The Message on Aurora

Grrrl Army's Latest Mural Kicks Open a Conversation on Prostitution


Until the average woman is physically stronger (or equal to) the average man, street prostitution is going to be dangerous and unfair to women.

I'm on board the trans humanist train. Next stop: equality.
@1 But I was told by Anita Sarkeesian that women are just as strong as men!

Who do I listen to?
@2: She was referring to fictional women. Often ones with science fiction or fantasy-based super powers, which illustrates my point.

Separate can never be equal.
@3 Even fictional women are based in reality.

My point wasn't whether women are or aren't stronger than men. Rather, my point is that there are completely conflicting messages about females, femininity, women's strength, and women's sexuality coming from the feministic front. There are some who say that women can't be as strong as men, and there are some who say that depictions of women being weaker than men are not based in reality. There are some who say that a woman's sexuality is for the women alone, and that men should be subjected to it, and others who say that women shouldn't have a sexuality.

There are some who say that willing prostitution is a natural outcome of feminist beliefs that a woman can do what she wants in order to make her way in the world (note the word willing; we're not talking about forced prostitution), and that prostitution is one of those options, using men to get money from them. Others say that using your sexuality and body in such a manner is subjecting yourself to the paternalistic misogynistic society that objectifies women and their sexuality.

To make precise statements like "Separate can never be equal" is to undermine a whole chorus of feminist voices and to undermine women themselves in a defeatist attitude.
I'll admit I am yanking this topic of street prostitution into the greater issue of women's equality, which probably isn't good. But anyways, to continue the thread and undermine some more choruses:

I feel that technology, notably birth control technology, has come far enough that women should ask themselves: do I make do with what I have (for example, no way to prevent pregnancy) or technologically upgrade my womanhood (for example, option to selectively prevent pregancy, and potentially, all kinds of things).

Right now this only applies to birth control, but it could now, or soon, apply to many things. What if there was an implant to prevent periods when they weren't needed? To match men's biologically natural levels of HGH? To alter the levels of risk-seeking behaviors--another area in which men and women have been proven separate?

I feel that discussions of issues about unfairness relating to women should always include the question: Is this a problem that could be solved better by science than by policy and by exhortations for women or men to do or not do a certain thing?

Yes, many solutions are science fiction now, yet the cell-phone was science fiction in 1960.
You give these people way too much press.
Its the equivalent of the Seattle Weekly's confusingly frequent coverage of Phoenix Jones.
Man, I wish I could edit comments I make here. anyways, hopefully this is less offensive:

In modern times, people have the right, and almost have the technology, to switch their gender. Why shouldn't people be allowed to simply build their own gender? Why should we have gender as something absolutely fixed through all time, a dogma that must never be questioned?
What I really want to know is... is it okay yet for us men to leave the toilet seat up?

Casue I hear about how women are tough and they can do things themselves etc etc then I always get berated by a woman for leaving the toilet seat up. I though I was doing them a favor by leaving it up. I thought I was sending them the message "Hey, I know you're as tough as any man and can mind your own toilet seat."

But No. Happens every time I get the line "Can't you put the fucking toilet seat down you no good sexist bastard!"

Women's lib is confusing to most men.
I'm with surf shop guy (who, according to your own writing, was comparing the "drugs and unhealthiness that go with street prostitution" to a salmonella food truck, not the prostitutes themselves); prostitution (and the concomitant increase in drug abuse and STDs) is bad for business, unless your business IS prostitution.
I love this mural. It brings a bright spot into an otherwise shadowy world. This stuff needs to happen. Bring it out of the seedy world of crime and into the light of normal society. Hey, it's a thing that exist, and that ain't going to change, so lets make it safer for all.

And BTW, mandatory life sentences for forcing a person into prostitution, sex trafficking, and the like. People that kidnap and or force people into prostitution/ rape slavery cannot be rehabilitated. Even if they could, I think it best they just go away until their natural life runs its natural course.
I registered just so I could point out the hypocrisy of Jen Graves in this article.

