|
||
sex 2.0, carnal nation, EAHSo, this is a blog entry I’ve been avoiding to write, because it directly affects my personal safety and I’m in more of a vulnerable position than ever, but some things need to be said. I’m not going to link to anything that was involved with this issue so as not to drive any more traffic to these douchey-fucks. Six months ago two other women and myself that work as escorts were targeted in a stalking/smear campaign because we spoke out against a fake escort blogger. Our photos and any available information about us was posted on the internet along with a ransom for our personal information including real names, home addresses, employer’s information, etc. This asshole wanted to out escorts on the internet on the premise that because we were somehow involved in calling out a fake blogger we were hypocrites because we were “hiding” under fake aliases as well. This person even threatened to show up at our homes and places of work with video cameras to ask people if they knew we were sex workers. This fucktard targeted sex workers in an attempt to scare us and cause damage to our personal safety, well being and peace of mind. This asshole was able to do so because sex workers have no rights in this society and because we are working in an industry that is not completely legal, he had full power to put our personal information out there and endanger us. Carnal Nation, a well known sex blog, published an article in defense of the asshole who started the ransom site, under the idea that if you believe in freedom of speech, this douche bag is allowed to say/do whatever he wants to a marginalized group of society. Although Carnal Nation has profited and benefited deeply from the work and writing of many sex workers, they fully supported some random douche bag that wanted to endanger sex workers by publishing their personal information online. L-A-M-E. Whats even more lame is that Sex 2.0 (which I attened last year in D.C.) is allowing Carnal Nation to attend the event even though they’re supportive of endagering sex workers. I would like to know where the solidarity is in the sex positive crowd and sex workers when it comes to an issue like this? How can a sex positive event be ok with hosting a media company that had no problem linking to and supporting a random asshole that was looking to endanger the same people that have contributed to their site so much? How can an event whose main ideas are Sex, Feminism and Social Media be allowed to ignore such a poignant issue and act in such an overtly misogynistic manner? If you are truly sex positive then you’re supportive of sex proffesionals (i.e. sex workers) period. I’m absolutely disgusted that an event I attended last year is perfectly OK with supporting a media group that was directly involved in endangering my personal safety. 17 comments to sex 2.0, carnal nation, EAH |
 "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there..." -Rumi    The Dirty Girl Zine - first in a series about our cultural ideals regarding dirt/nature and sexuality.  Buy My Homemade Porn!   Support Independent Porn! "Pornography is supposed to arouse sexual desires. If pornography is a crime, when will they arrest makers of perfume? -Richard Fleischer"  Awesome, Artistic and Intelligent Erotica  A cute hairy girl that likes to masturbate and take nudie pics!   Natural, Hairy, Dreadlocked, Hemp Wearing, Barefoot, Earth-loving, Goddesses   Awesome Queer Strapon Porn for Everyone!  See me as "Sahara" on AbbyWinters.com  Solo, Girl Girl, Amateur  • See over a dozen teachers speak about sexuality, spirituality, and the role of the Sacred Prostitute in history and today • Learn about different cultural traditions of sacred sexuality in ancient and modern times • See teachers working with individuals, couples, and groups • Learn about the historic and mythological Mary Magdelene • Hear practical advice for those called to do this work Read my review of this documentary here.  Be a responsible pervert! Me too!
 I do too!   |
|
|
|
||
I am at the conference (was doing a session), and am actively disucussing this with people. I support sex workers, sex worker safety, sex work advocacy, and more. I am also not have an CN interviews. Kink on tap, however, is totally fine.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance204.html
Thank you for writing publicly about this, Sequoia.
I’m going to be referring people here to explain why I pulled out of the Sex 2.0 conference at the last minute and refused to speak there, though I had been scheduled to. Although I boycotted Sex 2.0 this year, I appreciate people who did attend speaking out about Carnal Nation making the conference an unsafe space.
I also believe in Feminism and women’s rights because if that douche bag is screwing you around, then where are the feminist who are their to back up women and one another. Where the hell are the feminist who should have come to your rescue when that douche bag going after you.
I guess I’m kind of naive.
I thought it was strictly prohibited to mention names of people on the Internet without their formal consents – unless they were involved in something blatantly “public” such as the judgment of a court imposing a sentence upon them…
Sounds like you want your cake and want to eat it too. You want free speech for yourself (outing the blogger) but would deny it to someone else just because you disagree with what they have to say (outing you and other sex workers). As I recall no one associated with that advocated harming anyone of you, but rather was seeking to expose you as you had supposedly exposed a fake blogger. As many others have pointed out in all of this, the word hypocrite seems rather fitting. Carnal Nation simply supported his/her right to free speech, just as they support your right to free speech. It’s odd that you have such a problem understanding that simple concept.
Matt, could you answer this simple question, please: do you agree with naming people (1) on the Net without their prior consent?
(1) Furthermore publishing their particulars
Hey Matt,
You’re confused.The difference is in one case is exposing a poser and the other is defending said poser in the malicious actions towards others. There’s nothing hypocritical here.
I was living with Sequoia during this episode and I found it interesting to watch how she could punch holes in this GUY’S story. Things like scheduling, prep time, travel time alleged gym time, twitter time and time on the clock made no sense at all, along with a few other things.
Besides, doesn’t it seems strange that said sex worker would become so vengeful if the allegations were false? other than sensationalism, would an organization support such a person?
Supporting someone’s malicious actions and intent towards a profession that provides companionship and sexual fulfillment (or any other art form) is a simple concept I fail to understand.
