* The New Gay is looking for stories of people affected by a lack of ENDA. "Fired from your job for being gay, lesbian, bi or trans? Do you feel that no one cares about your lack of livelihood born from our governments systematic betrayal of its own people? Now you can do something about it," TNG writes. File your stories here.

* Fugitivus on sex work:

Theoretically, I don’t have a problem with sex work. I don’t think there’s anything inherently, fundamentally wrongdirtybad with sex as a job, or sex for pay. But that’s based on a concept of sex work in a vacuum, and we don’t live in a vacuum. We live in a patriarchy. And sex work situated within a patriarchal world is inevitably swimming in a pool of wrongdirtybad, and anything tagged with the wrongdirtybad brush becomes fair game for serious violations of humanity.

On the one hand, since my ideal vision of the world doesn’t differentiate sex work from any other kind of work, it seems like that should be the thing I’m working toward. I “should” be the kind of feminist that is all on board for decriminalization or legalization, or normalizing the sex trades so they’re not a dirty stigmatized mess — and often I feel bad that I’m not more so. On the other hand, I work in a profession where I frequently see young girls who have been trafficked and exploited, and/or mothers who have had to prostitute themselves in order to feed their children, and their desperation has usually caused them to be exploited as well. Some of the abuses I see surrounding exploited sex work are so heinous that it’s very difficult not to come away with a “SHUT IT ALL DOWN” view of sex work. And yet, I know it’s not something that can be shut down, not now, not ever. I often just don’t feel like my brain is large enough to find a way to integrate some of the worst horrors I’ve ever seen with a utopic vision of positive, healthy sexuality. I don’t know how to overcome my revulsion of abuse long enough to separate the tools (which are not inherently abusive) from the abusive people who are handling them. At some point, they just seem practically, realistically fused together, even if conceptually I know they aren’t.

* Speaking of: Last month, D.C. police busted six people for solicitation [PDF] at 2121 P St. NW.

* Westboro Baptist Church turns its attentions to Lady Gaga.

*Metro Weekly takes a local angle on Chinese counterfeit condoms lubricated with vegetable oil, featuring FUK!T Campaign leader Dan O'Neill:

''When you have counterfeited items, like your Louis Vuitton bags and what have you, at the end of the day, that's not great. But here, when one's life is put at risk,'' [O'Neill] says. ''This has real implications in that it undermines the public's trust in these products.

''What we don't want, or what would be terrible, is if people are just trying to get a deal and at the end of the day they just totally abandon their trust in using condoms altogether, thinking, 'Why bother?'''

* Thomas MacAulay Millar on the problem with seeing sexual assailants and domestic abusers as "monsters":

I’m fine with saying that one who does monstrous things is a monster, and the data tells me that this is true. But there is a danger there, that by calling rapists monsters we may convince people that we should be able to see them. We can’t. They look like everyone else. They certainly will give some behavioral clues, but those are subtle. The rapists fit in. If they didn’t, we would all know who they are, and all their targets would avoid them.

. . . Monsters, and not monsters. Regular people that are nice to children and small animals, tip well and bring attention to important causes may also be misogynists, rapists, abusers, racists . . . all the wrong that people are capable of is not concentrated among people who look like they mean to do harm. The people who do the most harm do it, in part, because they can walk among us and not look like monsters. Monsters don’t look like monsters. They look like the rest of us.

* Monsters, and not monsters: Lloyd Mack Royal—also known as "Blyss," "B," and "Furious"—has been sentenced to 37 years in prison for human trafficking of minors in Maryland. Testimony in Royal's trial asserted that he profited off of coercing minor girls into prostitution; threatened those girls verbally and with a gun; hit them; transported them between Maryland and D.C. for the purposes of prostitution; gave them illegal drugs; raped them; forced them to lie about their ages; forced them to sell drugs; and "forced them to kiss his pinky ring."

* Emily Nagoski on sexual fluidity and LUGS.

* Via the GW Hatchet, the GW Medical Center has received a $3 million grant for HIV/AIDS research courtesy of The National Institutes of Health.

* Evil Angel general manager Christian Mann weighs in on the Stagliano trial in the comments:

What could be more absurd? That would be the U.S. government, represented by the real Fetish Fanatics (AKA the DOJ) spending taxpayers’ dollars to clog the judiciary and bring such a case to trial in 2010. My elation at having my boss (and friend) exonerated is tainted by one small regret: I quietly hoped we would have a chance to bring milk enemas and squirting orgasms to the U.S. Supreme Court and douche the archaic obscenity laws from the Criminal Code once and for all.

Photo via George Eastman House

D.C.'s Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance (GLAA) has released its questionnaire for the D.C. mayoral race, quizzing candidates on their thoughts on everything from the D.C. police department's Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit to  "water-based lubricant."

The document surveys the candidates on 26 questions in six categories: marriage, public health, public safety, human rights, education, and business. Some of the queries are pretty pointed: Just try giving the incorrect answer to "Will you support legislation to curb abuses by NIMBYs who are now allowed to file an endless series of baseless complaints to harass or extort bars and restaurants?" or "Will you rein in police officials who respond to legitimate crime concerns with unsustainable, media-centric quick fixes that infringe constitutionally protected civil liberties?" Come on. That's practically a cheat sheet!

Another question of note: Question 26 follows up on the GLAA's push to legalize prostitution earlier this year: "What are your thoughts regarding GLAA’s proposal . . . to mitigate the problems associated with prostitution by legalizing and regulating it? What will you do to provide alternatives to survival sex for at-risk populations like homeless youth and transgenders?"

Participating candidates must file answers to the GLAA by Aug. 17.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

* In her final dispatch on the Buttman trial, porn director and performer Aurora Snow claims that LAPD Det. Michael Ozaki, a witness for the prosecution, is a fan:

[Ozaki] looked all too familiar to me. I heard the detective explain how he had to attend the AVN Expo for the last five years in a row “undercover” in order to research the new material being put out by adult companies. I was surprised to hear how the LAPD spends tax money so consistently on porn related materials in the name of “research” when the city is reeling from recent budget cuts. But mostly, as the LAPD detective answered questions under oath, I began to realize why I was recognizing him; I am almost sure that I have signed autographs for him at adult conventions. That is one dedicated undercover officer! I wonder if somewhere in a police evidence folder is a signed photo of me or if the detective kept that for his personal collection. I hope the latter. I don’t want to be in a file and even detectives should have fun with their porn collections.

* When Maryland man Aaron Burroughs was convicted of "sexually exploiting a minor" for an offense involving child prostitution and child pornography, he was sentenced to 16 years in prison—plus extra restrictions "that required him to keep a daily log of his computer use and to permit the authorities to monitor that use." Last week, a federal appeals court struck those restrictions, as Burroughs' offense wasn't conducted via computer.

* GLAA Forum updates us on the NOM bus tour for hetero marriage, declares it an "epic fail. As it turns out, holding rallies at noon on weekdays isn't the smartest way to drum up support for opposite marriage after all. The tour hits D.C. Aug. 15.

* Figleaf 0n how sex work obscures assault in the Lawrence Taylor case:

the word “prostitution” magically washes away all traces of “statutory rape,” “sexual assault of a child,” “sex offender registry,” “corruption of a minor,” and every other offense prosecutors, judges, and juries are usually (and, I think, correctly) willing to throw at people who have sex with minors

* Via Metro Weekly: Victim of hate crime plans to leave D.C.

Photo via State Library of Queensland.

CRIMINALIZATION. The new law creates crimes for both  "human trafficking" and "benefiting from human trafficking":

* Human trafficking is defined as: "knowingly recruiting, enticing, harboring, or transporting a person for the purpose of providing labor or services," either by "debt coercion; facilitating or controlling a person’s access to an addictive controlled substance; conduct that causes a person to reasonably believe that he or she is the property of a person or business; causing or threatening to cause financial or emotion harm to that person or another; [or] facilitating a minor to engage in a commercial sex act."

* Benefiting from Human Trafficking “includes cases where an individual knew or reasonably should have known that the services or labor were being provided as a result of human trafficking."

* The act also criminalizes "the act of destroying, concealing, etc., a victim’s identity documents, in order to maintain the person’s labor or services" and the "possession of child pornography" in the District (a detail the Polaris Project calls "a glaring loophole in current law").

INCREASED PENALTIES. Criminal penalties for human trafficking can be increased depending on several factors:

* "Defendants found guilty of human trafficking or benefiting from human trafficking can be fined a maximum of $200k and imprisoned for a maximum of 20 years, or both."

* "When the victim has been held for more than 180 days, the penalty for the defendant can be up to 1 ½ times the maximum fine or term of imprisonment, or both."

* "When there are more than five victims, the penalty can be up to 3 times the maximum."

* "Attempts can be punished up to half of the maximum for the completed crimes."

VICTIM SERVICES:

* Protects more minors: The act raises the "maximum age of a victim" from 16 to 18 years old.

* Prevents a victim's past sexual activities from being used in trial: "Creates an evidentiary privilege for victims to prevent evidence of past sexual activities of an alleged victim of human trafficking, including related pandering crimes, from being used in trial."

* "Consent" not a defense: The act "prohibits the consent or permission to engage in prostitution by an alleged victim or by anyone on behalf of the alleged victim from being used as a defense."

* Marriage not a defense, either: The act "expressly prohibits any kind of immunity from prosecution based on marriage, partnership or cohabitation
with the victim.

* Expands the statute of limitations: "Applies lengthier criminal and civil statutes of limitation for human trafficking crimes, and provides that the statute of limitations will not start running until the victim is no longer subject to the trafficker’s means of control and in the case of a minor, until they reach the age of majority."

* Compensation: "Protects victims’ access to the Crime Victims’ Compensation fund by allowing victims of human trafficking who have not reported the crime to law enforcement to satisfy this requirement for accessing compensation funds by filing for a civil protection order."

* Confidentiality: "Assures confidentiality of communications between human trafficking counselors and victims by creating a human trafficking victim / caseworker privilege."

AWARENESS:

* Reporting: The act "creates a mandatory reporting requirement for human trafficking counselors."

* Accountability: The act "requires the District government, with assistance from appropriate organizations and agencies, to collect and periodically publish statistical data on trafficking and trafficking-related crimes."

Congress has 60 days to review the law.

The final item on the GLAA's agenda is "Prostitution: Legalize It, Regulate It, Zone It, Tax It." And their plan to do so is pretty awesome:

"Public officials seldom ask a most practical question," the agenda reads. "[W]ho benefits from the criminalization of prostitution?" The agenda goes on to cite notable scholars on the question, from Samuel Johnson to Jesse Ventura:

Samuel Johnson described the ills associated with prostitution—crowding, intemperance, famine, filth, and disease—and assured his friend John Boswell that “severe laws, steadily enforced, would be sufficient against those evils, and would promote marriage.” Jesse Ventura came closer to the truth when he told Playboy in 1999, “Prostitution is criminal, and bad things happen because it’s run illegally by dirt-bags who are criminals. If it’s legal, then the girls could have health checks, unions, benefits, anything any other worker gets, and it would be far better.” Not just girls, Jesse.

The GLAA then lists the reasons that D.C.'s LGBT community should get behind legalization: A lot of sex workers don't choose prostitution freely. People treat them poorly. Our criminal justice system in particular treats them poorly. And criminalization only makes matters worse:

As advocates of the legalization of prostitution, we think it needs neither sanitizing nor glorifying. It is not a profession filled exclusively with people who freely chose it from a host of other options. No doubt there are some in that category, like the college student turning tricks for extra cash. But too many turn to it by necessity. These include gay teenagers who have been thrown out of the house by their parents, and transgender people whom discrimination has left with few options.

