket because I was afraid that it would go up even further, but I need your financial support. Please help me with the cost to attend the Sex Worker Festival by making a donation.

You could:

– Paypal me the money at emi AT eminism DOT org. This is the easiest if you already have an account.

– Buy me an Amazon.com gift certificate. You can pick the amount and enter emi AT eminism DOT org as the recipient. This way, we can avoid paying transaction fees to Paypal and I can use it for something I need.

– Go to my online store and order my buttons and zines. This won’t be donation strictly speaking, but part of the payment becomes my income. (Please note that I’ll be busy preparing for the festival and making the aforementioned zine, so

– If you are affiliated with a university student group or department, try to get me invited to give this presentation! I know anti-trafficking groups are very active on many campuses, and they would benefit from a different perspective… plus, the honoraria will help fund my activism and trips to attend activist stuff.

– Which doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t invite me if you work with a community group that doesn’t have funding. I would be happy to give presentations to Portland-area (or wherever, as long as the expenses are paid for) community groups–just email me at the address I mentioned above.

There are BENEFITS to becoming a contributor:

– For a contribution of $10 or more, you will receive a copy of the brand-new yet-to-be-titled zine that examines the anti-trafficking movement, due to be published later this month. (Please send me your mailing address.)

– In addition, I will mail you a sticker that says “Real Feminists and Human Rights Activists Don’t Buy Ashton,” which is a parody of Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher’s “Real Men Don’t Buy Girls” campaign.

– I will love you! Yes my love is for sale, which isn’t technically prostitution so it’s legal to say that, I think.

That’s it! Thanks for your support!

Emi

Peer-run support service for sex workers loses funding while more and more anti-trafficking monies pour into incompetent “experts”

Date: May 5, 2011

Yesterday, I posted scanned images of the handout made by a service provider which works with trafficked youth (among others). I pointed out that the set of words and phrases juxtaposed to each other in the handout showed a complete lack of cultural awareness and competency on the part of the people who designed it.

I thought I should also post an example of good handouts. Images below come from the handouts for SAVVY, a now-defunct project that provided peer support and resources for women working in the sex industry (I edited the image to disguise date/time and address, because the group is defunct and I don’t want to mislead people that it’s still there):

*

Text says:

Ladies,

Are you tired… Of police harassment, haters, and the dangers of the sex trade?

Do you need… Free, discreet, non-judgmental assistance and support?

We offer… Confidential support from current and former sex workers; Cute clothes box; Healthcare info and Legal referrals; Condoms and safer sex supplies; Work-related safety tips; Needle exchange; Free. Just drop-in.

SAVVY

The other side of the sheet showed the comic below:

*

There are many differences between the SAVVY material and the handout I posted yesterday, but the main difference is: SAVVY was a peer-run program run by former and current sex workers themselves. As such they know how to reach out to their peers.

SAVVY existed until several years ago, but its funding was cut. In the meantime, more and more public and private monies are pouring into the anti-trafficking groups, many of which are not just incompetent, but clearly out of touch with reality. That is the sad state of the movement right now.

For the record, I experience lingerie every day: Incompetence at an agency receiving City funding to support youth who have been in the sex trade

Date: May 4, 2011

Last week, I attended Take Back the Night rally and march (though I didn’t actually march due to my disability) held at Portland State University. Many organizations were tabling at the rally, handing out candies, pens, and (most importantly) information and resources.

One of the handout materials I found looked like this.

You Need Not Be Alone

Here’s how it looked on the other side when I turned it over.

You Are... / You May Experience…

Four sides of this square were folded in like origami, which can be unfolded to reveal what’s inside. So I unfolded the side with “You Are…” and this is what was below it.

priceless STRONG worthy ABLE Intelligent Survivor STREET SMART RESOURCEFUL Resilient

The message is that “you” (the person who is unfolding it) are priceless, strong, worthy, able, intelligent, survivor, street smart, resourceful, and resilient. Some word choices are a little bit strange, but okay, they are generally positive messages.