Matt: No one “exposed” that other blogger. They called her a fake (not a real escort). There’s a difference between calling someone a fake and aiming to confront them at their homes and put their real name and address online.
It seems (Matt) to me at least that you have entirely missed the issue at hand. You seem to judge this an issue of free-speech vs free-speech, if only it were this simply, the unfortunate truth is what we have hear is free-speech vs the personal safety of a vulnerable (all be it small) section of society. In this instance I’m afraid free-speech has to take a back seat. I live in Leeds, England were our news is currently dominated by the murder of three women who worked as prostitutes. Proof, if it were needed, of the dangers facing sex workers.
Matt I agree with you to a point. To diss CN 100% would be wrong seeing as how they published an article stating one persons opinion regarding this particular individual and incident. BUT at the same time freedom of speech should not threaten a persons privacy. It’s one thing to speak out against something you disagree with, but another to make public, private information one doesn’t want made public, or without the consent of the target. Even just morally speaking.
For someone to even threaten to invade ones personal space, ones place of employment, etc… causes trauma. Even if this person didn’t act on his threats it can still harm the intended target. If the person did infact act upon his threats…well it could cause more than just a few sleepless nights. A simple concept that you may have overlooked.
Free speech is one thing and we can not blame or entirely diss CN for voicing their opinion on the matter but those affected by the situation certainly have the right to boycott them and events which they may be part of.
I also do not blame Sex 2.0 for allowing CN to participate as Sex 2.0 is not looking at things at a personal level but from a business stand point. They are 3 steps removed from the man and to them CN’s coverage and opinion on the matter is 2% of where their interest lies in CN as a whole.
So while the word hypocrite is so easily slung around one should look at it from a safety standpoint as well as CN brodcasting and/or enabling this persons message and his targets personal information to a larger audience, meanwhile hurting an industry, idea, and feeling they love, cover, and need in order to even exist.
The shits not cool.
Matt, it’s not quite as simple a concept as ones right to free speech. Although every persons moral compass is different nearly all advocates of free speech agree that it should only be a right if it doesn’t harm another person, because if it does, it is in fact infringing the civil liberties of others. So this is why child pornography is not defendable under the first amendment (is that the right one? I’m Australian, we don’t even have amendments). We all know that sex workers are particularly vulnerable to hate crimes so if the speech we are talking about here puts another person at risk it shouldn’t in my opinion be defended as a civil liberty. Google up some statistics on violence against sex workers. Even if you would argue that this risk exists regardless of what personal information is posted wherever, here is some research that shows exactly how the outing of a sex worker to their friends or colleagues could actually potentially cause them physical harm.
http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/issue/acssa_issues8.pdf page 5 ‘Sexual assault of sex workers in their private lives’.
Anyway I don’t see what the point of having a cake is if you can’t eat it. I get what you mean but it’s such a dumb saying.
David, the article you’ve linked to infuriates me. Laws against texting and driving do not infringe upon liberties so much as they protect those of the bicycle rider who would be killed if hit by an irresponsible driver, ignorant to the affects their texting may have on their driving abilities. There is the real world to consider not just your world Laurence M. Vance, you give civil libertarians a bad name.
Couldn’t agree with you more. Sex workers have to be careful to protect thier identities due the “moral” outrage that they can potentially suffer from “normal” people.
There is nothing wrong with having a pseudonym, after all many actors and musicians do – I am sure that Slash was not so christened by his parents. They are still actors and musicians rather than charlatans so why can the same not apply to sex workers. It is not fraudulant to work under an assumed name it is fraudulant to suggest that you work in an environment when you do not.
Matt, that’s not the same thing at all. Sequoia and the others were “outing” someone who claimed an actual identity that was false (kind of like the author of “A Million Little Pieces”). But to “out” sex workers to their “real life” acquaintances can have devastating and dangerous consequences.
A classic example of what ISN’T free speech is someone shouting “Fire!” in a crowded building, because of the danger. What this asshole proposed to do is directly analogous to that.
I’d be the first to defend the importance of free speech. However, when it starts to cover things like this and the distribution of animal-crushing videos, it’s getting a little out of hand.
Yes, free speech in an inalienable right… until it infringes on the rights of others!
Kudos for speaking up about this, Sequoia.
MATT- They outed the blogger for not being a real escort. They did not harass and stalk and then try to put said blogger in real physical danger. Are you kidding? Did you fucking read the post? Freedom of Speech should not allow some psychopath to put your personal information on the web in order to intimidate you and risk your life in a world already completely unsafe for sex workers. This is horrendous and shame on Carnal Nation. Shame on you for not getting the difference.
To Matt:
We probably disagree, but I see differences between *ransoming* information on the one hand, and proving the inaccuracy of published material on the other.
In law, we call the former “extortion” or “blackmail”. It is a crime.
But even absent the “ransoming” part, there’s a huge difference between saying e.g. “your real name is not Matt” and saying “your real name is John Doe of 555 Main St, Anytown, phone number (555)555-6783″.
M
Matt, you’re missing a subtle distinction. The douchebag blogger’s behavior against virtually any person would have likely been illegal, or at least borderline so, under most harassment laws. The issue here isn’t so much about whether he broke the law or not, or whether or not he was within his rights of free speech.
The problem is that a) sex workers are a marginalized group of people who are not granted the same protections under the law as other citizens (for example, harassment laws), and b) a blog like Carnal Nation that caters to them should recognize this and provide the support that the law does not.