Important cause, pathetic venue. Fake blood is going over the line. Art shouldn't waste cops' time.
Like the cops wouldn't have hassled her regardless of the fake blood? You must be new to town.
People are dying, but fake blood is over the line. Check.
Your protest isn't going to be very effective if anyone with even a half-developed set of urban pedestrian instincts catches a glimpse of it from 30 yards away and marks it as "mentally unstable person, no eye contact, keep moving."
"Revolting Prostitutes" is a valuable book about public policies applicable to sex work that was recently released. It's written by Juno Mac and Mollie Smith, actual sex workers, who don't use personal experiences but insightful arguments to persuade toward decriminalization. Thank you for the article Mr. Smith.
Robotslave, I hear ya. But there was a small crowd of people around them, actually.
Is there proof that these people died because of SESTA-FOSTA? Is there proof that decriminalizing pimps and johns would have kept them from dying? Can the journalist Rich Smith present these proofs rather than assuming the answers?
The cops who came to check in on me actually really appreciated the opportunity to learn and thanked me for my work. As far as my piece not being effective, well... you found out about it, didn’t you? It made the papers. I’d say I did alright.
Sure is nice to have connections in the media, isn't it?
Proof? How about all of the sex workers who are telling you about our lived experience. Every December 17th we read a list of names of all the workers we know of who have been killed. The list was WAYYYY longer this year. I have also personally experienced an uptick in violence since the passage of this law. Believe us. Please.
Lol. @robotslave jealous? Please keep commenting. It really helps my algorithm and the cause of sex workers rights. Ty so much 4 your support.
Men will always think they need to get off no matter what the cost, or to whom. Women don’t need to buy into that shit. Boners taking precedence over the well-being of others isn’t a fight I encourage already-vulnerable people to fight. How about we instead discourage the idea that male dickfeels are of utmost importance? That they’re not worth more than the livelihood of those whom are already being exploited against their will. Educate men on the meaning of coercion, and how it nullifies consent. Shun those who espouse the idea that the world revolves around their dicks, especially when they need to pay somebody to agree. Maybe if men didn’t encounter a red carpet of dick-capitulation at every turn, all of this other bullshit wouldn’t be a factor in vulnerable people’s already-disenfranchised lives. All your progressivism about worker exploitation and fair wages morphs into brogressivism when it involves your nut.
Hey stranger, fix the pronouns on the captions and stuff. It's well known in town Vee goes by they/them.
COYOTE RI survey with analysis by SWOP Seattle or the impacts of FOSTA (and bias, stigma and hatred, including those of feminists, for sex workers)
The City has already legalized prostitution. The entire City Council (minus one) and the Mayor herself prostituted themselves to Jeff Bezos when he said he didn't want them to tax head.
@3 Welcome to the whatbout hall-of-fame! Cops murder more people than sex workers die, thanks to police-violence apologists like you.
@11 the answer you were looking for was "yes"
@14, unscientific sampling and tiny sample size. @10, that's assertion, not proof.
@18 Come on. Science? You are a strident ideologue who just knows what's true and right. Since when are you interested in science? Where's your 'proof' that prohibition/authoritarianism has any other affect than to provide satisfaction to those, like yourself, who are hellbent on imposing their puritanical views on others?
@18, You just described Melissa Farley's work but also add confirmation bias (and hatred of marginalized women).
Another day, another article where @7 argues for the criminalization of sex work. Please show us how criminalizing sex work has led to the end of sex work, which is obviously what you want. Please show us where decriminalization has failed it in its aims to improve the lives of sex work.
I'm going to guess that you can't.
@10 how many names are on that list?
@21 Oh she has 'science' on her side, don't you know? Did you know that sex work isn't work because it would not meet OSHA's standards? That's 'science'. Never mind that such fields of work like coal mining and crab fishing in the Bering Strait, likely just a bit more risky than sex work, are in fact regulated by OSHA.
"Demanding Harm Reduction" notes taken during the Harm Reduction Conference: https://medium.com/@reframehealthandjustice/demanding-harm-reduction-ebd0c4cb18d3
End demand "...in areas where these tactics have been implemented, they have shown increased violence against sex workers, increased shaming and stigma for everyone in the sex trade and been a drain on local budgets."