Then I unfolded the other side that says “you may experience…”:

EXPLOITATION dancing ESCORT Boyfriend Modeling Sexual Violence LINGERIE THE TRACK Trading choice STRIPPING

WHAT? It appears that the handout is an outreach material for someone who is working in the sex industry, but what does “you may experience boyfriend” or “you may experience lingerie” mean? It makes no sense… and further, if they think that this list of words and phrases appeals to people who are working in the sex industry, for whatever reasons, they are clearly out of touch with the population they are trying to reach out to.

Anyone who actually does outreach or know a little bit about sex worker organizing recognize how ridiculous this handout is. They are putting these words and phrases together without having any awareness as to what specific culturally appropriate approaches they need to take for people working as escorts, or dancers, or lingerie models, or street prostitutes working the track. As a result, the handout appeals to none of the communities that it is intended to.

What is sad about this is that this handout is designed and distributed by an organization that serves victims of sexual assault and abuse, and it is one of the core members of the Portland metro-area CSEC (commercial sexual exploitation of children) protocol. This organization has also received a new funding from the City of Portland last year to double the number of victim advocates for youth who have been in the sex trade.

How can an organization that has a big program assisting youth who have worked in the sex industry be so clueless about how to outreach to them? I’m afraid that the answer is that the City is basing its funding priorities on ideology (i.e. opposition to prostitution and sex industry) rather than the actual needs of the population being served and the service provider’s competence to meet them.

Memo: Data from FBI’s Innocence Lost Initiative and Operation Cross Country

Date: April 24, 2011

So I was reading up on FBI’s Innocence Lost Initiative and “Operation Cross Country”–somewhat periodic nationwide sting operation targeting prostitution (well the goal is to target commercial sexual exploitation of minors, but a lot of adult prostitutes get caught up in it) in preparation for (you may have guessed it) my upcoming sine about the fraud that is the U.S. anti-trafficking movement. FBI does not publicly release all its data, so it’s hard to understand the full impact of these sting operations.

Below, you will see information about each of these nationwide stings that I can gather form FBI’s own celebratory press releases. I put the data into a table for my own convenience, and I thought I’d share with my readers just in case someone is interested. Data correspond to results of Operation Cross Country I thru V, plus a precursor to Operation Cross Country (labeled “0”).

Spotty Data from FBI’s Operation Cross Country sweeps
Source: FBI press releases

  Date City Rescues Arrests Rescues TD Convictions TD
0 12/16/2005 14 30 19   67
1 6/25/2008 16 21 389 433 308
2 10/27/2008 29 49 642 (73 pimps, 518 pros) 577 365
3 2/23/2009 29 48 571 670  
4 10/26/2009 36 52 700 (60 pimps) 900 510
5 11/8/2010 40 69 885 (99 pimps) 1200 625

Date = Date the operation was announced in a press release. Typically, the stings take place during the 72 hours before the announcement.
City = Number of cities in which stings took place.
Rescues = Number of minors FBI claims to have “rescued.”
Arrests = Number of arrests made. This may include adult prostitutes, clients, as well as pimps (FBI doesn’t fully disclose the breakdown).
Rescues TD = Number of minors FBI claims to have “rescued” to date since Innocence Lost Initiative began.
Convictions TD = Number of convictions FBI claims have resulted from Innocence Lost Initiative.

Some comments:

1) If OCC II is any indication, the nationwide sweep affects adult prostitutes in far greater numbers compared to youth on the street, johns/clients, or pimps (642 total minus 73 pimps and 518 pros leaves 51 arrests unaccounted, which I assume are johns).

2) On average, OCC results in the “rescue” of one or two minors in each city where stings are conducted. Sure, that may be “one too many,” but it doesn’t strike me as an evidence for a shockingly large epidemic. Anti-trafficking groups would have us believe that there are hundreds of thousands of teenagers being exploited in the sex trade, but these stings either casts serious doubt in their claim, or FBI and local law enforcement officials are totally incompetent.

3) I’m having difficulty believing that 73 pimps were arrested for trafficking 49 minors, or 60 pimps for 52 minors, or 99 pimps for 69 minors. Are they counting pimps who control adult prostitutes? Or are they labeling friends and family members of trafficking victims as “pimps” automatically–as the legal definition of pimping includes anyone who benefit from the earning of prostitution, even if they are not the traffickers? More disclosure would help me understand this data.

