Added:
More often than not, when I find this page linked to some feminist debate about prostitution, people discuss my character and motives (with predictable results, so far no surprises), but I have yet to see one single person on any of these blogs or message boards ask about or discuss the situation in Tan Bazar that I refer to. That tells me all I need to know about whether there's anything new or useful or curious or compassionate in that particular discussion. I rarely join in because I'd rather not have the same conversation and hear the same projections and assumptions I was hearing ten years ago, but as you can see I vent in my little "added" space here. I don't edit the original story except to add links to stories about the brothels in Tan Bazar. I never wrote more about it myself, as it was covered quite thoroughly by people who were actually there shortly after these events.
It's self-serving when people suggest that I am somehow a shill for the sex industry because I think that criminalizing clients is an insufficient solution to the problems sex workers describe. It's not radical, it's the standard in the US. It's used to serve the patriarchy in their goal of "cleaning up the streets" to raise property values so people who are already rich can speculate on the areas they're "cleaning up," but the governments who go along with these plans aren't so much interested in the welfare of women. Governments like the results of the plan because it makes them look good, not because women are getting help getting out of prostitution, and criminalizing the clients is rarely related to providing workable exit strategies for women who want out.
My criticisms of the prostitution-abolitionist lobbyists are in response to their criticisms of sex workers' rights activists. I am, to put it mildly, not on the offensive.
I am not covert about being a sex worker. I also do not recommend that women go into the sex industry, whether it's legal or not. I am not happy-hooker-ist. I also do not accept claims from anti-prostitution fantasists that the sex workers' rights activists are pro-trafficking, or that they have better access to the media than the anti-trafficking lobbyists, who get (as well many of them SHOULD) access to major magazines, newspapers, and television. I simply object to anyone trying to keep a certain point of view from being heard. To say that I am a happy hooker or a shill for the sex industry grossly and deliberately misrepresents my position. And, as an activist I never had one freakin dime of funding from any source ever, nor did I ever apply for any, because I wanted to speak without needing to toe a party line to keep my funding. I am also no longer primarily an active presenter or researcher, as I was in the process of becoming just about up until the event described below happened (I am now very involved in the spectacularly time-consuming process of performing and teaching and running my own business), and I am NOT up to date on the latest statistics, but that doesn't mean that the questions I raise are irrelevant or that I should shut up forevermore. I recommend this link if you're looking for research--it's far more thorough and objective a list than you're likely to see on the site of anyone with an agenda, including both Melissa Farley and myself.
Nobody speaks for me but me, and I don't presume to speak for anybody but me. I don't disagree with everything every radical feminist ever said, or agree with everything every sex workers' rights activist ever said. I have no wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so I'm still listening to all sides of the debates. If you don't get this, go here: Logical Fallacies Explained
And, for those of you who can't wait to jump to the conclusion that I haven't taken my own privilege into account, check some of the articles I recommend here: Genius Strippers, and you'll see that I get it. It was part of the point of my activism that even such definite and obvious privilege didn't protect me from sexism and exploitation. I get it, for all you women's studies grad students out there, I get it.
This site was created under a loft bed in a studio apartment with a bathtub in the kitchen, by a person who paid every penny of support for her activism out of her own pocket. This is not such a hardship but it's no corner office in the porn empire, either. I hate to dispell the corporate sex industry mystique, but it is what it is. It's particularly absurd to suggest that people who support sex workers' unions are corporate shills, since most of us applaud sex industry labor unions, and no corporation ever wanted its workers to organize. THINK a little.
I don't want either Jerry Falwell OR Larry Flynt to approve of my behavior, or to find a place for me in either of their respective kingdoms. I assure you that neither of them have much use for me.
Let the fact that there are more than two sides be your guide. When I first started exploring activism, I didn't encounter one iota of this feminist debate, just legislators discussing ways to keep down crime and property values.
During the events I describe, I was also dealing with identity theft and was extremely emotional. I might have felt and responded differently if the same thing happened now, but my ideology would be about the same.
/Added.
What Happened at NYU March 2, 2001.
I find it tremendously difficult to speak publicly as a sex worker. Not only did I spend months discussing it with my family before I began doing it (I have their support although it worries them for the same reasons it worries me), but it frightens me. Unlike "survivors of prostitution" who are describing their horrible experiences in sex work (they describe some of the very intolerable conditions that I, as a sex worker advocate, hope to alleviate), I am still working.
Because I am still working, am not repentant (not a "good girl") about my work, and am speaking as myself, I have no idea what risks I am taking when I speak. I know that I will not be protected by my convictions. Will I be persecuted by stalkers who consider me a filthy whore or a traitor to my gender? Will I be discredited because I do not regret? What will be the consequences for stating that I continue to work in what is currently, in many locations, an illegal profession? To what extent can my privacy be invaded now that I seem to be a public figure? These are just a few of my concerns.
I know when I speak that the stigma I describe will be applied to me even as I describe it. I may be seen as deluded, weak, amoral, uneducated, lazy, a crank, insensitive, or simply stupid. Speaking publicly as a sex worker (and, I assume, as a survivor) is, frankly, somewhat traumatic.
However, I continue to do it, even though it is frightening and painful for me, because I feel that it is important that at least some of the discourse on sex work be conducted by those still working. I don't mean to imply that I have no self-interest, but I am certainly not in it for a good time.