Donning up as a human abortion in Westlake to scare Christmas shoppers.
"fix the pronouns on the captions and stuff. It's well known in town Vee goes by they/them."
Well known by whom?
@21: I think pimps and johns should be charged with a crime, yes. I think prostituted women should not be charged with a crime and should, in fact, receive assistance and counseling. You are mischaracterizing my position. The only difference between you and me is that I think pimps and johns should go to jail and you think pimps and johns are A-OK. Maybe ask yourself why you're so supportive of pimps and johns? Because it's kinda weird if you ask me.
@19, I asked for proof, I got a link that did not provide proof, I pointed out that it did not. Not sure what the issue is.
@25, regarding your link: Yes, I'm aware of the opinions of those who disagree with me on this issue. I'm not sure why you linked it and referenced me, because I asked for proof of the harms wrought by SESTA-FOSTA, and the post offers assertions but not proof.
Rolando posted 12/21/17 almost the same very exact thing. https://www.thestranger.com/features/2017/12/20/25632018/if-youre-trying-to-buy-sex-on-the-internet-in-seattle-you-may-actually-be-chatting-with-a-bot/comments
Good public policy practices involve constant re-evaluations, particularly of failed objective. You will not find that with Rolando, who is more concerned with other issues than harm reduction. In an anonymous forum we can only assume why.
@31: I'm sorry? Ideological consistency is somehow a problem now?
No, not at all. But ideological consistency is all you have to offer individuals who are trying to survive the carceral state you promote.
@29 Hmm. Fond of getting the last word aren't you? Eh, you are an armchair authoritarian, want to disagree with that? That's odious enough, but you are also completely dishonest. There is nothing 'feminist' about your views. Age old slut-shaming, Victorian notions of female virtue with some slapped on 'feminist' veneer - anti-feminist.
Where is the 'proof' that any of the convictions of you and your sisters in the second-wave Taliban, and the advocacy (authoritarian cheerleading that is) that derives from them, are in anyway helpful to sex workers, or 'unenlightened' women in general? Seems pretty much all the proof we have points to the opposite being the case. But of course we understand: you are about as interested in acknowledging that as coal industry executives are interested in acknowledging the science of climate change.
You guys need to look up the No True Scotsman fallacy. Lots of feminists oppose prostitution.
@33, yes, I think men who exploit women should go to jail. Call it "carceral" if you want - I stand by it.
@35 That does not mean their (and your) flimsy 'feminist' rationale for their congenital puritanical hangups are in any way feminist. The supreme irony is that said hang-ups are a product of marinating in a patriarchal society from birth. We must protect those delicate flowers, the unenlightened, protect their precious virtue, from beastly male 'exploiters'. There's a very good reason these views are practically indistinguishable from those of a fundamentalist clergyman. They originate from the same source.
@36 What you think is men and women who are trying to survive should suffer. Call it whatever you want, click your heels and dream about unicorns...you're a carceral feminist who speaks with misogynistic overtones. You believe the violence perpetrated by Law Enforcement is the solution for what....it's your ideology. Hold onto it tightly so it keeps you warm.
Yes, Upside and Rhizome, you are the wokest of the woke. Invoke jargon and call me names all you want.
My stance is simple: (1) I believe prostituted women should not be prosecuted, (2) I believe pimps and johns should be prosecuted, and (3) no one has yet convincingly shown that discouraging online platforms from allowing the selling of sex has caused anyone to suffer violence. As to (1) and (2), those are my positions; you can have different ones if you want, but I'm not going to agree with you. As to (3), anyone can come up with proof any time and I'll modify my stance.
None of this is complicated.
You are very much in denial. You are one voice and a voice that is entitled to their opinion. But to use that voice to challenge an artist and the truth of her work, to say that the journalist of this piece has not done his job, and to tell sex workers that they not only do not deserve the respect of a title of their own choosing for the work they choose to do (no matter how passively you describe) but that their own lived experiences do not matter is condescending and malicious.