People in these situations are practicing survival sex. They face greater risk of substance abuse, mental and physical abuse, and sexually transmitted diseases. The District has seen numerous murders of sex workers in recent years—murders that were made harder to prevent and harder to solve by the fact that the victims worked the streets and were without legal sanction or protection.

Harassing, arresting and prosecuting people for survival sex solve none of their problems, but only pile more on. Whose idea of responsible public policy is this? To be justified, any public law ought to serve some identifiable common good. Saying to people as Sister Mary Ignatius did, “You do the thing that makes Jesus puke,” is no basis for criminalizing whatever it is. Having been the targets of moralistic lawmaking, we as gay people are especially on guard against it.

The best-case scenario for sex workers? The District should fund "the creation of drop-in centers, transitional housing, job training, counseling, addiction recovery programs and other services for at-risk populations." But first, it's going to have to get over its hang-ups in talking openly about sex:

Our society’s penchant for legislating morality is the chief obstacle to eliminating the harm caused by prostitution and solicitation laws. Otherwise compassionate and practical people often lose their bearings when the subject turns to the “naughty bits.” Overcoming this will take time, especially in D.C. with its constitutional vulnerability to congressional grandstanding; but we will never get there if we do not start. We can begin with a humble recognition of the normal variation in sexual expression, the proper limits of government coercion, and the fact that other people’s personal choices are none of our business unless they harm us. In the case of sex behind closed doors, whether in homes or hotel rooms, the fact that someone is paying for it is no more a legitimate basis for police involvement than if the transaction is a more informal one involving dinner and a show.

members of the Third District's Crime Suppression Team, ICE, community members as well as the management of various PSA 307 hotels, worked together to arrest 9 individuals for prostitiion related crimes related to the use of the internet. Along with these arrest, came the seizure of various electronic items that were utilized to enhance their trade as well as money and various evidence. This inititave is another example of psa stakeholders coming together to get things done and we wish to say thanks to all that took part as well as we look foward to working on many more projects in the future. Thank you

In response to the announcement, some community members remained unimpressed. The sex workers are off my Internets, now when will they get off my sidewalks? R. Kelley (seriously) of the MPD-3D listserv has this to say:

There are still a lot of Street Walkers around 13th & K Streets NW; Mass Ave, etc. when I arrive at work around 6:00AM.

Mongal assured Kelley that police "are currently putting plans together to do a better job at elimintaing that problem" and solicited "any information or details relating to the activity, such as descriptions, cars, locations and tactics" of said "Street Walkers." Meanwhile, on the listserv, Ashley Shillingsburg politely requests that police not follow R. Kelley's every lead: "They are not 'street walkers,' they are 'sex workers,' and the only effective means of combating illegal sex work is by going after the people who purchase such services," she writes. "What are MPD's tactics for going after those people as opposed to those who are victims of both pimps and johns?"

Details from TWTF-DC are after the jump.

Cheers to Choice embodies the celebration of a woman's right to choose her destiny and live in a community that respects her choices without hindering her personal and professional growth. The focus of this year's Cheers to Choice is the issue of sex trafficking in DC and nationwide. Proceeds from the event will support YWTF: DC's work throughout the year, as well as Courtney's House, an organization that works to provide safe and nurturing housing and other direct services to domestic sex-trafficked girls between the ages of 12-18 in the DC area.

This is an opportunity to socialize with other great DC people for a great cause! Enjoy wine, hors d'oeuvres, and learn more about an important issue affecting women and children in our communities.

Special guest speakers scheduled to appear include:

- District of Columbia City Councilmember Phil Mendelson, who will discuss his work on anti-human trafficking legislation in the District.

- Tina Frundt, Executive Director and Founder of Courtney's House

- Julie Janovsky, Senior Policy Specialist at Polaris Project

- Cassandra Clifford, Founder & Executive Director of the Bridge to Freedom Foundation

You can buy your tickets online or at the door. Tickets are $15; however, if you bring an in-kind donation for Courtney's House from the list below you will receive $5 off the ticket price.

- Toiletries: shampoo, deodorant, lotions, pads or tampons, toothbrushes, toothpaste

- Art supplies: markers, paint brushes, colored pencils

- Office supplies: notepads, highlighters, trash bags, tape

- See http://www.courtneyshouse.org/WishList.html for more information.

We will also be holding a raffle at the event with the chance to win prizes such as a wine tasting, Nationals tickets, jewelry, a Clyde's restaurant gift certificate, a career counseling session, and artwork. All proceeds from raffle tickets sold will benefit Courtney's House.(Raffle tickets will be $1 per ticket or 7 tickets for $5.)

We look forward to seeing you there, and we invite you to help spread the word by passing this along to your friends, tweeting about it, posting it to your facebook page, etc!

Time/Location: Cheers to Choice will be held Tuesday, May 25th from 6:30-8:30pm at the Stewart R. Mott House, located at 122 Maryland Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002.  The Stewart R. Mott House is wheelchair accessible.

Alongside the profile of Frundt, the Post republished another story on local prostitution Dvorak wrote in 2002. That story painted a much different picture of the sex trade in the District of Columbia. The main problem with prostitution in D.C., circa 2002? It was too visible. The solution? Hide the prostitutes.

Dvorak's 2002 piece focused heavily on D.C. police efforts to reduce "visible prostitution." The solutions presented in the story were targeted at getting the women to move along, not to receive assistance if they need it. In the past, Dvorak writes, some neighbors have "operated sprinklers to try to drench them," as if sex workers were cats; once, police marched a group of sex workers one-and-a-half miles to the Virginia border, as if sex workers were goats. Police attempted to push the sex trade into new neighborhoods, preferably ones that are "lightly populated at night"—where presumably, fewer neighbors will complain. Cops faulted judges for administering light sentences to convicted sex workers, putting them back on the streets—and fully visible—within 24 hours.

Meanwhile, discussion of the behind-the-scenes stuff—the power relationships and trafficking networks behind much street prostitution—was afforded only a soundbite or two. At the time the story was published, police had been working on "a diversion program to help prostitutes leave the streets" for about a month. The officer leading the city's anti-prostitution efforts had already declared it as a failure, courtesy of his armchair psychology of the minds of sex workers: "Something tells me you can't do much to help the girls. They're like addicts. They've got to want to help themselves," he told Dvorak.

Throughout the piece, Dvorak's descriptions of sex workers were similarly focused on the visual element. The physical appearances of sex workers inspired paragraphs, while inner lives and subjective experiences of these women were largely ignored—Dvorak only quoted nine words from an actual sex worker. The story was written not from the perspective of sex workers,  but from the neighbors who don't like being forced to look at them.

So: These women were "barely clad" and "scantily clad." They walked around with "everything showing" while "teetering on four-inch heels." They wore "thigh-high, black vinyl boots with four-inch, clear acrylic heels" and "nothing but a short, black jacket" and "stockings and a thong bikini." And they came in three flavors: "crack mamas," "female impersonators," and the "show girls who wear flashy outfits and are brought in by the vanload by their pimps." The message: The view is grotesque, and citizens don't want to see it on the streets of Washington.

Dvorak's recent column suggests that the District's approach to sex work has changed in the past eight years:

The detective I talked to almost a decade ago was certainly onto [the problem of human trafficking in the sex trade]. But few called it slavery back then. It was "a network" and "runaways" and "groups of people traveling from city to city."

But over the past several years, detectives in our region began seeing younger prostitutes, girls promised excitement and glamour, lured from small towns and trapped by violence and manipulation. In 2004, the District organized the D.C. Human Trafficking Task Force.

The cops are now part of that task force, and they identify about 100 juveniles each year forced to work in the District.

Dvorak's reportorial approach to the problem has changed as well. She's moved on from the vantage point of neighborhood gawkers and beat cops in order to present the perspective of trafficked minors. And her physical descriptions of sex workers have shifted accordingly:

Her name was "Elizabeth London," she said. And, shivering in a short, white skirt and tottering on huge, acrylic heels too big for her little feet, she was standing on a corner in Northwest Washington, about four blocks from the White House, "waiting for a friend."

She was a child, about 15, I guessed. Her makeup was clumsy and clumpy, her long, blond hair was limp. The detective with me agreed that she was a kid, but she had no I.D., so he couldn't prove it.

. . . That frightened girl—with raccoon-eye liner and too-bright lipstick —is the face of slavery in America today, Frundt contends.

First, the familiar stuff: In this account, District sex workers are still "tottering" or "teetering" on their four-inch plastic heels, they're still heavily painted, and they're still scantily-clad. The tone, though, is different this time. This sex worker is not an out-of-control "addict" but rather a "clumsy," "limp," "frightened girl." The reader is meant to be more depressed than scandalized.

But the intense focus on the physical appearance of sex workers remains. Regardless of the spin you put on the omnipresent teetering high-heels, endlessly recounting the elements of the stereotypical street-walker outfit doesn't provide any insight into the problem. The approximate height of a woman's shoe doesn't help me understand what her life is like, or what sort of social services she might benefit from.

Some people see women in the stereotypical sex worker uniform as criminal sex "addicts." Some see them as frightened victims. And the idea that some sex workers may not fall into either of these categories is dismissed out of hand. As long as we keep on scrutinizing the bodies of sex workers, we're still gawking instead of listening. How are we ever going to address the problems of the American sex trade if we all treat sex workers like objects?

The Washington Area Women's Foundation points to this short video on human trafficking in the United States. One interesting thing to note is how these young women draw comparisons between their entrance into trafficking and cultural narratives surrounding heterosexual romance. "I just thought I was so madly in love with him, and he just made me feel safe. I didn't have a dad figure, so he became my dad. And I loved him, too," one girl says about a pimp; " I hadn't eaten that whole day . . . and if somebody offered me something to eat? Oh, they cared about me. And I thought, what greater way than a guy who can sweep me off my feet like Cinderella?"

"Think of the children" is an argument consistently used to justify adult insecurities. Hate gay marriage? Just argue that it erodes a "child's sense of innocence." Disgusted by sex workers walking the streets in "broad daylight"? Argue that a child could see them. Uncomfortable with people openly discussing alternate sexualities? A child could hear them. Explicit rock music? Think of the children.

The concern for kids here is disingenuous—"think of the children" is a convenient way for adults to protest stuff they just don't like. But let's step away from those earmuffs we've got permanently attached to our kids' ears for a moment and think about "thinking of the children." When can thinking of the children help to reveal aspects of adult society that are problematic for people of all ages?

Take, for example, the public reaction to the above video, which shows a group of young girls dancing to Beyonce's song "Single Ladies"—while imitating a very adult version of female sexuality.

Tiger Beatdown contributor Silvana has this to say of the display:

The performance has been roundly criticized, including some commenters saying that it is so bad that the adults in question shouldn’t have even allowed their daughters to participate. The way these little girls move their bodies is a surprisingly good imitation of how adult women who are performing “sexy” dance, and people DO. NOT. LIKE. THIS. Even worse, their outfits are supposedly more scandalous than the dance moves themselves. This is despite the plain that that they’re not particularly revealing and don’t show much more skin than a ballet leotard would. The discomfort isn’t because what the outfits reveal, but what they allude to. The lace, the stockings, the corset lacing on the “bodice” are, it seems, too much like what adult women wear when they are trying to evoke maximum sexiness. Doing this dance and wearing these clothes is, in our cultural estimation, firmly in the territory of not appropriate.

She concludes: "I think it’s pretty telling that when femininity is performed by non-standard actors, we either get really uncomfortable or laugh our asses off."