1) She seems to think that finding women sexually attractive and wishing to sleep with them, and being willing to pay to sleep with them, equates "hating women." As a man, there are many times I stare at women and think of nothing but how much I want to sleep with them and I would (but haven't) pay good money to sleep with certain women. But guess what? THERE ARE CERTAIN MEN I WOULD PAY GOOD MONEY TO SLEEP WITH TOO, does that mean I hate men?

2) All this concern for women "selling themselves" on Aurora avenue. Yet, I bet the author of this article would flip out if someone suggested the bath houses on Capitol Hill be closed. So, a woman sleeping with strangers for money is wrong...but a man sleeping with strangers and not even getting paid (but giving money to the owners of these sad establishments) is his "civil right?"

3) A couple of strip clubs in the Seattle area have "male revues" filled with male strippers to the delight of ugly old soccer moms out for lady's night, and the Chippendales Dancers have been at the Tulalip Casino several times. Why is she not writing articles about the "anti-men" atmosphere there and how those male dancers are "dehumanized"?

4) The biggest complaint I have about this article is how the author goes on in this self righteous tone about how awful prostitution is, and I turn the hard copy of "The Stranger" around and look at the Ads that keep the Stranger, and by extension, Jen Graves, paid: THEY ARE A BUNCH OF ADS FOR ESCORTS! (i.e., prostitutes)

So, are those women (and men) not as worth her concern? Because they have a bad taste ADS with stars covering their genitals they are somehow less objectified than a woman walking down Aurora?

The end of this article asks the reader "what are YOU doing to talk about prostitution?" My question to Jen Graves is this: what does SHE think about money from prostitute ADS going to her checkbook? Is SHE talking about it with her editor?
@11 I don't think it says what you read. And, I'm normally calling it out.

Yes, she's a bit sexphobic and misandristic in her equating prostitution to being propositioned by strangers (even strangers who have no game). I think much of The Stranger's feminist writers come from a toned down Camille Paglia school of thought where feministic ideals means the repression of sexuality, because sexuality is a tool of our paternalistic society or whatever, completely ignoring that sexuality can also be a tool of feminism as well.

But, beyond that, I think a lot of this article is pondering the moralism of prostitution, especially street prostitution, and, more especially, forced prostitution vs willing prostitution. Graves hems and haws her way through a bunch of different opinions and views without taking a stance, and without presenting too thorough a view framed by any of the sides. In the second to last paragraph she says she tweets she would support prostitution legalization.

But, bringing this to the ad revenue, one wonders if and/or how many of the ads are forced ads vs willing ads. In an ideal world no ad for prostitution would be forced. But, the hullabaloo of the wanted ads from Village Voice shows that might not be the case for any paper.
Aw crap... When I lived on Aurora I thought all the men around there were really nice to me. I also thought I had hit my sexy stride and everyone noticed. I didn't realize they all were looking for prostitutes. :(
About time they put one up that does not look like total shit.

Although they still have some work to do regarding spacing and emphasis. I mean, they ran out of space and now the phone numbers and addresses are tiny and out of place.
I went back and read Jen's original call for stories on Slog. Now, having read all the responses, I can only conclude that men find prostitutes on the street by going to a certain neighborhood and propositioning every female they see until they actually find one that's selling.

I was propositioned in the parking lot of a toy shop in Olympia (on a Sunday morning no less). Not for money though - the guy just thought he could do a better job than what I had just bought. Sorry dude, I may patronize sex shops here 'n' there, but it doesn't mean I fuck strangers.

I was pretty stunned at the time, but reflecting back at the way he jumped in his car and sped off, I think he might have had to really work up the courage to say something and was totally embarrassed when I turned him down. Or he just wanted to make sure I didn't get his license number. Whichever.
I'm really glad to hear about this Organization for Prostitution Survivors that says they will provide services to all women who want help, not just trafficked and underaged populations. The forgotten women over 18 who walk the streets, at least the ones I have met (many) on Aurora are prostituting to get just enough money together for the next hit of heroin, keeping them trapped in a neverending cycle. Many have lost everything, including their children. As veins dry up and they need to shoot into muscle or skin-pop directly under the skin, many get abscesses that eat away at their flesh until they are finally treated, usually in the ER. If they are lucky, they get there before amputation is required. Plus they are subject to disease from men who refuse to wear condoms. As their looks deteriorate, it becomes harder to get picked up. They have to begin taking less money, and need to work more to survive. One woman I know has completely lost kidney function at age 34. She requires dialysis several times a week to stay alive. And still she can't leave opiates behind. Without the men who constantly troll Aurora looking for release and or choose not to see these women as human beings, but merely receptacles, the heroin and crack dealers would go out of business there. But that's pretty damn unlikely to happen anytime soon. This is a tragic situation happening all over the country and I hope we can find a way to help these women who so desperately need our assistance to regain their bodies and self esteem.
Thank you Jen, for writing this article. Legalizing prostitution SHOULD be next, after marijuana. Please keep writing about this subject, the more time is spent engaging others about this topic and breaking down the social taboo of sex work, the quicker we will get this goal.