No, it's not complicated. The complicated issue is why you put so much effort to demonstrate your denial? Nobody asked for you to modify your stance. Maintain your dogmatic ideology all you wish. The issue is why is it so important to you that your stance take place on the backs of sex workers.
Your work is epistemic violence.
@39 I have no delusions that I am going to change your mind but I will continue to follow you around and challenge your remarks lest some impressionable types out there get the idea that you are presenting the wise, learned feminist take on this issue. True enough some feminists share your views (for instance the second wave Taliban that I mentioned) but if contesting that the origin and the subtext of their convictions are in fact of a feminist nature is an example of the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' then so is, for example, pointing out that the view held by many right-wing Christians that those seeking asylum from war or persecution should be turned away as a general rule is really quite unchristian.
@40 upside... please finish your freshman english courses and try writing this again in 25 years when you've got half a clue.
@40: "so much effort"? You've written far more words in this thread than I have. You marshal that abundance of words in an attempt to shame me - all on behalf of pimps and johns.
And knowledge isn't violence. This is the real world, not an Evergreen seminar.
@41: You're admitting that you're "following me around" - again, on behalf of pimps and johns - because you don't want people to think I sound "wise"? You might want to reexamine your strategy.
@43 pimps and johns? I have not written one word or referenced to them at all. Talking about a group as if you have ownership over them is epistemic violence. It's a common attribute to white feminism.
So, we should be on a word count? I can anticipate this to be your last post? LOL
@44 Well, seeing how the best arguments you have mustered thus far are that sex work isn't work because it supposedly does not meet OSHA's standards and porn is 'violence against women' because the female performers aren't getting off (universally true!), you might not be doing as well as you think you are.
And I don't think transactions between mutually consenting adults should be illegal, whatever names you want to call them. You on the other hand are all about patronizingly denying said adults agency and reinforcing the stigmas that are arguably at least as harmful to them as any 'pimps' and 'johns'. 'Ideological consistency' if you are church lady from the bible belt maybe. For an alleged feminist? No so much.
A. The only difference between your position and mine on the response to prostitution is that I think pimps and johns should go to jail and you don't.
B. You really, really don't like my position and have spent many words saying so.
C. Your words are in support of pimps and johns.
@46, you're laughably ignorant if you think the only reason anyone would oppose pornography and prostitution is adherence to religion.
No, once again you have displayed your intention to not understand. But you are truly not listening (or caring). You have said a lot of words that represent not reality but you.
@49: To not understand what? Not listening to what? Spell it out.
You are being intentionally dense. You value dogma over any conversation regarding harm reduction such as you have displayed once again by attacking sex workers and journalists with an opposing view to you. You value penal solutions over the voices for those it creates violence. You are represented by another post pretending to be intentionally confused (ie dense). (Tell us again what is an assertion and what is a conclusion? LOLL!) The prostituted! They certainly need somebody like you to rescue them. Somebody who has no economic replacements and comes off cold as marble. Your LEAD org must be very valuable to you.
Rolando, you, your ideology and your ignorance offer nothing. I encourage you to listen to the voices that your ideology (lies), LEAD Org (carceral violence), and distortions (dogma) impact.
But, you won't. And, that is why I thank you. I have exploited your ignorance to counter your banal reductivism. Thank you The Stranger!
Upside, this is pure spaghetti-throwing word salad. It conveys no meaning. Since you won't spell it out, I will. I support efforts to end prostitution. You cannot deal with a person conveying this position. That sums up this interaction.
I am a former sex worker and I agree with you, rolando. Those in this thread who love speaking FOR and OVER actual sex workers, I wonder if it ever occurs to you, as you fall all over yourselves to fight the good fight for the rights of pimps and johns, that sex workers can speak for themselves and we aren’t a monolith.
It’s not about white feminism, it’s about “liberal feminism”.
No, you conveyed that "the prostituted" should be left alone and what they do is A-ok (insert pimp and john fetish here). Am I not right? And, this is an article about an individual sex worker using art as a mode of expression but you believe she is wrong, even misunderstanding of the difference between ascert/conclude. I think it was Rolando who condescendingly spoke over Vee to say she was wrong . Here is another sex worker who would love to be heard:
The violence of carceral solutions intervened. But, it's ok, you get your LEAD & NGO money while you can despite what sex workers are saying.