The general reaction to the above video is that these girls are growing up far too fast. But as Silvana points out—if we can stop thinking exclusively of the children for a moment—they're also growing up into a version of female adulthood that's marked by an absurdly hyperfeminine sexual performance. We know that little girls performing femininity is disturbing. About a decade down the road, though, this type of performance will be absolutely expected of these women, as Beyonce's latest video helps to reveal:

[youtube:v=FKqIgqJEH-o]

Kids are our second chances. They give us an opportunity to reassess what is means to be a man or a woman, and to try to change the bad parts before it's too late. It's not fair to focus our cultural insecurities on our kids, but it is easier. Let's take another example: Makeup. Last month, Douglas Quenqua delivered a New York Times trend piece on pre-teen makeup use:

It began for Alyssa Pometta, as these habits so often do, with the soft stuff. We are talking, of course, about lip gloss.

She began wearing it in fourth grade—Bonne Bell’s Lip Smackers, a girl’s rite of passage—after years of wearing ChapStick and pretending it was Revlon. But the thrill of flavored lip gloss was fleeting, and in January, 11-year-old Alyssa asked her mother, Phyllis Pometta, if she could graduate to the hard stuff: lipstick, eyeliner and mascara.

When the piece dropped, Salon's Margaret Eby accused the Gray Lady of "hand-wringing" and alarmism, writing:

The idea that painting your face leads to wanton acts of harlotry is downright Victorian. . . . The most popular birthday party activity for my fifth-grade class was visiting Priscilla's Beauty School, where I would inevitably come out with crimped hair and electric blue eyeshadow, looking like some sort of miniature '80s-inspired clown. Did I then fall down the slippery slope to TV-anchor levels of makeup? Not exactly."

Eby has accused Quenqua of Thinking of the Children in the most disingenuous way.  But if you read Quenqua's piece, he never intimates that experimenting with eyeliner will send girls down the road to olde-tyme prostitution. He doesn't say that Bonne Bell is a gateway drug to whorishness, or even to clownishness. When Eby sarcastically accuses Quenqua of a "slippery slope" argument, she misses the point, which is: When girls start wearing makeup, they will keep wearing makeup-–probably for the rest of their lives.

Of course, young girls don't deserve any extra scrutiny for applying concealers and colors to their faces—most women do this, and tweens don't need more eyes focusing on the way they look. Nevertheless, focusing on the cosmetic industry's point of entry—for American girls, around the tweens—is still a convenient way for us to reassess the expectation that women of all ages paint their faces. When girls stumble into the awkward tween years, they're introduced to a world of extreme body consciousness, vanity, and yes, beauty industry allegiance.

The point of entry is also the point when women's makeup use is at its most visible. When girls go from plain-faced to painted, we notice the change. Just as some sexy lingerie on a 7-year-old girl will show you immediately how ridiculous sexy lingerie is, a young girl with a full face of makeup can really make you think about lipstick, and why we put it on. One parent Quenqua interviewed said that makeup makes her daughter "look too old. It immediately ages her." But it's not just that tweens are entering the adult world of makeup application; it's also that they're not terribly good at it yet. They may be inexperienced in matching colors, blending blushes, or applying eyeliner without poking their eyes out. They may, like Eby did, emerge from a slumber party "looking like some sort of miniature '80s-inspired clown."

In short, girls are not very good at doing what adult women are trained expertly to do: Applying makeup, and then immediately obscuring the fact that they are wearing makeup at all. This is where Eby's critique really falls apart. For her, problematic makeup—the kind of makeup parents might really be concerned about—comes down to a question of gaudiness. Teenage makeup use is only a potential problem if it encourages women to perpetually paint their faces like olde-tyme harlots, or clowns, or TV anchors. Actually, the biggest danger of becoming a life-long consumer of the cosmetics industry is that women will learn to hide their beauty industry investment at all costs, to refuse to tip their hand and reveal that it's all an act.

When young women engage in overt feminine performance, we think of the children, but deep down, we're thinking about women, too. As these girls enter into adulthood, how do we deal with our discomfort at the version of womanhood they're taking on? We tell them to keep performing femininity, but by God, to just keep it to themselves. Makeup is to be worn "naturally," never garishly; sex is something to perform for men behind closed doors, never to be spoken aloud; plastic surgery is tacky, unless it's good plastic surgery, which is still better than looking old; extreme diets are to be kept private, in favor of of "I just keep in shape by running after my kids"; and feminine performance is in all cases an entirely personal choice, never a culturally-informed one. When we Think of the Children, we're not disturbed that girls are beginning to adopt feminine performance—we want them to do that. We're disturbed because they've forced us to to notice how ridiculous it is.

* On Holla Back DC, a group of women endure street harassment by teabagger.

* Inside Higher Ed details the extracurricular activities of Kenneth Ng, a professor at The California State University at Northridge. When Ng isn't teaching economics, he's running a servicey website that helps johns navigate the Thai sex industry:

Ng said he allows anything to be written on his site, so long as it doesn’t involve pedophilia or underage sex. He does, however, write about how difficult it is to effectively negotiate with a “half or sometimes fully naked teenage girl” when she’s “expertly gyrating” on a man’s lap.

* This piece, from Korean newspaper JoongAng Daily, is unfortunately titled "Wheelchair Bound, But Still Able to Love." But it does point to some interesting cultural forces in Korea that dismiss the disabled as "sexless creatures":

“If parents think their grown-up children are old enough to marry, they desperately seek spouses for them even if they’re not ready to get married,” Cho said. “But for parents who have disabled children, they try to do their best to lock their children up. Even if they know their children are having trouble with sexual problems, they just ignore it.”

* The public consensus in the latest Ben Roethlisberger sexual assault allegation appears to be that Big Ben did something terrible that no one can prove. In suspending Roethlisberger from the NFL for six games, Commissioner Roger Goodell said:

"I recognize that the allegations in Georgia were disputed and that they did not result in criminal charges being filed against you,” he said in his letter to the two-time Super Bowl winner, a six-year veteran. "My decision today is not based on a finding that you violated Georgia law, or on a conclusion that differs from that of the local prosecutor. That said, you are held to a higher standard as an NFL player, and there is nothing about your conduct in Milledgeville that can remotely be described as admirable, responsible, or consistent with either the values of the league or the expectations of our fans."

The district attorney who declined to prosecute Roethlisberger expressed a similar sentiment:

Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger won't face criminal charges after a 20-year-old college student accused him of sexually assaulting her inside a nightclub's bathroom. But what happened in that restroom after a night of heavy drinking remains a mystery. "We do not condone Mr. Roethlisberger's actions,'' district attorney Fred Bright said. "But we do not prosecute morals. We prosecute crimes. And I do not have enough evidence to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Roethlisberger was guilty of rape." He also revealed the young accuser no longer wanted him to prosecute.

Photo via Wikipedia Commons.

Yesterday, D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles sent out a press release announcing the recent closure of several District "massage parlors," "health spas," and "wrestling clubs" operating as a front for prostitution (or other illegal activities). "[A]s part of a city-wide crackdown on prostitution and other unlawful sexually-oriented activities, the District has shut down illegal establishments posing as health spas, massage establishments, social clubs or residential brothels," the release reads.

Sounds like it's about time to check back in with the guys over at the USASexGuide forums, our favorite community of dedicated prostitution enthusiasts. D.C.'s "mongers" eulogize these fallen houses of ill-repute, after the jump.

* Orange Spa, 617 Pennsylvania Ave. SE

Orange Spa's closing truly affected one former customer:

Visited Orange yesterday to find a sign posted on the door reading "Orange Spa Closed For Business"

Unfortunately this was after I pumped $2 into the parking machine. I will miss Chae.

* Star Spa, 1829 M St. NW

View Larger Map

A Star Spa regular is "pretty much hurt" by its closure:

I recently dropped by star spa were I went at once every month or two week period and it was closed. I was pretty much hurt because it was the only place I knew. Did they relocate? But I need to be taught the other places so I can know if the expreince I had there is on or sub par.

Another customer explains what the Star experience was like:

Got to the location at about 11:30am. I started up on the 3rd floor, greeted by a round woman in her 40s who led me to the room. I asked for a lineup, not expecting one, but hoping that at least she would get the hint that I didn't want her. She pleasantly says 'one minute' and leaves. A few minutes later another 40+ woman comes in – better figure, but still 40+. I again ask for lineup, and she says only 2 girls working right now because of football (??!), maybe around 5pm there will be more. I say OK, maybe I'll come back later.

I go down to 2nd floor (Star Spa?), hoping it will be better. Mamasan takes me to back, I ask for lineup, and in comes Angie. She's pretty stocky, flat tummy but wide hips and saggy breasts, about 35 years old, and not so pretty. But at this point I don't feel like spending the whole day doing the trial-and-error, so I say OK.

Paying money for sex is so hard.

* VIP Spa, 719 8th Street SE

View Larger Map

You can take the sex workers out of VIP, but you can't take them out of the inescapable cycle of human trafficking:

Went to VIP and Orange and sadly confirmed the news. Then I went to that same place our colleague went to, also had Ruby or 'Luby,' and recognized her from Orange. So, good talent stays in town!

. . . At least a couple of the girls that were last at VIP came from other local AMPs. So the idea that VIP would be a loss is not really an issue. These girls will move on to something else in the area. For some girls, once your in, it's hard to get out of the Washingtub.

* D.C. Wrestling Club, 1618 14th Street NW

The home of Dupont Circle's infamous "Men's Parties" has never been reviewed by the folks at USASexGuide.com. Why? House policy:

No Discussion about Homosexuals, Transvestites, Transsexuals or She-Males: Please do not post any messages anywhere on this site that refers to Homosexuals, Transvestites, Transsexuals or She-Males. This website is about sex between men who were always men and women who were always women. Any person violating this policy will banned immediately.

D.C. Wrestling Club photo by Darrow Montgomery

Over 1,200 people have signed a petition to demand the right to carry three condoms in the District of Columbia without fear of arrest. Why do 1,200 people think that carrying more than two condoms is against the law?

Widespread media reports of a "three-condom rule" in D.C. began with an item on RH Reality Check investigating the District's anti-prostitution provisions. The item, written by researchers Aziza Ahmed and Brook Kelly, claimed that in the District of Columbia, "Anecdotal evidence suggests that having three or more condoms is considered a proxy for being a sex worker."

When that piece of intel migrated over to the Women's Rights blog at Change.org, Alex Dibranco phrased Ahmed and Kelly's anecdotal evidence this way: "Think you might get lucky tonight? Well, if you're in D.C., don't bring more than two condoms in your purse, or you could be arrested as a prostitute."

Last week, the three-condom rule hit Jezebel, where it received 4,426 page-views—and inspired dozens of comments from women concerned that a late-night prophylactic run could send them behind bars. "Don't many brands sell in 3-packs? Anyone who carries around a new package is automatically carrying 3," one wrote. "so people in long term relationships that decide to stock up are really screwed," wrote another. Feministing also picked up the three-condom rule. On Amplify, Jaclyn Friedman worried that her new "cute red vinyl condom case" designed to hold three Trojans could be grounds for arrest. "I once used over a dozen [condoms] in a particularly memorable weekend," Friedman writes. "And I still wasn't a sex worker." Meanwhile, Dibranco's post has been viewed over 40,000 times.

Where did this "three-condom rule" originate?

It's not a legal standard. In D.C., police can set up temporary "Prostitution Free Zones" where officers who suspect you of loitering with the intent to commit prostitution can force you to leave the area. If you don't leave, they can arrest you. The zone can remain in place for up to 10 days. According to the Prostitution Free Zone Law, "prostitution-related offenses" include "repeatedly beckoning to, stopping, attempting to stop, or attempting to engage passers-by in conversation for the purpose of prostitution," "stopping or attempting to stop motor vehicles for the purpose of prostitution," or "repeatedly interfering with the free passage of other persons for the purpose of prostitution." Cops can also ask you to disperse if they recognize you from previous incidents as a gang member or a sex worker, or if a "reliable source" informs the police that they have observed you engaging in prostitution. The law contains plenty of objectionable procedures—they can make me leave my neighborhood if someone "reliable" tells them I'm a sex worker?—but no mention of contraceptives.