4) In fact, more data overall would be helpful, for example: breakdown of arrests (youth/adult, worker/client/pimp), and what happened to each group of people after their arrest. How many “pimps” are actually minors also? How many people are arrested on drug and other charges during the sweep–which often police officers do to coerce women to testify? How many of the convictions are for pimping and trafficking, compared to johns? (FBI boasts “these convictions have resulted in lengthy sentences, including multiple 25-year-to-life sentences”–the choice of the word “multiple” leads me to think that they probably have perhaps two or three such victories…)

Does anyone know if it’s possible to obtain more detailed data, including all the above plus the breakdown of different cities? Is there any researcher (i.e. someone who has more professional credibility than I do) interested in submitting a FBI records request (and share the result with me)? Now’s the time to take advantage of your class and social status privilege!

Another myth debunked: why “a third of runaway youth are trafficked within first 48 hours” is NOT true

Date: April 24, 2011

Last July, I debunked the false claim that “the average age of entry into prostitution” is somewhere around 13, which has been in circulation among anti-trafficking groups, politicians, and media.

But that is not the only falsehood that is passed off as a fact about domestic minor sex trafficking. Another oft-repeated claim is found in the 2010 Congressional testimony by Ernie Allen, president and CEO of National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, otherwise a legitimate and reputable organization:

Some runaway groups have estimated that as many as 1/3 of teen runaways/thrownaways will become involved in prostitution within 48 hours of leaving home.

This “statistics” is often presented without source, or attributed to the National Incidence Study of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway Children (NISMART-2), which has been compiled by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Depart of Justice.

For example, “U.S. Trafficking Facts,” a document created by anti-trafficking group Love146 states:

Astonishingly, with in the first 48 hours of being on the street, 1 in 3 children are lured into prostitution (National Incidence Study of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway Children/NISMART-2)

However, NISMART-2 does not include any such information. And yet, variations of this factoid are repeated by many other anti-trafficking groups as well.

An estimated 1.6 million children run away from home each year in the US. The average time it takes before a runaway is approached by a trafficker or solicitor is 48 hours (National Runaway Switchboard)
GEMS (Girls Educational & Mentoring Services)

It is estimated that it takes as little as 48 hours for a child to be lured into exploitation by individuals promising love, money and lavish lifestyles
Rebecca Project for Human Rights

Within 48 hours of hitting the streets, one-third of these children are lured or recruited into the underground world of prostitution and pornography (The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children)
Stop Child Trafficking Now

As many as 2.8 million children live on the streets, a third of whom are lured into prostitution within 48 hours of leaving home
Shared Hope International

There are more, but I’ll stop here.

There are some variations: some attribute the data to NISMART-2, while others attribute it to Center for Missing and Exploited Children or National Runaway Switchboard–these two organizations don’t have any report showing this data either. Also, some groups claim that one third of runaway youth are trafficked within 48 hours, while others say it takes an average of 48 hours for someone to be trafficked, or simply that it may only take 48 hours for some to be trafficked.

Where does the factoid come from? The only document that show some actual numbers is on the website of Gracehaven House, a faith-based organization in Northwest Ohio providing “shelter, security, and rehabilitation” to female victims of commercial sexual exploitation under the age 18. On its “fact sheet” about CSEC, Gracehaven House cites another Ohio group, Huck House. The document states:

Huck House FY 2007
– Served 1,409 youth in 2007
– Approximately 600 girls
– 1/3 will be approached within 48 hours by a pimp
– 200 girls &lt18 approached by a pimp
– 60-90 involved in prostitution

Huck House, or Huckleberry House is an organization in Columbus, Ohio that provides safe place for runaway youth. The one-third figure seem to come from the survey of its client/participant base for FY 2007, which included about 800 boys and 600 girls. Assuming that this report is accurate, here are some things to consider:

1) The one-third figure is often presented as a national data (attributed to NISMART-2, Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or National Runaway Switchboard) but it is based on a survey of participants at a Columbus, Ohio social service agency.