So Rolando is saying that sex workers are living in a state of false consciousness, needing to be saved by her but are resisting the truth? Or is the truth the other direction?
Another voice of sex worker silenced because of carceral solutions...Vee also highlighted her name...
Upside, I want to end prostitution. Neither of those women would be dead if there were no prostitution.
Do you have proof of this assertion? What if their work had been decriminalized? More than half of the women slain in 2017 were by family or intimate partners, by your logic, if there were no families or intimate partners...?
Upside, that is bonkers crazy. Prostitution is an institution that could go away tomorrow and no one would be the worse for it. Families and intimate partners are institutions that aren't harming anyone and in fact are probably a net good. The reason so many women are killed by family and intimate partners is patriarchy. End patriarchy, not families. Are you truly serious?
"Net good"? So you do believe in harm reduction or not? Patriarchy? A system of society enabled by what? The family unit. You neither talk about social safety nets or rising costs of living. You are empty and intellectually dishonest. This is a story about a call to harm reduction and a plea to move away from imperialist violence and police state so easily supported by you. May I remind you that your cause is centered upon crapping on the articles of people trying to give voice to those you marginalize.
Here is another one of those voices you hope to erase (purposefully left the citation out to protect her anonymity) speaking of the "institution":
"Please note i am paraphrasing crudely. But the best way i can boil it down is this. Seattle wants to have the appearance that its use of the nordic model is uniform, orderly. In reality what it does, and how it does it, is very chaotic. other jurisdictions in washington , like olympia, and tacoma, are even more confusing. Basically very few people in local govt respect sex workers but everyone wants to have the appearance of being a good compassionate liberal."
Upside, this is an incoherent mess. In comment 58 you suggest that I'm a terrible person because my previous statements could be twisted to suggest that I want to get rid of families. In comment 60 you suggest that I'm a terrible person because my previous statements could be twisted to suggest that I support families. Clearly your only goal is to tell me I'm terrible, never mind if it leaves you contradicting yourself. You have one strange mind.
Prostitution is bad. End.
I'm sorry, and how are you going to end it? More laws? More criminalization? More funds for your NGO/LEAD org?
rolando74, vee, in post #10 wrote, "Believe us. Please." She was replying to you. Think about it (but you won't).
Your ad hominem attacks don't matter to me that's all you have. You and they are empty gestures.
Sex workers want legal identities. Sex workers want labor rights. They don't want your version of white feminism ideology that erases their voices. They don't want rescues. They don't want your rescue.
If your NGO/LEAD org was so viable why then does LE need to coerce, deceive and lure women into a trap in order to get them into diversionary programs?
Upside, I want to end prostitution because it harms women as a class. It reinforces the idea that women exist for the purpose of sex. If some prostituted women want to remain prostituted, that's an individual and selfish decision on their part; they're putting their own desires ahead of women's overall flourishing. You misunderstand my motives. I don't have any org, NGO/LEAD or otherwise.
It's fascinating that you continue to try to shame me. It's not working, dude.
"...that's an individual and selfish decision on their part." But you continue to use the passive voice "prostituted". Why? "Desires" also? You refuse to use the accepted term 'sex worker'. Fascinating use of vernacular.
You do have an org. Organization for Prostitution Survivors is a petri dish for your form of toxic feminism. I'm a "dude" huh? Maybe I'm Camille Paglia who believes that your form of feminism is a call for a gender war, toxic, and evil. Look up "patriarchy" at Urban Dictionary and find the most liked definition. It's not all ironic.
In a city with a female Mayor, Police Chief, and 6 of 9 city council members, women are still being held down because of Vee?
Mr. Smith wrote above: "In that moment, these Seattleites showed more human concern for Chattie than many show for sex workers on a regular basis. It was effective performance art."
Any possibility at all you could consider those words? Or is the money stream to your ineffective NGO/LEAD org that important?
As I said: "It's fascinating that you continue to try to shame me. It's not working, dude."
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.