According to D.C. police spokesperson Gwendolyn Crump, carrying condoms can lead an officer to suspect prostitution—but there's no three-condom arrest rule. "Although the possession of multiple condoms may be a factor that leads an officer to suspect (reasonable suspicion) that a person is engaged in prostitution, it is not enough to establish probable cause for any crime," Crump writes. "Depending on the circumstances, factors such as this may justify an investigative stop—but not an arrest." She adds: "Essentially, if police cannot arrest someone for having two or more condoms outside a [Prostitution Free Zone], police cannot arrest them for it within a PFZ." [Update: DCist also reported on this statement from Crump].

Of course, it's possible that some D.C. police officers don't always follow the letter of the law. Is there any evidence that D.C. police have an internal three-condom rule?

Both RH Reality Check and Change.org cite a 2008 "Move Along Report" on the Prostitution-Free Zones as evidence of the cops' condom counting. The report cites plenty of evidence of police officers confiscating or destroying sex workers' contraception. According to the report, 8.6 percent of sex workers interviewed claimed that officers had taken "safe sex supplies" from them during their interactions with police; the report also cites evidence of police officers seizing or destroying condoms in Las Vegas and San Francisco. Again, the report's findings reveal police conduct that can be extraordinarily harmful for D.C.'s sex workers. However, the report includes no magic number of condoms required to ignite suspicion—and it doesn't provide any evidence that condoms alone are enough to get you locked up.

Cyndee Clay, Executive Director of HIPS (Helping Individual Prostitutes Survive), says her organization has heard from "many, many" sex workers in D.C. who attest to police targeting them over condom possession. "People will come in and tell us they're afraid to carry too many condoms, because they're afraid of drawing attention from the police," says Clay. Still, no specific number has emerged as a red flag.

Brook Kelly, who co-wrote the original RH Reality Check item, wrote in an e-mail that the three-condom tidbit emerged during the course of her research. Kelly's work included "interviews with sex workers' organizations, sex workers, or individuals who do not identify as sex workers but who seek support from DC based sex worker organizations, organizations that worked with drug use in the DC area, lawyers working on issues of HIV/AIDS, homelessness and poverty, and law enforcement." But even though Kelly's anecdotal evidence suggests that "having three or more condoms is considered a proxy for being a sex worker"—at least according to one source she interviewed—her report didn't mention anything about three condoms leading to arrest.

D.C.'s anti-prostitution laws and internal practices are dangerous to sex workers. Frightening sex workers into being unsafe—or physically removing their protection from them—is an extremely harmful practice, whether it's reinforced in the law or not. But the blogs and petitions that extend the harm of these practices to any girl who runs over to CVS for a three-pack of condoms are misleading. "Did you know you can be charged with prostitution in Washington D.C. if the police catch you carrying three or more condoms on the street?" the petition reads, in an attempt to rally all of D.C.'s condom users against the Prostitution Free Zones. Really, condom possession is only going to present a problem if you're a sex worker. And that should be enough for all of us to get angry about.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Now, a study in this month's Journal of Contemporary Ethnography has attempted to decipher these sex codes for real for real. The study, conducted by researchers Kristie R. Blevins and Thomas J. Holt, examines the "argot," or coded language, of the prostitution enthusiast's "virtual subculture" in order to discern what these communication strategies indicate about the men who engage in—and report on—prostitution. Here's what they discovered about the language of johns:

* First off: Don't call them "johns." On the online forums studied by Blevins and Holt, terms like "john" and "trick" were considered derogatory to prostitution enthusiasts. Online, johns prefer to refer to themselves as "mongers," "trollers," or "hobbyists." According to the study:

For example, a user in the Inglewood forum described a successful night identifying and soliciting several prostitutes and closed by writing, “I cant wait to monger again like the sadistic one that I am.” Another Inglewood poster wrote, “Saturday morning, 10:30 am, and it was time for this dedicated hobbyist to pursue another adventure.” . . . Thus, the terms used to describe the customers of prostitutes reflect the notion that the customers find nothing wrong in paying for sex. It is simply an interest or pastime that they enjoy.

* "Pooner" is a good thing. If someone calls you a "pooner," that means you've achieved online prostitution forum street cred. (Congratulations?):

Mongers who were very involved in discussion forums and review boards were often referred to as a pooner. This term was meant as a sign of respect and status and was used to identify those with clout in the forums. For example, jester from the Atlanta forum posted a question seeking information about escorts: “I was looking for recommendations about agencies from pooners who have used them . . . I don’t need to know details (if you are worried about LE), only about ones that are half-way reliable.” Asking for assistance from more senior or experienced members in this fashion could increase the likelihood of information sharing. Thus, active involvement in both the sex trade and online resources played an important role in indicating status among johns across the forums.

* "Mongers" tend to avoid offensive terms for prostitutes. According to the study, forum users shied away from calling sex workers "hookers," "hos," or even "prostitute." Aww, how sweet. In place of derogatory terms for people, mongers used derogatory terms for objects, often referring to sex workers by their make, model, and build:

This language may be perceived as respectful and a way to neutralize the negative perspectives of their practices, mirroring their use of terms such as mongering or hobbying. At the same time, these terms treat sex workers as items, rather than individual human beings. For example, posters used the term streetwalker or SW to describe a prostitute who works the streets looking for clients. Posters would also use a letter to denote the race of the sex worker, including WSW for white; BSW for black; and LSW, HSW, or MSW for Hispanic.

* Other fun terms that treat people like objects: On the forums, skinny sex workers are "spinners"; older sex workers have got "mileage":

For example, some johns used the term spinner to refer a petite female, [according to one forum user:] "a girl who is so tiny in proportion that you can put her on top of your bone and “spin” her like a top."

. . . Specifically, johns would also use the term mileage to refer to women whose appearances reflected the physical and emotional toll that sex work takes on prostitutes. The use of a term like mileage that is typically used for automobiles is demonstrative of the perception that sex workers are offering a service.

* An "8" on the "streetwalker scale" is a "6" on the "normal" scale. Predictably, the way mongers rate sex workers is dehumanizing—they require a different scale than "normal" people:

In addition to the term mileage, johns also utilized a streetwalker scale to rate prostitutes’ appearances on a scale from 1 to 10. This ratings system was used to indicate the differences between prostitutes and women not involved in the sex trade, as in the following post from the Chicago forum: “This time I come across a very nice wsw [white street walker]. She would be a 6 on a normal scale, 8 on the sw [street walker] one.”

* These guys tend to beat the "sex workers are objects" theme into the ground. Online Web sites which many sex workers use to advertise are called "malls." Photos are available for "window shopping":

One of the most salient terms in the argot of johns that suggests sex work is a commodity is the use of the phrase mall. In this argot, a mall was a Web site devoted to advertising a variety of different online escorts and agencies. This was exemplified by a user in the Atlanta forum: "[A web-based service] is the best for finding upscale escorts or shall I say ones that charge 200 up. There are links to the escort 'malls' where window shopping is done."

—

So, what does it all mean? Blevins and Holt don't delve too far into the implications of the use of "mongers" and "mileage" in online prostitution forums. But the language they've uncovered does offer a few interesting insights into the men who solicit prostitutes (and talk about it).

First, many men who frequent prostitutes feel that their activities make them worthy of status and respect. These men don't fit the convenient stereotype the public has created for johns: sad-sack guys who have to pay for sex because they can't get girls to fuck them for free. They see themselves as connoisseurs, "hobbyists"—artists, even. They see paying for sex as a sport which can be won by frequenting the most and best sex workers for the least amount of money, hassle, and consequences.

Second—and most obvious—sex workers are seen as objects to be bought, not as humans. More often than not, sex workers are not portrayed as skilled workers who provide their customers with a service in exchange for a fee. Rather, they are things—to be perused, used, and dispensed of by the "hobbyist" who uses them to bolster his monger status. The sex worker herself is seen as the product. Again, the "hobbyist" is the thinking, creative, artistic being here, while the sex worker is denied her status as a worker, performer, or businessperson—a person capable of choosing if, when, and under what circumstances to offer a service. The idea that johns think of sex workers as objects is obvious. But it's also important. It suggests, first, that johns believe that the bodies of sex workers are available for their use in any way they choose. But it also reveals that the ability to treat women as objects is part—or perhaps even all—of a john's real interest in prostitution.

Say, ladies. A couple of economists—Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner of Freakonomics—have unearthed a most satisfying and lucrative career option for us all: Prostitution! There's only one problem: even though our two Steves are really brilliant economists, they just can't figure out why most of us women don't want to have sex for tons and tons of money. Why aren't more women successful prostitutes?, Levitt and Dubner ask. Is it because:

a) They don't like sex;
b) They hate men;
c) They're kind of dumb;
d) All of the above.

If you guessed D, you are probably either Steven Levitt or Stephen Dubner. (Thanks for reading, guys!) Yes: according to Levitt and Dubner, the main obstacle standing between a woman and loads of sexy cash is her dislike of sex, her disinclination to make men happy, and her failure to understand simple economic principles. So while the world's enthusiastic, man-loving, smarty-pants sex workers are rolling in millions from the comfort of their own homes, the world's poorest street prostitutes get the short end of the sex-work stick—only because they hate men, hate sex, and are—from the way the Steves tell it—kinda dumb.

Now, I'm no economist, but I'm betting that the overworked, underpaid sex worker who turns tricks on the street has got deeper systemic problems to deal with than not enjoying the work enough. But I digress: Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown has already laid the groundwork on this shitstorm in her excellent piece on the Guardian. Take it away, Sady:

Levitt and Dubner build their piece around a comparison of two prostitutes: Allie, who works from her bedroom and makes between $350 and $500 an hour, depending on the client, and LaSheena, who works on the streets and probably makes about $350 a week, based on statistics. . . . LaSheena and Allie are the Goofus and Gallant of sex work, at least in the warped little scenario laid forth in the Superfreakonomics excerpt. Arising, as Levitt and Dubner seem to assume they do, from absolutely no context whatsoever (the fact that Allie is probably white, and that LaSheena is probably not, is never once addressed, for example; neither is the personal history of LaSheena explored in any detail, though we hear about Allie at excruciating length) they are not actual women so much as they are flattened-out, hollow caricatures of Success and Failure. Allie is a good prostitute; she has succeeded. LaSheena is a bad prostitute; she has failed.

What has LaSheena done wrong, you ask? Simple: She doesn't like being a prostitute. "I don't really like men," she is quoted as saying. This is an interesting statement, which the authors fail to follow up. Why doesn't LaSheena like men? Has she been beaten? Has she been raped? Is there a man taking a cut of her money? Was she forced into this job as a child by a man, by a boyfriend she loved, by sheer poverty? And has she seen the ugly side of men too often in this job to trust any? . . . We'll never know, however, because Dubner and Levitt don't ask. They don't care to humanise her. She's the Goofus in the scenario. Her poverty—which is assumed to be entirely her fault—is only there to provide a counterpoint to Allie's shining example.

Boy, oh, boy, does Allie ever love being a prostitute!

Anyway: I highly suggest you read the whole thing. But enough dilly-dallying. Let's dive right in to every woman's second favorite pastime, after prostituting—chatting!

SADY: yo lady.

AMANDA: hello! wait ... shouldn't you be out, earning money for sex?