2) It is often claimed that one third of runaway youth are recruited into prostitution within first 48 hours, but the data do not support this. Huck House figure states that one third of girls who came to Huck House have been approached, but if all “runaway youth” are included the figure is close to 14%, not 33%.

3) That one third of girls who showed up at Huck House have been approached by a pimp does not mean that one third of runaway girls are. Here’s why:

If we assume, reasonably, that short-term or casual runaway youth (which comprise majority of runaways) are far less likely to be approached by a pimp or engage in prostitution than those who run away longer period of time or farther distances, many of the girls who are not approached by a pimp and don’t even come close to it go home (or find other arrangements) without showing up at Huck House’s door.

To illustrate this point, let’s imagine that 100 girls ran away from home in a hypothetical city or region. Imagine that 70 of them are casual runaways (i.e. low risk of being exploited), and 30 are high-risk runaways. Pimps generally approach girls in the high-risk group, so let’s say 10 out of the 30 are approached. Once the 70 casual runaways return home or find other arrangements, it leaves 30 longer-term, high-risk runaway youth who show up at Huck House.

Huck House surveys those 30 who showed up, and report that a third of its client base have been approached by a pimp. But you cannot conclude, based on this figure, that a third of all runaway youth (or just girls) are approached: we started with 100 girls, 10 of whom are approached, so the actual rate is 10%.

In short: Huck House, or other groups like it, does not serve a representative sample of runaway youth; they serve those who are part of a higher risk group. Therefore, you cannot take figures from its survey and generalize it to the entire runaway youth population.

4) Even though a third of the girls who showed up at Huck House report to have been approached by a pimp within 48 hours, only 10-15% of the girls (60-90 out of 600) at Huck House are involved in prostitution (and this includes any girl who became involved at any point, not just within the first 48 hours), according to Huck House.

In other words, it is false to claim that one third of the girls at Huck House are “forced into prostitution” or “trafficked,” as some anti-trafficking groups claim; they are simply “approached”–and at least a majority of girls are smart and empowered enough to turn them down.

Further, if we include all youth into the analysis (and there is no reason not to, because anti-trafficking groups claim that one third of all runaway youth are recruited, not just girls), it is 60-90 youth at Huck House among 1400 total. That is 4-6% of the group surveyed, far lower than the anti-trafficking groups’ claim.

None of us wants to see any number of (non-casual) runaway youth, whether 33% or 4%, having to engage in prostitution to survive on the street. But there is a huge gap between the claim that “one third of runaway youth are trafficked within the first 48 hours on the street” and the actual figure of 4-6% over the course of homelessness.

Bad factoids misinform the public about this very important issue and mislead our discussions over what to do about it. Those who traffic fake statistics and launder its true source must stop doing so.

Case in point: just a couple of months ago on this blog, I criticized GEMS for using this fake factoid on its main site. Later, in mid-March, I took a screen capture of the site, showing the line about “48 hours” myth, in preparation for my lecture at Grand Valley State University.

But when I visited the site again today, I found that GEMS had removed a line about the “one third” figure from its main site. The quote you saw earlier on this post is actually from GEMS’ ning group, because the main site no longer carries this fake factoid.

I don’t know if my criticism had anything to do with this, but good job, GEMS! Please also start verifying other equally questionable factoids on your site too! And please be brave and be more transparent about why you have removed that information, rather than just quietly removing it from the main site, because it will help other anti-trafficking groups recognize the errors they have made as well.

Will the Real Human Trafficking Hub Please Stand Up?

Date: April 22, 2011

“Houston is hub of human trafficking”
The Houston Chronicle, 11/26/2008

“Oklahoma’s position […] makes it a hub for traffickers”
The Oklahoman, 04/15/2011

“Portland a center for human trafficking”
The Oregonian, 01/09/2011

“Las Vegas: ‘Hub’ of Human Trafficking”
Las Vegas Tribune, 04/10/2011

“California […] is a hub for both international and domestic traffickers”
Oakland Tribune, 01/09/2011

“Toledo’s reputation as a hub for enslavement of people for the sex trade”
The Blade (OH), 01/04/2009

“Chicago is a major ‘hub’ for human trafficking”
The Chicago Sun-Times, 04/23/2006