Please please look at these websites:

sex workers are human and therefore have rights. sex workers are your family and friends. sex workers are a part of your community.

@15 Well you could always take a trip up there and get the number yourself if you need help escaping prostitution.
@17: Thank you.
@17 Agreed on so many points except for you blaming johns.

I'm so not saying that prostitution is a glamour job, especially street walking. But, to blame the johns completely is just misandristic. The johns, even the ones who are shitty fucking misogynistic assholes, probably didn't give the women their first hit of heroin, crack, coke, or whatever drug the prostitutes are addicted to. They just created a need that might be filled by any woman, willing or not. The problem is that prostitution, much like most sex work, including stripping and pornographic acting, is maligned in society. To legalize it, and regulate it, might push the pimps and sex traffickers out of the industry and create an industry of completelywilling participants instead of including a high percentage of forced drug addicted women.

I especially like how you lay all the blame on the johns and not the heroin and crack dealers. Because the dealers are just there making money, but the johns are there to give money...or something. I think your sense of blame is severely misguided in that sentence.

However, I firmly believe in getting drug addicts the help they need (I wish rehab was cheaper, and the cheaper ones more humane). I firmly believe that people shouldn't be forced into prostitution, nor should they be jailed for it (nor for drug use nor for drug possession). And, while government regulation of bodies seems wrong, this would be more about regulation of an industry. Every industry uses bodies, like the meat industry. And they need regulations to help protect those bodies from falling to harm from dastardly individuals who would like to save/earn money by putting people in danger against their will.
Come on, the guy from Surf Shop was not comparing people to infested food. That is intellectually lazy. In his analogy people/prostitutes = food trucks. Like food trucks, prostitutes are fine, but that doesn't mean you want them in front of your business when they are a public health concern. The analogy seems to be simply making the point that he isn't anti-prostitute. Using an analogy involving food trucks is not the same thing as comparing to food trucks.
Dear Jen Graves,
I would like to thank you for writing this article. I think that you bring up allot of important points that I agree with. I particularly liked your point about Sweden whom shifted there focus from criminalizing women to criminalizing the demand side. Yet I don't see how this would protect women's rights to any greater degree. Perhaps we should just criminalize pimping which I believe is equal to human trafficking. I think it is completely due and appropriate that something like grrrl army would pop up now, and I think sex workers rights are absolutely tied in with all of the issues around the war against women that seems to have sky rocketed in the last few years. The women who came out the other day as been a rape victim said what I think is revolutionary. "We need to teach men not to rape." Yes we need to cultivate this in men! We need to talk about sex more! Bring it out in the open we need to undo thousands of years of patriarchal conditioning that the women's body is evil and that the women's body is the ownership of men. Thank you for bringing a greater awareness to the general public about sex workers. And thank you to grrl army. I will, in my work continue to bring awareness and hopefully support to sex workers rights and the rights of women.
Yes, we should decriminalize prostitution. Because laws against prostitution are really laws against a) being poor and b) having sex for reasons other people think are eeeew, icky!

All the things you can say about disease or immorality are just as potentially applicable to people meeting in a fancy bar in Belltown and having sex in an expensive house on Mercer Island. And all the thing you can say about how street prostitutes "bring" crime, unhealthiness or just unsightliness with them sounds a lot like former city Attorney Mark Sidran's ban on sitting-while-homeless.