SADY: i know! i thought about it! but then i realized: i am probably not chipper enough for it. as per superfreakonomics, my disinclination to put your favorite song on the stereo and mix your favorite drink and smile gleefully about how awesome you are for paying someone to help you cheat on your wife would hurt me, probably, in the long run. PROFIT-WISE, that is!

AMANDA: right. which is why us curmudgeons have chosen a life of blogging, instead of the more obvious choice.

SADY: exactly. it's a wonder more women aren't out sexing for cash instead of blogging for dollars! oh, except that there are various disincentives to do that, actually? like, i am pretty sure there are women that choose to do sex work and like it, but what with the social marginalization, lack of protection by the law, health risks, etc. it is actually NOT a wonder that more women do not choose it.

AMANDA: there are so many things wrong with the treatment here, i can't even begin. you did a lot of the work in your piece, but i wanted to start off with this one sentence from the freakonomics excerpt: "There is one labour market women have always dominated: prostitution." hmm. really? i mean, i get that perhaps this is meant to be some sort of play on words, but given the amount of money men have made off of pimping out or trafficking prostitutes, i am not exaaaactly sure this is the case.

SADY: right? i mean, to frame the sex industry—not just prostitution, but other varieties of sex work in general—as "female-dominated" is just absurdly wrong. it's like calling starbucks "cashier-dominated." there are more women on the front lines, but management is by no means primarily or exclusively female. and given the exploitative relationship management has traditionally had with the service employees, that's something to worry about. not that there aren't exploitative female madams, etc. but you get where i am going, i hope. i think the entire article is so infuriating largely because it aims to present an "economic" analysis of prostitution by... talking to one sex worker, basically? and reading the work of one other dude? this stuff is insanely complex, and people have been fighting about it and studying it forever, and it DRIVES ME INSANE that people are going to read this fluff and confuse it with an actual analysis.

AMANDA: yeah. here's another little pet peeve of mine: pretending that "prostitution" is the same as "sex." I understand that prostitution is a lot different than it was 100 years ago, and a lot of that has to do with changes in attitudes toward sex. but when these researchers say that prostitutes now see competition from "any woman who is willing to have sex with a man for free," they're implying that tons of women are actually performing the work of a prostitute on a daily basis, which is absolutely not the case. the reality is that many prostitutes are not being paid to "have sex." they are being paid—as the researches note with the high-class prostitute—to have the kinds of sex that men can't get on a daily basis. and in reality, that doesn't mean "interesting sex" or "anal sex" or "enthusiastic sex" that these dudes just can't get out of their wives. it also means degradation. prostitutes are popular, to some men, because they can do whatever they want to them, and the appeal isn't in a particular sex act that they can't get at home, but rather in the experience of paying someone to be their sex partner. when these researches say you "have to like sex" enough to be a prostitute, that's bullshit. plenty of women like sex. you have to like PROSTITUTION enough. or ... be poor! and according to them, poor prostitutes are kind of fucking idiots.

SADY: well, this was somewhere i was heading in the piece i wrote for CiF, but there just wasn't room to talk about it there; even if we don't assume that all men are hiring prostitutes specifically to "degrade" them—and i don't know what goes on in all circumstances, i do assume that a lot of guys want to degrade women because they get off on the power imbalance and others do it for other reasons, from all the first-hand testimony I've heard—the nature of the transaction is fundamentally different than the nature of the transaction that is casual sex. at the risk of oversimplifying: in prostitution, a woman does what you want her to do, for money. in sex—even casual sex—a woman does some of what you want her to do, or maybe even all of it, but only in exchange for you doing what she wants as well. in casual sex, there is (unless you are a huge asshole) the expectation that you will be dealing with the desires and needs of the other party. female desire enters the picture. and i think THAT, we can say, is probably a big part of the "sex" vs. "prostitution" thing. even if the guys don't want to HURT the prostitutes, they're paying them to have sex that has nothing to do with their desires and everything to do with the desires of their clients. the only way you can miss that is if you don't acknowledge that women have desire.

AMANDA: right. so these economists are stumped—stumped, i tell you!—as to why more women don't spend their entire lives pleasing men and receiving no pleasure in return. they can't understand why this is, because outside of prostitution, women are lining up in droves to have sex! but instead of working through their obvious miscalculations here, they decide to tell imply that women are probably just kind of dumb. the kicker is when, at the end of the piece, this is how the researchers leave Allie, the "high-class" prostitute who ended up becoming an economist: "Several students said this was the best lecture they had in all their years at the university, which is both a firm testament to Allie’s insights and a brutal indictment of Levitt and the other professors." As if it's some kind of joke! when, in reality, these guys actually don't understand wtf they're talking about, and they're actually seemingly amused that a prostitute could not be a dumbass. so: why didn't she write this?

SADY: RIGHT! and that's the thing; i don't want to discount her insights or experiences—or those of LaSheena, the less privileged sex worker they interviewed for five seconds and then apparently forgot about because she wasn't smart enough to be a billionare sextrepreneur—but I think Levitt and Dubner kind of effectively discounted her already, by using her as a subject even though she IS GETTING A DEGREE IN ECONOMICS and simplifying her story, which has GOT to be more complex than the one we're reading, into this wacky quirky Happy Hooker stereotype.

AMANDA: yeah. and thank god she is getting an economics degree, because this is Exhibit A as to why more women need to be represented in the sciences. I'm sure that these guys are brilliant economists, but when you're attempting to form a theory as to why HALF OF HUMANS choose not to be prostitutes for a living, perhaps your own experience will be insufficient.

SADY: right. oh, and the lazy dumb hooker is getting a DEGREE IN ECONOMICS now! wacky twist! did you catch the part where they said she became a prostitute because she "just didn’t like working all that hard?"

AMANDA: oh yeah. i caught that part. the weird thing is that the premise of their investigation is: why don't women prostitute themselves out for cash, when the pay is so good? and they entirely fail to even begin to answer that question. they don't come up with one reason why she wouldn't! oh, they come up with one reason: maybe she's married. but i don't see another one!

SADY: i can't think of a single one! there's, like, one line where they acknowledge that it's ILLEGAL (being harassed, jailed, and potentially raped by cops: A DISINCENTIVE???) but that's only in the service of pointing out that its illegal status allows Allie to charge high fees.

AMANDA: haha right. now, i dont' know if Levitt and Dubner are heterosexual males, but let's assume they are.

SADY: assumed!

AMANDA: the only appropriate response to the ridiculous question posed in the article would be, "I don't know, why don't you suck cock for a living?" Why don't you suck cock, out of your fancy house, instead of being a famous economist? I'm sure that will be the pertinent question in "SuperDuperFreakonomics: The Freakiestonomics Yet"

SADY: yes, at some point. WHY AREN'T LEVITT AND DUBNER JOINTLY FELLATING YOU RIGHT NOW: A FREAKONOMIC ANALYSIS.

AMANDA: probably because they don't like sex?

SADY: i mean, jesus. sex work is complicated. i'm so sure—and i have to keep reiterating this, because i feel bad for assuming that allie's "i just happened to go on an online dating service and tell people i was an escort because, tee-hee, i just love sex" narrative is a Pile O' Poopy—that there are women who are very fulfilled in their sex work, or at least prefer it to the other jobs they could have. i'm SURE of this. but asking THAT ONE LADY to tell you what prostitution is like—hell, even what the MONEY side of prostitution is like—is massively misguided.

AMANDA: i mean honestly. LaSheena straight-up tells them that she "doesn't like men." And somehow, because Allie says that she LOVES men, this sample size of 2 indicates that women who like men make tons of money doin' what they love, and women who don't like men are poor street hookers. so really, women don't cash in on the obvious benefits of prostitution because they're ... bitches?

SADY: that's what irked me so much – they're so invested in this Ayn Rand fantasy of the fulfilled sex-liking happy safe rich sex worker that pretty much everyone else is left out of the picture, or else shamed as inadequate. Allie is like the John Galt of professional sex, in this equation.

AMANDA: hahaha

SADY: i also liked the fact that their response to LaSheena's statement of "I don't like men" was... what if there was more money in it for you? and she's like, "yeah! sure! what's that you say? I can get my degree from home in my spare time? And it includes a course in Air Conditioner Repair?" it turns into this weird sales pitch for sex workers.

AMANDA: right. it's like, why do you think she is doing this? because she DOESN'T want money?

SADY: yes. and even though we know pretty much everything about Allie up to and including what she ate for breakfast this morning and whether there is corn in her poo, we know nothing about LaSheena. none of the factors that have led to her having four more or less illegal, low-paying jobs, at least one of which she hates, all of which are dangerous. and am i wrong for thinking her story might be the more interesting of the two? then again, maybe she just didn't want to talk to the Freakonomics guys. can't say I blame her!

AMANDA: i'm pretty sure that she didn't want to talk to the fucking Freakonomics guys. They admit that they had to pay her in order for her to talk to them, which they think says a lot about how desperate for money she is. but i think it just shows how unpleasant it is to be recast in the lens of the Freakonomics guys.

Photo by otisarchive3

Now that we've all endured this FOX 5 story on "morning prostitution"—which deemed sex workers "too gross to describe," much less speak to—I think it's about time to begin the healing process. How might we, as journalists, begin to make local news reports on prostitution less insanely creepy?  Cyndee Clay, Executive Director of Helping Individual Prostitutes Survive (HIPS), graciously agreed to help us reporters out with our sex work work. Hint: scrubbing your copy of a platform heel fetish, highly sensationalized "censored" antics, and use of Nelly's "Pimp Juice" is a good start. "Well . . . I mean, it was a very interesting story," Clay allows the FOX 5 story. "However, considering a less sensationalistic approach to the story might have let viewers understand the larger issues here."

The Street-Walking Montage: "I think it’s unfortunate. I think there’s a larger human story there about who those women are and why they’re working the streets at six a.m. I think a lot of media tends to take the easy way out, go with the sensationalistic side, and it doesn’t help us as a community to get a dialog going about why this is happening in our city, and what an appropriate response would be. I don't know. Maybe it was sweeps week."

The Use Of "Pimp Juice" In Said Street-Walking Montage: "Oh, awesome. It almost makes it a joke. These women’s lives aren’t jokes."

The Huge, Red "Censored" Button Inserted Over A Sex Worker's Personal Hygiene Routine: "What did she do? I’m trying to think of what it possibly could have been. God forbid I ever have to walk down the street and adjust my underwear at some point. How many guys walk down the street and adjust their junk every day? . . . Again, it just doesn’t seem like serious journalism."

The Same Story You Wrote Last Sweeps Week: "I think that there’s always some hook for doing a story on sex work in the city, whether it has to do with a community complaint, an act of violence—or a Senator getting arrested. There will always be reasons. We’re obsessed with sex but we don’t want to talk about it in any way that’s really mature, that looks at all the layers. Unfortunately, what ends up happening—no matter what the hook is—is that it’s always the same story. There are girls walking down the street wearing short skirts and heels. And that's basically it. . . . If we look at say the history of articles like this, it’s showing the same problem, the same problem, maybe switched to a different time or a different neighborhood. But it doesn't get at why this problem isn't going away."

The  "Frightening, New Epidemic" Approach to Sex Work: "If this is a new thing that people are seeing, I would definitely challenge the statement. The part of the segment that said that the Prostitution-Free Zones eliminated the problem ten years ago? My organization has been around for 15 years, and we have not been hurting for clients for the past 15 years."