In January of 2001 I was asked by sex worker advocates to speak on a panel at NYU concerning the trafficking of women (more on this event). I intended to discuss the evictions of prostitutes from legal brothels in Tan Bazar for "rehabilitation," events which clearly showed that anti-trafficking activists and sex workers' rights activists share a common ground in their concerns about the abuses to which many sex workers are subjected.
However, a week before the event Janice Raymond of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (a prostitution-abolitionist group, not just an anti-trafficking group) and some of her associates objected to the organizers of the event about my being on the first panel. They said that I had an "experiential advantage" and that therefore my presence must be "balanced" by the presence of a "survivor of prostitution" (that is, a former prostitute who now speaks as an anti-prostitution activist). The implication seemed to me to be that as a sex worker I am qualified to discuss only my experiences as a sex worker, and not to describe any of my theories or research. It also seemed to me that they were assuming that I was going to describe the "joys of sex work" and that a former worker who regretted and hated her experiences must also speak, lest I give the impression that sex work is pleasurable.
The feminist tradition of consciousness-raising and ensuring that the voices of traditionally silenced and discredited women can be heard made this a perfectly reasonable request on their part. I had no objection to speaking along with a survivor. I admire the conviction and courage of women who are willing to speak openly about performing work which stigmatizes and discredits them. I feel affinity with survivors, as I know that what they are describing is real, as long as they do not assume that their experience is universal. However, they are as free to say that their experiences are universal as I am free to say that mine are not.
However, as everyone involved knew full well, there was room on the panel for only four speakers, and the other three had purchased their plane tickets and could not be uninvited. Therefore no one could step down to make room for either myself or the proposed survivor. The anti-prostitution side (I hate it that there are "sides" when we should all be working together, but there are) of this panel consisted of Janice Raymond, the co-executive director of The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, and Ninotchka Roska of the GABRIELA Network, both women of high status with excellent access to media and academic, as well as financial, resources. These are the women over whom I was described as having an "experiential advantage." The speaker who was upholding the International Labor Organization's recommendations (that sex workers benefit more from having their jobs regarded as a form of labor than they do from having sex work regarded as a form of violence against women) was the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women.
Our group suggested several alternative speakers (including Amber Hollibaugh), none of whom were acceptable to Raymond due to their former sex work experience. There were former sex workers representing the "sex work as labor" perspective on other panels, but not on the first of the day, which was to set the tone for the symposium. As a result, there were only three speakers on the first panel.
Much to my distress, the situation in Tan Bazar was not discussed at all. Because our group had assumed that I would be able to speak, our members had prepared presentations covering other aspects of sex work conditions and issues. Given the last-minute changes, there was not time to adequately fulfill Raymond's demands. The symposium was in no sense balanced, did not give a sense of the full scope of options for addressing trafficking and abuse in the sex industry, and misled the audience to believe that they were receiving a full report on the conditions, concerns, and needs of sex workers.
During the symposium, the members of the audience wrote questions on notecards, which were read by the panel moderators to the panelists. I submitted a notecard which read, "Please comment on the following quote from Susan Brownmiller's 'Against Our Wills': "[T]he difference between prostitution and rape in war is real, for there are always those men who choose, or prefer, to rape." (p. 75, Bantam Books paperback edition). One of the CATW associates said, "I'm not sure that quote is accurate." It is. However, rather than responding to the quote, they talked about its being "out of context," which is of course absurd, since all quotes on conference panels are necessarily (time is limited) out of context. My assumption had been that Susan Brownmiller's anti-prostitution theory was well-enough known that the quote had a specific meaning within the context of the discussion. They not only kept me from the panel; they discredited my ability (my name was on the card) to accurately and relevantly quote from a book.
CATW has power, funding, academic credentials, government support, and full media resources. I have my computer and a network of associates who support me emotionally in my advocacy, and that is absolutely all I have. Fora such as the NYU symposium are my only opportunity to describe my thoughts, research on, and fears for those who currently work in the sex industry and will probably continue to do so for some time. CATW's stated intention to offer assistance to those who are abused in and want out of sex work is an initiative I support with all my heart, and is certainly what the general public and private funding organizations want to hear from them. But their position of abolition of prostitution is of little value to the majority of sex workers who remain in the sex industry, whether out of necessity or by choice, those people (and their families and communities) whose quality of life deeply concerns me. The situation in Tan Bazar showed that the human rights of sex workers cannot always be fulfilled with the solutions CATW prescribes.
Other advocates of the safety and health benefits of the "labor" view of sex work (which is not to say that they support all my views, or are even aware of them) made excellent presentations and spoke beautifully. They were:
http://members.tripod.com/~subratosensharma/jana.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/677280.stm
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:hIKSsu8gKTcJ:data.unaids.org/Publications/IRC-pub05/JC438-FemSexWork_en.pdf+brothel+evictions+in+tan+bazar&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/aug1999/bang-a27.shtml
http://www.ilga.info/Information/Legal_survey/Asia_Pacific/supporting%20files/Rights%20of%20Bangladeshi%20Sex%20Workers%20Violated.htm
http://acpp.org/uappeals/1999/99080613.html
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=196
http://www.thedailystar.net/suppliments/anni2004/justice_03.html
http://kvc.minbuza.nl/uk/specials/bangladesh/photography/20.html