“Atlanta is the east coast hub for human trafficking”
WALB News (GA), 03/30/2011

“North Carolina’s location makes it an increasingly attractive regional hub for human trafficking”
Gaston Gazette (NC), 04/08/2011

“The city [San Francisco] is a major hub on the global trafficking network”
San Francisco Chronicle, 03/09/2007

A response to the “economic coercion” argument that equates all prostitution with trafficking and then with slavery

Date: April 21, 2011

An “economic coercion” argument often invoked by anti-trafficking/prostitution activists holds that, even though many prostitutes and other sex workers appear to be making a free choice to engage in their work without “force, fraud or coercion,” they are nonetheless victimized by the sex industry and should not be viewed as freely choosing to do what they do because they have little or no other means for self-sufficiency and are therefore “economically coerced.”

I do not disagree that freedom to choose one’s occupation is severely restricted for many sex workers as well as for others who occupy low-end of the American workforce. Under capitalism, we all have to make choices under economic constraints (unless one is super-rich), although some of us have more and better options to choose from than others do. The “choice” to engage in sex work is often (but not always) made by people who do not have very good pool of options to begin with.

But it is not useful to talk about “choice” and “free will” in abstract or absolute terms, or to equate one’s difficult decision to choose the “least bad” option available to her in a pool of bad options with “coercion” in a more traditional sense.

Instead, I suggest that we start from this simple question: “If a better opportunity or option comes up, is she free to take it?” Below is a chart demonstrating why this is a more useful approach.

If a better opportunity or option comes up, is she free to take it?

  “Yes” “No”
Why is this person in prostitution? because it is the best option among what is available to her because she is not allowed to choose something else
What will benefit the individual? more and better options within and outside of the sex industry freedom so that she can make decisions for herself
How will “rescue” action impact her? possible criminal record; forced to choose among inferior options freedom, provided that appropriate support and services are provided
What should society do for this person? no persecution; make more resources and options available intervention to restore her freedom; resources to rebuild her life

I made a PDF version of the above chart available for download so that you can share it with others.

What this chart demonstrates is that we must reject the equation of so-called “economic coercion” with “force, fraud or coercion” that involve another actor (i.e. the trafficker) because there are very significant differences between the two, and conflating them leads to wrong policies and interventions that harm sex workers.

That of course does not mean that we should not address the fact that many people “choose” sex work under dire economic constraints. It just means that we need to understand the problem correctly and intervene in ways that are actually helpful rather than harmful. We must work toward reducing economic desperation among women, homeless youth, immigrants, queer people, and others by enhancing programs that ensure that everyone’s basic needs are met, and creating better and wider range of educational and employment opportunities for all.

Yes, “economic coercion” exists. But the problem is not selling and buying sex; it is the lack of options. Let’s actually address the problem, rather than depriving the “least bad options” from the already disadvantaged population.

Simple chart debunking the “average age” myth

Date: April 21, 2011

Politicians, media, and anti-trafficking/prostitution groups repeatedly claim that the average age of entry into prostitution is 13. I’ve debunked this myth before by pointing out problems with how the number has been reached, but here’s a more simpler, common-sensical debunking.

Assuming normal distribution, mean of 13 and standard deviation of 5, here’s a chart depicting what age of entry into prostitution would look like.

Average Age Chart

As you see, you’d have to accept that there are equal number of 5 year olds and 21 year olds entering prostitution, and also that it’s more likely to enter prostitution at age 0 than at any age past age 26. If this is your view of the world, your sense of reality is severely distorted.

Yes, we read about 12, 10, and 8 year olds being rescued from forced prostitution and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation. But they are in the news precisely because they are rare. Non-commercial forms of sexual exploitation (i.e. plain old sexual abuse) is much, much more common, but it doesn’t make the news the same way.

(Of course, there is also a possibility that the distribution is not normal, which might explain why we hardly see 0-10 year olds in forced prostitution. But it would also mean that there are *huge* number of 10-13 year olds entering prostitution to compensate that, if we assume that the average age is 13, and it just isn’t true.)

“End Demand” approach harms women. Here’s why.