The Lack of a Key Perspective: "Stories like these are really sadly uninformative about what the real issue is. Women aren’t walking the streets at 6 a.m. to ruin your commute. They’re not walking the streets at 6 a.m. to annoy local businesses. In many cases, they’re out there to survive and make money, because they have to work. Or their pimp is forcing them to work. . . . I think that there are quite a number of community organizations they could have reached out to to show that there is a human face to this issue.  . . . Instead, they're only showing businesses and law enforcement, not the women who are involved and why they’re out on the streets. Admittedly, it can be difficult to do, because there's a lot of distrust. Sex workers know, 'this is how they’re going to portray me.'"

For two weeks, FOX 5 trained "secret cameras" on the intersection of 11th & K NW in an attempt to catch sex workers in the act. FOX 5's investigation revealed "ladies of the night hitting the streets in broad daylight." But while reporter Tisha Thompson's work included the requisite indignant neighbors, official police commentary, and the money shots (sex workers adjusting their underwear), there was one thing FOX 5 couldn't get: a comment from one single sex worker. How demeaning is this segment? Let me count the ways:

1. The anchor describes the footage of the sex workers as "unsavory" and "unnerving."

2. That footage of sex workers? FOX 5 sets it to a sexy hip-hop beat.

3. Oh, and the most "unnerving" thing about it? These sex workers have the audacity to work during the day. Those whores belong under the cover of darkness!

3. When Thompson delivers the line, "It's six o’clock in the morning and sharing the sidewalks with joggers, tourists and commuter buses: prostitutes," she actually says the last part like this: "PROSTITUTES."

4. The sex workers in the footage are almost completely blurred out—not just their faces, but in some cases, their entire bodies.

5. "Neighbors" aren't just upset about the illegal activity—they're also just totally grossed out by the sex workers.

"But neighbors say it's not just the sex. They're also frustrated by what else happens on the streets," Thompson says. "Our camera caught one woman leaving a client’s car. She walks to a bus stop, then fixes her bra, her dress, and then does something we can't even show you on TV, in full view of morning traffic."

In the print version, Thompson describes the "too hot for TV" moment as "something too gross to describe."

Let's go to the tape:

I'm betting she's adjusting her vagina or something, but how would I know? FOX 5 just plopped a "CENSORED" button on top of a completely blurred-out woman! I guess you can never be too safe when it comes to a sight as disgusting as a prostitute.

6. So, if even the "neighbors" are upset about this blurry woman likely adjusting her vagina in front of morning traffic, how do you think she feels? Oh, right: FOX didn't bother to ask her.

All this sex sting lacked was Chris Hansen hiding in a closet—who apparently has quite a following among underage prostitution enthusiasts!

Several men asked the girl if she was working for police, according to the documents, and a few said that they did not want to end up on Dateline's "To Catch A Predator" television series.

They didn't end up on "To Catch a Predator." But the Gazette has stepped in to assume Hansen's role of disseminating all the johns' life-ruining details to the public. No cookies and lemonade, either:

* "Montgomery County firefighter Wayne A. Mothershead, 44, of Taneytown responded to the ad using his work e-mail and arranged to meet for sex in his truck outside the Bohrer Park Activity Center in Gaithersburg on July 20, according to the documents."

* Mothershead's attorney chimed in with the classic excuse: "attorney Rebecca Nitkin add[ed] that the girl in the photographs viewed by the men appeared older than 16."

* "A Wheaton man, who was instructed to meet the girl near Gaithersburg High School, admitted to having a semiautomatic handgun in his trunk and was also charged with carrying a deadly weapon on school property and transporting a handgun, according to the documents."

* "Benjamin R. Cary, a personal trainer at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington in Rockville for 10 years, was arrested March 25, according to the documents. He told police he was 'trying to stop a girl from doing something bad' but later said 'I will do whatever you want me to do, pay a fine go to class … just don't tell my wife,' according to the documents."

* "Barry M. Lebowitz, a married optometrist at Potomac Eye Care in Gaithersburg, was charged with soliciting a minor on April 9, according to the documents. When the girl said she was too young to rent a hotel room, Lebowitz, 46, wrote, 'this might get expensive … any discount if i get hotel?,' according to the documents."

UPDATE: Today, the Gazette issued an update and correction to its story on the prostitution sting. You can read it here.

Diane never fucks for money. She only sucks dick. If she's going to suck dick, she's going to insist that her customer's dick wears a condom. This may severely limit her earning potential, but it keeps her relatively safe. Condoms can tear inside you. At least if she's sucking dick, she can spot a broke condom right away.

Diane adjusts her hot pink shorts, pulling them down for a moment to reveal all of her fancy gray panties. She then poses against her white Mercedes SUV like she's a calender model. By far, Diane has more going for her than most of the other girls. She doesn't have a gut. The tattoo on her arm has almost faded away. Her eyes are bright. Her lipstick is perfect.

Diane has been in the trade since she was a teenager. She knows how to come to her job prepared. Unlike the other girls, she isn't constantly haggling for a cigarette. She brings her own and keeps them locked in her Mercedes. When she wants a smoke, she unlocks her SUV and takes one from the front seat.

During her downtime, Diane says she'll talk on her phone or watch a DVD in her Mercedes. She says she already watched Hancock and the new Transformers movie "which was some bullshit."

"It was too fucking long," Diane says. "It didn't start getting good until the end. And 395 started getting backed up." She had to split too much of her time between the traffic and the Transformer battles.

Diane doesn't need to be here. She says she's been married for nine years. He also works nights. "He don't know what I do," she says. "My house phone transfers to my cellphone. I know every time he calls."

Diane adds that she has a day job as a nurse at an old-age home. She wanted to start her own bakery and got as far as filling out paperwork on North Capitol Street. She admits she has trouble following through on things. "I'm a good baker," she says.

Before Diane wanted to be a baker, she wanted to be an actress.

Diane has been a sex worker for about 10 years. Before the luxury condos, bright grocery store and trendy coffee shop moved in, the area used to be a real hang-out spot. 600 K Street wasn't just a stroll. The block had a party atmosphere when she started coming around. Not every girl was a sex worker. But soon, she couldn't help but notice the bills changing hands.

When Diane first started working, she used her earnings for clothes and accessories—what she calls "fashion." Then she started using PCP. The money could more than cover her habit. She says the night of a Howard homecoming was her best—she made $2,500. But some nights are just a lot of standing around leaning suggestively against a Mercedes SUV.

Some nights have ended in arrest. Diane says she has been clean since March 12. She had gotten a prostitution charge and had to submit to drug testing. That was enough. She realized she could go without the drug. She could even watch her husband smoke up right in front of her in their living room. It doesn't bother her.

Diane says she now uses her blowjob money to pay bills. Her only real worry is HIV/AIDS. Even that might have an upside. "I could deal with it," she explains. "That might be the breakthrough in my life. Like God could have a big blessing for you. You got to go through [something] to see the light."

Diane,25, is hovering in the background, laughing too loud under the lamp light, talking smack to the other women. She is good at smack talk. This gets the other women laughing too loud. The street is empty. There are no customers. Just Onya and Diane and their peanut gallery. "I invented prostitution," Diane boasts, adding that she's been tricking since birth. "I told the doctor don't bill my mother, I'll eat the meat!"

A slack, shrimpy looking dude leans against a pair of parking meters. He says he wishes he had a camera. He's too shy or too broke to actually pay for a trick. But he seems happy to simply be in Diane's presence.

To make sure everyone knew her true celebrity, Diane offers a final, definitive taunt. "Everybody in pretrial knows me," Diane says.

Diane had just pulled up in her white Mercedes SUV. It's 12:30 a.m. Within two minutes, a customer in a silver sedan is negotiating with her. It will be $50 for a blowjob. The negotiations almost take as long as the actual transaction. The two peel away east on K and then up 7th until they disappear.

Within 20 minutes, Diane is dropped off at her Mercedes. She gets out of the sedan, adjusting her hot pink short shorts and black top. She is almost sedate in her movements. Unlike the other girl on the block who approaches cars like she's been called to the principal's office, Diane appears, at least, to be very sure of herself. She takes out a smoke from the Mercedes and lights it.

"I don't kiss and tell," Diane says of her recent work. "That wasn't 20 minutes. It took 10 minutes just to get to my spot."

My first foray into Sexist Art History took a look at some sexist interpretations of Judith Leyster's 400-year-old The Proposal (pictured).  Some historians saw the painting as "a powerful image of temptation and resistance." I see it as "a rapey dude in a mustache and a fur hat who ain't gettin' anywhere." What did you see, dear commenters?

kza says:

How is he rapey? Just becase he got turned down? Many women have declined my offers for money in exchange for sex but I never raped any of them. Stop being racist against johns!

Amanda Hess says:

Racist?

mdesus says:

can’t a girl just be coy anymore?

kza says:

Yes. The race of guys who go ‘hookin. We’re a different breed. Don’t player hate on us.

Dave says:

Can’t a guy buy some needlepoint in a dingy pub anymore?

It's been a banner week for Sexist History! First, we revisited an 1893 New York Times piece which informed us why children are the sexiest swimmers of all. Then, we wrote some Sexist History of our own and discovered why male models may inhabit sexism's final frontier. Now, for some Sexist Art History: Why we should give a shit about Judith Leyster, some painter lady who was born like 400 years ago.

Because even centuries after Leyster's death, Sexist Art Historians just didn't understand.

Leyster's work is currently on display at the National Gallery of Art, but as recently as 1893, nobody knew who this lady even was. So it was only about 100 years ago that the art world got to take a look at The Proposition (above), painted in 1631.

Pretty straightforward, right? Dude in the fur hat could not possibly by skeevier: he's inappropriately clutching at a blouse with one hand and offering up some precious coins with the other. Lady in the floor-length skirt, on the other hand, is a classic case of Asking For It: That sensual display of wrist! That awkwardly averted gaze! That mortified blush of the cheeks!

Wait, no, she's actually like, "I see that you are offering to pay me to fuck you. However, I'm more interested in keeping up my stitching. Also, shave your mustache."

And yet, despite the clear and obvious rapiness of this painting from 1631, Sexist Art Historians had trouble understanding just what it all meant—hundreds of years later!

Male art historians have commented on Leyster's The Proposition, 1631, as reflecting a "powerful image of temptation and resistance" and that the young woman's virtuousness "would appeal to men and attract many suitors," implying that Leyster's interest was more on the male market and less on reflecting a woman's discomfort with unwanted male attention.

Ah yes, we can all identify with the young woman who only decides not to prostitute herself to this particular specimen of unfortunate facial hair because she wants to be able to fuck other dudes in the future and not get paid for it.

I wonder how Leyster would respond to that particular interpretation:

Self Portrait, 1630: "Eat it, douchebags."

In an Observer piece on Nevada's prostitution downturn, "Sex feels the credit squeeze in Nevada," Andrew Clark presents few new details about the recession's belt-tightening pimps. The "Sex feels the credit squeeze in [jurisdiction]" story has been written before in this recession, and the piece follows the familiar formula:

1. Declare that prostitution is a business "like any other."

2. Detail how prostitution is hurting from the recession—like any other business.

3. Throw in some sex-work details in attempt to redeem the story from the boilerplate-recession-story grave you've just dug for it.

One of Clark's sexy business details caught my eye, however. The interesting part of the story isn't that men are now less willing to pay for sex than they used to be. It's that women were willing to work at these places before the recession hit:

Women who work in Nevada brothels are regarded as independent contractors who typically stay for a few weeks or months at a time. But while in situ they are not allowed to leave the premises and have to be ready to parade in a "line-up" within three minutes if a client arrives. At Sheri's, the property is adorned with red lights and a Tannoy system to call women to attend. If they are late, they can be fined.

Being confined to a desert compound, forbidden from leaving the premises, and corralled to work over a PA system at a moment's notice in order to perform sex acts on demand? Sounds like a labor camp—or worse, reality television. Names like the "Chicken Ranch," "Moonlight Bunny," and the "Cherry Patch" don't do much to add dignity to the equation.