Laws against prostitution are primarily used to hassle and incarcerate poor people - mostly women or trans people, but not exclusively. (They also serve to keep women who don't do sex work nervous about being mistaken for a whore and thus "asking for" whatever happens to her.)

If social services groups want to reach out to street prostitutes, great. But they shouldn't have to get arrested or have a cop referral to get help if they want it. And no consenting adults should be arrested just for being poor and selling their sexual services in a way that isn't as prettied-up as "Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire?"
This destroyed motel, that was closed partly because it hosted drug-dealing and prostitution, is the ONLY such building from south of the zoo to the ship canal on Aurora. It's been closed for over 2 years, and an article like this one that fails to see that prostitutes no longer walk this stretch of 99 just makes it harder to improve the neighborhood. Few cars troll here now, and it's safer to walk to and from the bus, to walk a dog, to use the pedestrian bridge, and that's thanks to the neighborhoods on both sides of 99 who worked hard to change it. And thanks to SPD, the former Assistant City Attorney, and Councilmember Tim Burgess who worked with motel owners to improve their management and who helped close them down when they resisted.
Once again, moralizing from Seattle's finest fag-rag.

What about all the ads for escorts in the back pages, Jen?

The Stranger: Seattle's only newspaper used for cleaning up santorum.
I support the message on the wall, but straight-up legalization remains a problem for me. It's not about being "prettied-up"; it's about drug addiction and slavery. The zoned-out women stumbling from car to motel to pavement are not "doing sex work"; they do not have any such agency. There are something like 800 underage street prostitutes in this city. They're terrified, enslaved, destroyed. It is a business of pure misery.

It is simply not true to say that "laws against prostitution are primarily used to hassle and incarcerate poor people". Every cop on the prostitution beat would be THRILLED to move these women out of drugs and street prostitution. The cops are usually the only people looking out for their welfare, and they are much happier to refer them to prgrams that get them out of the life. The message on this wall? Every cop tells the enslaved women on his beat all of that every time he sees them: "are you ready to come in yet? Here's my card."

Is there such a thing as a civilized way to do sex work? Sure. It's not available to poor women addicted to drugs, or to underage runaways. It never will be. The life that Mistress Matisse leads bears no resemblance to that of a 15-year-old on heroin down on International Boulevard.

Sweden is an interesting example to pick. After Sweden changed its laws, the criminal prostitution network, which is one of the cornerstones of international organized crime, all moved to Amsterdam, whose liberal policy is turning out to be a crime magnet for all of Europe.

There are no easy answers. "Legalize it" is an easy answer, but without significant conditions and a whole raft of support programs, it will make the problem worse, not better. We don't need gangsters moving thousands of drug-addicted women here to take advantage of our more liberal laws -- which is exactly what will happen.
mrs matisse, hi, i was wondering if you felt that people who profit from the role being vital were racist in any way?
"Misandry" isn't real. It's like saying "reverse racist". You can't oppress white people for being white, and you certainly can't oppress men for being men.

I know you're probably used to men being the most important element of all discussions, but just because something doesn't focus on men doesn't mean that the article is trying to 'oppress' men. It's ok to just talk about women or transpersons in an article about an industry where women and transpersons are overwhelmingly victimized.

Also, Mistress Matisse. SO beautifully put.
@fnarf:There are something like 800 underage street prostitutes in this city.

Let me guess - that number came from an agency who's funding depends on it?

If this were true, it would mean roughly 3% of Seattle's 13-17 year-olds are prostitutes.
@5 Transhumanist garbage.
@29: "Misandry" isn't real.

Call it what you want, there are plenty of women who hate men. There are also plenty of black folks who hate white people.
@27: The essence of any harm-reduction strategy is starting from the assumption that there will be bad outcomes. The question is which approach creates the least bad outcomes.

As regards the "crime-magnet" objection, two points: 1. If this logic were followed consistently, no state could ever be the first to pursue a harm-reduction strategy towards decriminalization, because neighboring states still retain the old laws. Seems to be a lowest-common-denominator effect. 2.Isn't the demand relatively static? How does creating a legal, safe supply increase the demand for the illegal, unsafe version? Sure, customers may go to where it's legal and safe to purchase the goods and services they want, but isn't that what we want? To get them to take their dollars out of an illegal economy and instead spend them in a regulated one?
@32 Prejudice/hatred is not the same as oppression. The abusers in this circumstance are generally men, and victims generally women or transpersons. Acknowledging that is not oppressing men.

