I told you that I was going to be doing a lot more hands-on activism, and…you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. – “The ‘Active’ in ‘Activism’”
In the two years since I moved to Seattle, I’ve been a lot more hands-on in my sex worker rights activities; whereas in the past I mostly just wrote about the subject, now I also speak in public, give lots of interviews, participate in protests, speak to politicians and try to amplify as many other voices on the subject as possible. And when I sat down to write this year’s column recognizing Sex Worker Rights Day (which is today), I realized that it’s no longer possible to cleanly divide my private life from my activism. Whereas seven years ago most of the people I dealt with regularly had no idea I was a sex worker, now it would be much easier to count the number who don’t than the ones who do. Those few friends who aren’t whores themselves certainly know I’m one, as do the majority of the professionals I deal with (my accountant, my hairdresser, my doctors, my manicurist, etc, etc), and even when strangers ask what I do for a living I generally tell them; the few exceptions are usually when I’m in a social situation with a friend who isn’t out to the others in that situation, or when dealing with people who might hassle me if they knew the truth (like officials). Indeed, very few people now call me anything but Maggie; it was actually a little odd to hear Grace using my legal name when she came to visit at Christmas. But this really isn’t surprising; if anything, it’s the natural outcome of the mission I took on when I started this blog. I wanted to demystify the demimonde, to shine light into the shadows that let prohibitionists spread their lies about us so successfully. As I’ve said so often in interviews and speeches, the movement for gay & lesbian rights didn’t start to gain traction until enough queer people were “out” that most people realized that they knew and perhaps even loved someone queer; it will be the same for sex worker rights. And while I don’t blame any sex worker living under a criminalized or “legalized” regime for keeping her silence, it’s imperative that those of us who have less to lose be as “out” as we can manage under our individual circumstances. I have no spouse to embarrass, no children who could be taken from me, no family I’m not already estranged from, no future career plans that could be torpedoed by an employer discovering my history of harlotry. And while no sex worker is safe while any of us are considered criminals, I have less personally to lose than many others and so I’m proud to be both visible and respected for my work, without shame or fear. The tide has turned and the wind is shifting; sex workers are more visible than we’ve ever been, and nobody without power hunger, profit motive, or a personal ax to grind is in favor of criminalization any more. In a way, the “sex trafficking” hysteria was an early symptom that we’re winning; since our opponents couldn’t credibly portray us as villains any more, they turned to casting us as victims. And now that narrative, too, is failing, as reasonable people everywhere realize that criminalization makes things worse for those in bad situations. The day is coming when the prohibitions will start to fall like dominoes, and when it does I’ll be even more proud to know that I was one of those who helped knock that first one over.
And it’s just as important for the CLIENTS of sex-workers to also be out if they can be — if they’re not married, and if they wouldn’t lose their jobs. I enjoy being an out client — I get into so many interesting conversations with people.
Well said, Chester! It’s time for clients to jump into the fray.
“I have no spouse to embarrass, no children who could be taken from me, no family I’m not already estranged from, no future career plans that could be torpedoed by an employer discovering my history,,,”
Actually, that describes me as well. I need thing about being an “out client”.
I agree that clients need to be influencers but I still don’t believe they can ever be a primary voice in the debate. They are easily dismissed.
V Richey uses a broad stroke to paint all clients as exploiters. BPD Chief Mylett was dismissive in that Jan ’16 press conference (I re-watched that recently, what a hot mess of deception that was and I’m thoroughly convinced it was not about any case or evidence of a crime it was intended to create prejudice and bias, furthering the stigma) saying that clients “don’t care.” Qualliotine likes to refer to clients anachronistically as “tricks” (does anyone use that term anymore?), filing an empty void that is caused by depression.
The prohibitionists have the money and media. I believe that V Richey must be a better marketer than attorney at this point because that is all he performs. Radio show on Monday, keynote speaker at Skagit Valley Coalition Against Trafficking on Wednesday; he is the Seattle region’s Ashton Kutcher
The last few days how often did he repeat that distortion, “World’s oldest oppression?” He infers that it is clients that are the issue and not what Time mentioned last year that it is LE as the face of oppression, or that LE goes hand-in-hand with oppression.
The most effective approach, IMHO, is not the client’s voice as primary but as secondary and influencers. Which makes Maggie’s statement today more clear on how difficult it is to be an advocate for her rights.
Either we are all free, or none of us are free. The only exception are those who have violated other’s rights, and been found guilty through due process, and that should only be for a set period of time.
My arguments:
1). Would you judge a woman as “immoral” if she left her husband for another woman? No? Great. Then if two consenting adults of any gender decide to have sex for money, who are you to judge that choice either? Because in both cases, it’s adults making consensual choices.
2). My brother has a stay-at-home wife. He provides a big house, spending money, two cars, and lots of material perks. She brings sex and cooking to the table. Do you think I should call the cops and get them busted for being hooker and john?
People seem at least amused by my reasoning and generally agree with me. But I get the feeling that if we’d have been in a crowd situation instead of one-on-one, they’d be (metaphorically) picking up torches and running in circles screaming “Get him! Get him!!”
Great point, implied bias is extremely strong with this topic.
Richey (I hate to focus on him but he is more marketing anymore than prosecutor and a cartoon as well) ended this week’s radio interview with how he talks to his three sons constantly about how to talk about and with women, re-affirming the message that he stands firmly with feminism. The issue is that he began the interview describing the Bellevue women as “sex slaves,” a term that if anyone who knew them would know how extremely offensive that is to them.
Implied bias is a huge barrier. I’ve seen Maggie sitting next to Seattle’s Prosecutor, surrounded by profiteers of creating stigma, giving testimony to the dull faces of Law and Justice Committee members looking undeterred. It was Shakespearean in the messaging. And, it worked.