Clark is right that the brothel business conforms to your standard economic-downturn story: With more women attracted to sex work and less men willing to fork over their salaries, prostitutes camped out at a brothel are finding fewer and fewer men to fuck. But the peculiar conditions of "independent contractor" work at many Nevada brothels make prostitution a business quite different. When prostitutes are forced to stay on the ranch for the extent of their contract, they're being denied all other economic opportunities in the meantime. They're prevented not only from servicing competing brothels, but from pursuing jobs in other sectors—and building career skills for when they choose to move off the ranch. With business slowing down, contractors are now being forced to sacrifice outside opportunity for a less impressive payoff. I say, free the chickens, the cherries, and the moonlight bunnies!

photo by adamsofen

Over on CityDesk, Andrew Beaujon digs into the Craigslist adult ads crackdown, a new development which could mean good business for alt-weeklies. Why not come crawling back to CP, erotic service providers, where photos of genitalia and penetration are no-nos, but “Nipples are kind of on a fence”?

Photo by tastybit

On Change.org's "End Human Trafficking" blog, Amanda Kloer argues that invoking the phrase "the oldest profession in the world" to refer to prostitution hurts women and girls. "I can't even say it's just lazy, since this goes a step beyond lazy. It's quite simply, bullshit," she writes. "The 'oldest profession' argument esentially says, we know that prostitution exists and is harmful to women and girls, but we're not going to do anything about it, because we don't think we can."

Given the history of prostitution, is "the oldest profession" even accurate? A profession, Wikipedia tells me, is marked by autonomy, status, prestige, and power. These are attributes that some prostitutes, pimps, and madams have. They're also attributes that some prostitutes have historically lacked—especially way back at the origins of the practice.

Wikipedians also submit that professions are often marked by "gender inequality"—an attribute which prostitution would probably satisfy. For the most part, though, I think that using the term "profession" to describe the origins of prostitution often washes sex work of the violence, slavery, and coersion that has marked its past (and continue today).

So, was the "oldest profession" a true profession back when it began?

* Sumerian prostitution lacked payment:

One of the first forms is sacred prostitution, supposedly practiced among the Sumerians. In ancient sources (Herodotus, Thucydides) there are many traces of sacred prostitution, starting perhaps with Babylon, where each woman had to reach, once in their lives, the sanctuary of Militta (Aphrodite or Nana/Anahita) and there have sex with a foreigner as a sign of hospitality for a symbolic price.

* Roman prostitution lacked autonomy:

In ancient Rome, there were some commonalities with the Greek system; but as the Empire grew, prostitutes were often foreign slaves, captured, purchased, or raised for that purpose, sometimes by large-scale "prostitute farmers" who took abandoned children. Indeed, abandoned children were almost always raised as prostitutes

* Prostitution in the Middle Ages lacked status:

During the Middle Ages, prostitution was commonly found in urban contexts. Although all forms of sexual activity outside of marriage were regarded as sinful by the Roman Catholic Church, prostitution was tolerated because it was held to prevent the greater evils of rape, sodomy, and masturbation (McCall, 1979). Augustine of Hippo held that: "If you expel prostitution from society, you will unsettle everything on account of lusts". The general tolerance of prostitution was for the most part reluctant, and many canonists urged prostitutes to reform.

* Indian prostitution lacked power:

While in the 19th century the British in India began to adopt the policy of social segregation, they still kept their brothels full of Indian women.^[77] In the 19th and early 20th centuries, there was a network of Chinese and Japanese prostitutes being trafficked across Asia, in countries such as China, Japan, Korea, Singapore and British India, in what was then known as the "Yellow Slave Traffic".

* Israeli prostitution lacked gender inequality!:

Prostitution was common in ancient Israel, despite being tacitly forbidden by Jewish Law. Within the religion of Canaan, a significant portion of temple prostitutes were male. It was widely used in Sardinia and in some of the Phoenician cultures, usually in honour of the goddess ‘Ashtart. Presumably under the influence of the Phoenicians, this practice was developed in other ports of the Mediterranean Sea, such as Erice (Sicily), Locri Epizephiri, Croton, Rossano Vaglio, and Sicca Veneria. Other hypotheses include Asia Minor, Lydia, Syria and the Etruscans.

Photo by David Sifrey

In last month's "Capital Ideas," a publication of the Chicago Booth school of Business, Steven Levitt gives the Freakonomics treatment to Chicago-area prostitution. The conceit of "Trading Tricks," as with Levitt's examination of the inner-city drug trade [PDF], is that prostitution is a market like any other.

Levitt, along with Columbia University professor Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh, reveal that prostitutes "want to be where their customers can easily find them"—just like "stores do in shopping malls." That the price of a trick "increases with the risk associated with a particular sex act"—just like in construction work. And that pimps increase the wages of loyal prostitutes in order to "effectively raise the penalty associated with being fired, which will hopefully induce better behavior on the part of the prostitutes"—just like with any employer.

But prostitution is not a job like any other:

Levitt and Venkatesh found that condoms are used in only one of every four tricks, making the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted infection very high. These women face other perils as well. Prostitutes report that they are violently assaulted about once every month. Compared with jobs outside of prostitution, such as a daycare or babysitting job, prostitutes earn far more at about $25 to $30 per hour, or, roughly four times what they would take home otherwise. But because prostitution is such a dangerous, unpleasant, and stigmatizing job, are these women really earning enough to compensate them for the risks they bear?

How does Levitt account for the "unpleasantness"? By asserting that prostitution is—except for that!—a job like any other:

Levitt says that from the prostitutes’ point of view and given the menu of options they have, they must believe that it is a fair compensation because they have chosen this profession. Many of them will do other work as well and prostitution is just part of a portfolio of ways that women get by in these communities. "Prostitution doesn’t seem to be a stark moral choice," says Levitt. "It’s like a job. When it pays better, women will quit other jobs to do it."

Levitt asserts that prostitution is not a "stark" choice because street prostitutes do choose to be street prostitutes. (I won't count escort services here, where I'm betting the "unpleasantness" of violent physical and sexual assault comes more infrequently). What Levitt fails to provide is at what age, education level, and economic status these women make that choice—and what other jobs are on this "menu of options," particularly at our current unemployment rate.

Sure, prostitution is a choice. But it's an illegal choice, and that's a problem. As long as prostitution goes unregulated—or is regulated by police officers who trade sex for a blind eye, pimps who have no legal oversight to keep them from beating prostitutes to keep them in line, and clients who know the prostitutes won't call the (corrupt) cops on them when they act too rough—it is a stark choice, and not in the way that "any other" job kinda sucks. A lot of jobs on Levitt's "menu" are "unpleasant"—but when you work as a waitress, or cashier, or stripper, there are at least protections in place to prevent your boss from beating the shit out of you, and prosecuting him if he does. Brushing violent crime away because prostitutes "choose" to endure it is misleading and damaging—just as women "choosing" to stay in abusive relationships doesn't make that abuse "fair."

Women can make money as prostitutes, and I think that's a fine choice. It doesn't excuse the government from keeping it illegal—and dangerous.

Photo by dreamsjung

"Sex Workers Are People Too" reveals that sex owners can own cats, oppose the war, talk to their parents, and love bacon. Sex workers: They're just like us!

The book is titled "Why Just Her." If this two-minute "book trailer" is any indication, it's going to be amazing.

[youtube:v=cZojXTccSYI]

Oh man. See what he did there with the pull away from Preston Burton revealing Monica Lewinsky? This guy is good.

On Monday, Reuters reported on how the economic downturn is affecting Germany's sex industry. Since tough times have hit the country, where prostitution is legal, its brothels have begun offering bargain-basement deals to keep johns paying for sex. The promotions include free shuttle buses to brothels, senior discounts, and the incredibly grody "day pass."

I believe that women and men should be free to sell sex for money. I think that process should be legal and closely regulated. But I don't know if I can get behind the day pass:

Berlin's "Pussy Club" has attracted media attention with its headline-grabbing "flat rate"—a 70-euro admission charge for unlimited food, drink and sex between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.

"You've got to come up with creative solutions these days," said club manager Stefan, who requested his surname not be published. "We're feeling the economic crisis, too, even though business has fortunately been more or less okay for us so far.

"Our offer might sound like it's too good to be true, but it's real. You can eat as much as you want, drink as much as you want and have as much sex as you want."

I sincerely hope these "creative solutions" include health regulations that keep the sex away from the food and the very drunk away from the sex. I hope that "as much sex as you want" doesn't preclude the prostitutes from taking the breaks they need. I hope the "fuck all" attitude still establishes strict boundaries for every encounter. And I hope I can somehow scrub my brain of the vision of a client drinking, eating, and fucking as much as he can to get the most out of 70 euros.

Photo by Mr. T in D.C.

It's feast or famine over at the Gay Crime Log. The Sexist isn't sure what she did to anger the Gay Crime Gods, but for the past two weeks, her D.C. police crime report e-mails have been barren. Today, her inbox was blessed with a mammoth three weeks of anti-trans hate crimes, costly club hook-ups, and anti-Fred Phelps action.

DOUBLE MOTIVE. "On Sunday, March 15, 2009, at approximately 2 a.m., two adult male victims reported they were robbed at gunpoint by three suspects. During the robbery, one of the suspects referred to one of the victims using a homophobic epithet. The victims received minor injuries. The suspects were described as black males, in their early 20’s. Two of the suspects wore their hair in plaits."

YOU HAVE TO GO HOME, AND YOU CAN'T STAY HERE. "On Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at approximately 5 p.m., members of the Second District were dispatched to the area of Dupont Circle for a possible assault. Upon arrival, officers located an elderly male at the nearby bus stop. He was disoriented and possibly intoxicated. He was accompanied by another male, who advised he was attempting to get his friend home from the local bar. The two began to argue. The elderly male was transported home."

JAIL CELL PHONE. "On Wednesday, March 18, 2009, at approximately 11 p.m., members of the Fourth District were dispatched to the 7700 block of Georgia Avenue, N.W. for the call of an assault. Upon arrival, officers located the victim, a male-to-female Transgender individual, suffering minor injuries to her face and lip. According to the victim, she was in an argument with her former boyfriend, when he punched her a stole her cell phone."

THE COUPLE DETAINED TOGETHER ... "On Saturday, March 21, 2009 at approximately 10:30 p.m., members of the GLLU and Deaf and Hard of Hearing Unit (DHHU) responded to Gallaudet University for the report of a domestic assault. Investigation was unable to determine which individual was the initiator and/or aggressor and both males were arrested. Both received minor injuries."

HEAD CASE. On Sunday, March 22, 2009, at approximately 2:30 a.m., members of the Third District responded to Howard University Hospital for the report of a victim of a domestic assault. Upon arrival, offices located the adult male victim, who was suffering from a serious laceration to his head and possible concussion. According to the victim, he was assaulted by his boyfriend inside their shared residence near 4th and V Street, N.W.

CLUB CLUSTERFUCK. "On Sunday, March 22, 2009, at approximately 3 a.m., members of the First District were monitoring the closing of a club in the 1100 block of 8th Street, S.E., when they observed a large fight outside the club. Three adult males were arrested and all were treated for minor injuries."

IDLE THREAT. "On Tuesday, March 24, 2009, an attorney representing a local GLBT Rights organization contacted the GLLU to report possible hate/bias threats via the internet on an internet blog. A member of the GLLU and the Federal Bureau of Investigations responded to the organization and reviewed the postings with the attorney. It was determined no threats were made and the organization did not want to pursue any further action against the individual who posted the comments. Also at that meeting, the attorney made the GLLU aware of an employee at the organization being harassed via email by a known individual. Members of the GLLU will be investigating this complaint."