Date: March 18, 2011

Some people concerned about prostitution on our streets are pushing for the strategy to “end demand” of prostitution. It means that, instead of going after people engaging in prostitution to make ends meet, criminal justice system would be instructed to pursue johns (clients) who purchase sexual services from them.

The appeal of this approach is obvious: many people understand that women who trade sex for money do so under dire economic and personal circumstances, and feel that it would be unfair to punish them for their predicament. On the other hand, few people feel any sympathy toward johns: in fact, some may find it deeply satisfying emotionally to have them punished severely.

However, we must seriously consider the full implication of such policy if we are truly concerned about the women who would have to compete for declining demand for their services. While the approach to “end demand” is far more preferable to punishing the women for their poverty and lack of options, it is nonetheless harmful to the safety and health of the women who work on our streets.

The first obvious consequence of suppressing “the demand” is that women will have to compete for a smaller pool of johns, forcing them to do more for less money. The decline of the demand would give remaining johns greater bargaining power, because it would become easier for them to “take the business elsewhere” (i.e. go find another worker willing to do more for less) if their demands are not completely satisfied. For example, a woman who had always insisted on using a condom might be forced to engage in less safe practices simply to stay competitive.

Second, an increased pressure on johns displaces prostitution onto less populated or traveled areas, where they are less likely to be reported to the authorities or caught in a sting. The same environment makes it more dangerous for the women, both because it would be less familiar to them, and also because nobody would be around when they call for help.

And finally, the profile of a typical john would change as we make it riskier to buy sex, since not all potential johns respond to the increased risks equally. “End demand” approach would drive out those men who are relatively rational and sensitive to risks, while the reckless and/or impulsive types remain undeterred. These johns are precisely the ones likely to demand sex without condoms, haggle mercilessly over price or specific acts, or use threats or violence to get what they want.

In short, “end demand” campaign is harmful to women because it diminishes their bargaining power, forcing them to do more for less money, with more dangerous johns, under less safe environment. We cannot criminalize our way out of the current situation; we must address this social and economic concerns with solutions that achieve social and economic justice. We can begin by funding affordable housing, childcare, treatment programs on-demand (instead of many months’ wait list), and education and job training programs, instead of more jail beds or police cars.

(A version of this article was distributed as a flier at the community meeting on street prostitution on the 82nd Avenue in October 2008.)

I am not a sex industry activist.

Date: February 18, 2011

Sex-positive news site SEXIS (part of EdenFantasys) has an article (02/16/2011) about the successful burlesque cabaret fundraiser for the LA chapter of Sex Workers Outreach Project. The fundraiser sounds a lot of fun, and Mariko Passion who organized it is a friend of mine, so I’m glad to see the event got a good coverage.

But I was surprised to see my name pop up in a paragraph that goes like this:

The most common depiction of a sex worker in popular cultural is the down and out, victimized, street walker who needs saving. Interestingly enough, only ten percent of the entire sex industry is comprised of street sex workers and thanks to a “Whore Revolution” being waged by industry activists like Emi Koyama and Passion, they don’t need your saving. What they do need; however, is your support in their fight for rights, respect, and the ability to do their work without prejudice.

“Whore revolution” refers to the ‘zine I made in 2004 titled “Instigations from the Whore Revolutions: A Third Wave Feminist Response to the Sex Work ‘Controversy’,” but if this writer is mistaken if she thinks that “whore revolution” is just about achieving rights and respect for sex workers. Whore revolution that I’m calling for, and I believe Mariko is too, is aimed at bringing down all forms of violence and oppressions that make sex work dangerous, disrespected, stigmatized, exploitative, coerced into, and/or illegal.

Beside, I don’t like that the article refers to me as (sex) “industry activist.” I’m not a sex industry activist; I am a sex worker activist and advocate. It astonishes me that many people equate advocacy for sex workers with supporting the sex industry, as if workers and the bosses that leech off of our work share the same interest. The sex industry is incredibly sexist, racist, classist, ableist, transphobic, fatphobic, etc. and I don’t advocate for it. I advocate for workers, not industry.

cf. Why I’m more like “sex-neutral” rather than sex-positive.

Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next