Sexism and racism are not the same as just "hate." They also come with hundreds of years of systematic oppression. So unless history has magically changed and men can suddenly be oppressed just for being men (excluding other factors such as race/being queer, etc), "misandry" isn't a thing.
srslywut @34, your semantics and arguments are a mess.

You chastised The Misanthrope @29 for referencing Graves' misandry, claiming that misandry does not exist because (in your opinion) men cannot be oppressed for being men. TheMisanthrope wasn't arguing that Jen Graves was oppressing men as a class, only that she was exhibiting elements of misandry in her writing. Misandry means the hatred of men, not the oppression of men. There is a difference.

So, either you don't know the definition of misandry, or you are concocting strawmen arguments for yourself to vanquish. I'm guessing it's the latter.

After all, you don't have to feel guilty about your sex-based prejudice (aka sexism, another word you seem suspiciously fuzzy on) if it's impossible for that prejudice to exist.

I feel bad for you. Maybe one day you will develop enough empathy to consider that men are people too, and they don't deserve sex-based hatred (misandry) or sex-based prejudice (sexism) levied against them any more than women deserve misogyny or sexism.

Then you will be moving towards equality, not dogma.
@35. I do not hate men, nor do I advocate for the hatred of men as a group, so you can throw that accusation out the door. I was merely explaining that men cannot be oppressed merely for being men, just as I, a white person, cannot be oppressed based on my whiteness.

Though in its literal definition, misogyny means a "hatred of women", it is colloquially and socially synonymous with "sexism" which is an institutional problem, and because women have been oppressed for hundreds of years, this applies. Men cannot be oppressed by those whom they have been oppressing. That is not how oppression works. (just to pre-empt you getting your underwear in a twist, I am referring to men as a social class, obviously not to every individual man in the world).

Have you ever noticed that the term "misandry" is only used by white men who have their feelings hurt when something doesn't include them, or when they are pointed to as a group that is often an oppressor?

Equality can only be achieved when people start acknowledging their privilege and working against it, not by pretending it doesn't exist and hoping equality will magically happen without anyone speaking up. If you want to learn more about sexism, do not silence the people who are speaking out about it.

This is like "Gender studies/existing in the world 101," dude.
Another strawman @36. I never said that you hate men as a group. The only "accusation" I leveled against you was a lack of empathy, tinged with sexism that allows you to deny misandry exists.

I'm glad you made it through Gender Studies 101, but perhaps you should return for more schooling. You don't have a very good grasp on the use of language.

For example, you don't get to redefine "misogyny" as "institutional sexism" or "oppression" because you feel like it. There are important differences. And you don't get to throw out words with established meanings because they challenge your idealogy.

That is a silencing tactic, dude.
Let me express my feelings by using the words of the great Lindy West: "*fart noise*"

"you don't have to feel guilty about your sex-based prejudice"--ring a bell? you wrote it, about me hating men. I do not have prejudice against men, but that men who identify as men that were born with what are generally accepted as man parts cannot experience sexism is a fact, not something I just pulled out of my ass.

I'm glad that you can read the dictionary, but that is not how sexism works. This isn't my ideology, this is 'being a woman living in the world'. As a white, heterosexual (I assume, since a queer person who has fought oppressing for their entire lives would probably not be arguing with me on this) man, you have never nor will you ever experience sexism.

Correcting you in an area where you are definitely wrong, and literally cannot understand or experience, is not the same as silencing the voices of the oppressed.

Also, if you want me to site my sources, let me point you to 1)all of western and/or colonial history 2)a library, where you can read one of thousands of books or studies that have been written about this.

I am now done with your bulllllllshit.
Let me add a couple of relevant words that you omitted from your quote: "you don't have to feel guilty about your sex-based prejudice (aka sexism)". Ring a bell? Oh look, it's right there in black and white.

And I don't need you to "site" your sources. You might want to revisit the library yourself, where you will find books written about the phenomenon of misandry.
Excuuuuuuse me. "Cite" is what I meant. Typing quickly at work.

Also, via a quick search of the Seattle Public Library catalog under "misandry": six results, five of which are by either Gloria Steinem or Valerie Solanas, neither of whom would be sticking up for the idea of "misandry", and one that vaguely agrees with your point. One.

I wish you well, but I also wish for you to shut up now. (Really, I'm trying to save you some embarrassment here)
AAAH also, can't resist-FROM THE DICTIONARY:

attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.
1965–70; sex + -ism, on the model of racism

You lose! But really, you win, since you cannot be oppressed by sexism.
Your post @41 doesn't prove your nonsensical point. Again, the meaning of words escape you.

Also, did you go to school at a public library? I suppose that explains a lot.

Here, try the UW's library. Happy reading.

Now, if you'll excuuuuse me, I'm going to go bask in all of my privilege for a while.
Also this.
@43 and @44, Thanks for making me so poignantly aware that you come from the same no-thinking-involved school of thought on gender as Lindy West. She splashes around in concepts she heard once but never really understood, and then results to fart jokes, allcaps, and animated .gifs when reasoning fails her. It's kind of ironic that your idol writes like a 12 year old boy, isn't it?

This also explains your parroting of West's moronic position on misandry- you can't think for yourself.

Find some more .gifs. You'll feel better.
Nice of you to deign to come back and look at my pictures!

Your gender enlightenment aside, ultimately this article isn't about you or I (or how wrong you are and how right I am). It is about people who are often victimized, abused, and othered and finding ways of empowering and supporting them. Can we work on this as a collective? yes?
Also, its not parroting if it is literally the correct answer. "1+1=2?! Way to parrot your kindergarten teacher. Learn to think for yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
You're the one who wanted to go down the semantic hole @29. It's a little disingenous to claim threadjacking at this point, don't you think?

However, I'm willing to accept that your sexism won't allow you to see hatred against men as a problem (whether or not you choose to call it misandry and/or conflate it with OMG oppression), and leave the thread open for a discussion about prostitution. This has drifted far off-topic.
I was blaming myself for threadjacking, but upholding that you are super craaaaaazy wrong.
Right. Post another .gif. That will prove something.

Better make it animated though, because those give your opinions extra truthiness.
I love that srslywut thinks I'm a heterosexual white male.

1 out of 3 ain't bad.

Seriously though? Misandry doesn't exist? Woman, please. That's like saying blacks can't hate white people. Or gays can't resent straight straight people. Or, atheists can't hate Christianity. Or dumb people can't hate smart people. Or rich people can't resent poor people.

Misogyny is not shorthand for oppression. It's shorthand for hating or devaluing women based on their sex.

But, if you want to believe that no opinion could possibly be hating on men simply because we live in a patriarchical society, so be it. At that point, I think we all know you can't be taken seriously.
I can't respond seriously to this just because it is so. fucking. ridiculous.

Yeah, misogyny is shorthand for oppression. There isn't a time where someone is misogynistic and does not contribute to the oppression of women.

Misandry isn't real. Neither is heterophobia. Neither is 'reverse-racism'. Masculinity is never challenged. And no one is subject to any oppression or true (socially & politically) damaging hatred simply for being a man. I'm done repeating things that you should already know as a human living in the world.

Sorry to Jen for hijacking this thread on a fantastic, thought-provoking article article, and sorry to TheMisanthrope and kitschnsync that you aren't better people.
I should say more empathetic people. Aside from this glaring issue, you are probably good people.
Srslywut, you have a big, hypocritical blind spot in your world view. There is no excuse for spreading hate, no matter the target.

kitschnsync: Never here did I say that I hate anyone. I don't hate men, nor do I even feel prejudice against them as a group. I don't hate you even, I just think you are misguided and pathetic. Don't mistake an acerbic tone for hatred. In explaining what it is like to have actual gender discrimination and hatred used against me in my everyday life (and my experience is reasonably benign compared to queer women, women of color, etc.), to face a neverending series of microaggressions every. fucking. day...I just don't have to be nice to you. Sorry that I didn't fucking spoon feed you and then cuddle you so your fee-fees weren't hurt. You can't dictate what gender inequality is when you haven't had to experience it.

You're the one who is trying so desperately (and imaginatively!) perpetuate the idea of some kind of victimization for the world's universally (politically and socially, and economically) dominant group. Jesus Christ. No one is trying to say that men cannot be discriminated against ever (they can! for pretty much anything else! race! being queer! not being traditionally masculine enough! socioeconomic status! for being a trans! So much stuff!!!!!!), just not for being a man in and of itself. I have been more than generous in my explanation of this, as you, kitschnsync, cannot understand what it is like to really, truly be discriminated against for your gender. And as someone whose entire life is dictated by real, existing sexism, I don't owe you shit. Read some books. Listen to some women. Quit while you're behind.


I say good day.

You couldnt find a one sex worker in a city full fo them to ask what they might think of the mural? But owner of a surf shop gets a sound byte?
Crack reporting Jen.
Wow, another elaborate strawman. I'm not trying to perpetuate any kind of victimization whatsoever. Misandrists don't have enough power to victimize me, though I don't doubt that casual hate speech left unchallenged could eventually lead to such power.

And I'm not trying to diminish prejudice experienced by any group whatsoever. I'm taking issue with your assertion that misandry -the hatred of men- does not exist.

You say it doesn't, because patriarchy. That's a non sequitur, yet you somehow regard it as fact.

Look, you're not doing feminism or equality as a whole any favors by denying the existence of misandry. You need men in the conversation about equality, and misandry is a plague on feminism. Own it.

My last comment was directed at 55, clearly.
Srslywut, may I ask how old you are?
It's illegal and what has that done? Has it stopped the problems or made them worse? Women will always sell sex. It's always been that way. Nobody has to like it. It's reality. Men need sex and will pay for it. Women need money and will sell for it. It makes no sense, however, to give women police records so they can't find work other than selling their bodies. A record only traps them. Instead, offer drug treatment or help finding decent work. And get the police out of the consenting adults business.
The strip of Motels on East Marginal is just as sad. You can look in the AirLane Parking lot at 2am or the Munson parking lot at 2am or the Aero Parking lot at 2am, it's young girls and their pimps. It's Boeing picking them up on the way to work during the weekday mornings. Great, some guy wants to pay for sex. Until it is legalized, regulated, and the stigma taken off of most of these girls that are addicts, it won't change. To start the City could look into most of these SRO's that are not running an honest business. Those motels live off the backs of the poor. They over charge for the unsafe an unhealthy living environment that the tenets and the communities that struggle around their " I got mine" attitude put up with daily. I get it. SPD is spread thin in the areas with the highest crime. While all the OccupyWall St. garbage was going on, South precinct police had to take care of that mess. It took hours for calls just on my street about drug deals, fights, and prostitution to be acknowledged. It was more important to harass demonstrators, no matter how annoying, then deal with actual crime. My contempt for City leadership is high. I don't think I could tolerate voting for anyone that holds a current office, again.
@61: Could you explain what you mean by SROs? Are you referring to motels? I ask, because I thought SROs in Seattle had been shut down years ago.
Motels. SROs and Motel are the same. Now they are motels. If the word is incorrect now, sorry. Most of the people that I encounter living in Motels here have been living in the same ones for years. They just check out in enough time, then comeback. It's sad because it seems to be the cities answer to low income housing of everyone from single mothers to sex offenders.
@63: Thank you for the explanation.
I worked at the blockbuster that used to be there. Some overtly dressed ladies came into the store and bought popsicles. They were kind enough to take the jokes away from my shift lead at the time. "It's so hot working out there today". It was moments like that I was glad we didn't sell porn, because that was as "bad" as it ever got. Most of what happened on Aurora was still sheltered from me. This was an amazing article. You have my vote, support and all the other things.
Both Australia and New Zealand have excellent functioning systems of decriminalized and regulated prostitution.……

Prostitutes are the last group of consenting adults who can be arrested and imprisoned simply for having sex for a reason some third person (with much more power) doesn't approve of. It is the state saying: Even if you are both consenting adults of sound mind, we can invalidate your consent and deem your sexual behavior a crime. That is not how a free society should work.
I lust for a whore in an apodment!