HOW ARE THREATS NOT "CRIMINAL ACTIVITY"? "On Thursday, March 26, 2009, at approximately 3 p.m., members of the Third District were dispatched to the Metro Station at 7th and S Streets, N.W. Upon arrival, the adult male caller advised officers he was threatened by several juveniles inside a nearby business and the caller believed he was going to be robbed. The caller also heard the juveniles using homophobic language outside the business. Although the juveniles were stopped and identified, it was determined no criminal activity occurred, so the incident was documented as a hate/bias related incident."

FUCKED AND ROBBED. "On Friday, March 27, 2009, at approximately 5:30 a.m., members of the Third District responded to a residence in the 600 block of Irving Street for a report of an armed burglary. According to the victim, an adult male, he met the suspect at a business located in the 3500 block of Georgia Avenue, N.W. and agreed to allow the suspect to return to his home to engage is sexual activity. When the two arrived at the victim’s residence, a dispute arose over payment and the victim demanded the suspect depart. The suspect returned to the residence, kicked in the door, and while armed with a knife, robbed the victim of U.S. currency. The suspect fled the scene prior to officer’s arrival. The victim was not injured. The suspect is described as a black male in his 30’s wearing all black clothing."

M I.S.O T. "On Friday, March 27, 2009, at approximately 4:30 p.m., a female caller paged the on-call member of the GLLU to complain about officers harassing a member of the Transgender community. According to the caller, officers had visited the Transgender individual’s home, which is located in the 5200 block of 3rd Street, N.W. on four occasions, in the attempt to locate the Transgender individual. According to the caller, the Transgender individual no longer resides at that address. This information was passed along to the Warrant Squad, as they were attempting to locate the individual pursuant to an arrest warrant."

SEX-NEGATIVE "On Saturday, March 28, 2009, at approximately 3:30 a.m., an adult male contacted the GLLU to report his ex-boyfriend was advertising as a male prostitute in Baltimore, MD, but not disclosing he is HIV positive. The information was forwarded to the Baltimore City Police Department’s Gay and Lesbian Liaison Officer for their investigation and follow-up."

GETTING SPECIFIC. "On Sunday, March 29, 2009, at about 8 p.m., an adult male victim responded to the Third District to report he had been the victim of a sexual assault. According to the victim, he met the suspect, an adult male, inside a bar in the 1500 block of 17th Street, N.W. After engaging in conversation, the victim and suspect walked to the victim’s apartment, which is located in the Logan Circle neighborhood. Once at the victim’s apartment, the two men engaged in consensual sexual activity, up to the point the victim refused to engage in specific sexual acts. The suspect then forced the victim to engage in the unwanted sex act. The victim was examined at a local hospital, but did not have serious injuries. This case is being investigated by members of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Sexual Assault Unit."

DISAPPEARING GUN. "On Monday, March 30, 2009, at approximately 2:30 a.m., members of the Sixth District responded to the call for a man with a gun in the area of 900 Division Ave, NE. Upon arriving on the scene, officers located the 9-1-1 caller, a male-to-female Transgender individual, who stated she was robbed by the suspect. No weapon was mentioned and the victim was not injured. The suspect, an adult male, was located and arrested. The case is being considered a potential hate/bias crime based upon the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity, based upon comments made by the suspect at the time of the robbery."

BAD CONNECTION. "On Monday, March 30, 2009, at approximately 3 a.m., members of the Sixth District responded to an apartment in the 1700 block of Minnesota Avenue, N.E. for the report of threats. Upon arrival, the victim, a male-to-female Transgender individual, advised her boyfriend had threatened to kill her and pull the phone cord out of the wall when she attempted to call 9-1-1. The suspect was arrested later that day."

FUCK FRED PHELPS. "On Monday, March 30, 2009, members of the GLLU, working with members of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division, United States Park Police and Metropolitan Police Department’s Intelligence Division, monitored a counter-protest of the Westboro Baptist Church. The demonstrators moved about the city, culminating their demonstration in the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. There were no incidents or arrests."

UNWANTED ADVERTISEMENT. "On Wednesday, April 1, 2009, at approximately 3 p.m., a citizen found a brochure on the windshield of her vehicle, which was parked in the 1800 block of Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Handwritten on the brochure were homophobic, racist and anti-Semitic remarks."

DEEP LOVE. "On Thursday, April 2, 2009, at approximately 2:30 a.m., members of the Fourth District responded to the call for a stabbing inside a residence in the 5300 block of 8th Street, N.W. Upon arrival, the officers located the adult female victim suffering from a stab wound to her hands and arms. The victim was uncooperative and refused to provide officers with any information regarding who attacked her. A witness advised officers the victim was stabbed by her former girlfriend, but the witness did not know the suspect's identity. The victim refused medical attention."

POLICE ASSISTED BREAK-IN REQUESTED. "On Friday, April 3, 2009, at approximately 4:30 a.m., members of the Third District responded to a call for assistance at an apartment in the 1500 block of Ogden Street, N.W. Upon arrival, the officers were met by the caller, a male-to-female Transgender individual, who desired assistance getting back into her apartment. Further investigation revealed the caller did not live at that address and was heavily intoxicated. She was escorted from the building."

GUNS AND GROCERIES. "On Friday, April 3, 2009, at approximately 3 a.m., members of the Seventh District responded to a call for threats in the area of Good Hope Road, S.E. Once on the scene, officer located the victim, a juvenile male, who advised he was walking home from a nearby grocery store, when a male suspect began to call him homophobic names and threaten to shoot him. No weapon was displayed. Although the suspect had fled the scene prior to the officer's arrival, he was located later that night and arrested."

UNDERCOVER PROSTITUTE. "On Saturday, April 4, 2009, at approximately 3:30 a.m., a male contacted the GLLU's on-call member to report he had been the victim of a theft. According to the victim, who was visiting from New England and staying at a hotel in the 1500 block of New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., he met a black male online and invited him to his hotel room. Upon the departure of the guest, the victim realized he was missing a significant amount of U.S. currency from his wallet. The suspect is described as a black male, approximately 40 years old, 6'2" tall, 225 pounds, wearing blue jeans and a white sweatshirt."

Photo by k763

U/C: “How you doing?”

Schmidt: “I’m good. This is a really nice room.”

U/C: “I’m glad you like it. So, What do you do for a living?”

Schmidt: “I work with the government.”

U/C: “How cool is that!!! So, what you want?”

Schmidt: “Half hour.”

U/C: “That’s going to be $80.00. $80.000 for sex right.”

Schmidt: “Well, I’ll do a little of licking. Do you like that?”

U/C: “What?”

Schmidt: “When someone goes down on you?”

U/C: “Of course, I like everything.”

Schmidt: “Let me get comfortable I’ll be right back.”

Schmidt was then arrested.

* NO REFUNDS. THURSDAY, FEB. 19 at 2 a.m. Police responded to a call for robbery in the 4100 block of 14th Street NW. A man had "visited a known house of prostitution." There, "he engaged in consensual sex acts with a member of the transgender community." Here comes the good part: "Upon realizing he had been involved sexually with a biological male, the caller demanded his money be returned. When the service provider refused, he called police." No report was taken, but MPD promises "a follow-up investigation."

* CRIED STAB FRIDAY, FEB. 20 at 4 p.m. Police arrived at an apartment at the 1300 block of Euclid Street NW for an aggravated assault call. They found several people inside "who identified themselves as members of the transgender community." One of them "claimed another attempted to stab her with a knife and stole money from her." The others "disputed the victim’s claim."

* EPITHET ENDURANCE. SATURDAY, FEB. 21 at 12 a.m. Officers responded to the 1700 block of 17th Street NW for a property destruction call. They stopped the suspect, a "27-year-old black male." "Highly intoxicated." Witnesses reported that he had "entered a bar" and "threatened customers, while using racist and homophobic epithets." When he was thrown out, he entered the bar next door. Did the same thing. Was removed again. Then, he tried something different—"Once outside, he picked up a metal pole and a brick and was trying to damage parked vehicles and signs." The man "was arrested and charged with Felonious Threats with a Hate/Bias (Sexual Orientation and Race) overtone."

* DRINKING TO FORGET. SATURDAY, FEB. 21 at 1:30 a.m. Police responded to the 2100 block of P Street NW for an injury. There, they "located a male suffering from a serious laceration to his head and heavily intoxicated." Ut-oh: "Neither the victim nor witnesses could advise how the injuries resulted." He was taken to a hospital.

* TRANS-FER OF FUNDS. SATURDAY, FEB 21 at 11:30 p.m. A transgender woman contacted policy on a robbery charge. She told officers that "she was propositioned by a male suspect, but refused his advances." The suspect then "grabbed her and stole an undetermined amount of money from her." He was arrested.

* BRICK OUST. SUNDAY, FEB. 22 at 12:45 a.m. Police responded to a bar in the 1100 block of 8th Street SE. Two male suspects had been asked to leave. They hadn't. So "bar staff had to physically remove the suspects from the bar," prompting both men to "assault the bar employees by punching them and throwing a brick at them." The men were arrested.

* OSCAR BASH. SUNDAY, FEB. 22. at 9:30 P.M. Officers responded to a bar at the 2100 block of P Street NW for an assault call. Employees told officers they'd been forced to remove a man from a bar who "was yelling at other customers and using racist and homophobic language." The 86-ed patron also contacted cops: He told them "he was assaulted by bar employees." Hmm. "There were no witnesses or evidence to support the victim’s claim."

* CRUISE MISSES. MONDAY, FEB. 23. The mother of a teenage boy contacted the GLLU. She's recovering from a killer snooping session, in which she found that "her son is engaging in on-line sexual cruising with men much older then he and meeting these men for sexual liaisons." One of the older men is insatiable: She says he "is contacting the son inappropriately and will not stop."

Photo by otisarchives1

Outing these women—not their pimps, not their madams, not their johns—reflects poorly on Las Vegas' anti-prostitution efforts. Also reflecting poorly on Las Vegas' vice team? It's "50 most prolific prostitutes" aren't very prolific at all. Most of them have been arrested for pretty minor offenses. Hell, Vegas can do better than this:

Christina Amos, 26, "Arrested on charges of loitering for purposes of prostitution, Jan. 30."

"Loitering for purposes of prostitution." That seems a bit secondary, but okay—the Las Vegas Review-Journal says Christina Amos was hanging out "for purposes of prostitution," and who am I to question the Las Vegas Review-Journal's characterization? Let's look at another of the Review-Journal's prostitutes:

Ashley Anderson, 30. "Arrested on charges of trespassing, Feb. 1."

"Trespassing," eh? Hey—that's not trading sex for money! Let's try again:

Jessica Berumen, 23, "Arrested on charges of trespassing, Jan. 30."

Here we have another young, blonde tresspasser. Where are the prostitutes, Las Vegas Review Journal?

Jennifer Boswell, 24, "Arrested twice on charges of trespassing, Jan. 31 and Feb. 5."

Not here.

Jacqueline Bynum, 20, "Arrested twice on charges of trespassing, Jan. 30 and Feb. 6."

Nope, not here either.

Jasmine Conway, 21, "Arrested on charges of trespassing, Jan. 30."

Now they're just effing with us.

Of the 24 "most wanted prostitutes" featured in the Las Vegas Review-Journal's story, 23 were arrested for "trespassing." One was arrested for "loitering for purposes of prostitution." These are your most wanted prostitution offenders, Las Vegas? Give me one pimp. Give me one madam. Hell, give me one john! Don't give me a list of your town's young women arrested for "trespassing."

Online listing mecca Craigslist and has reached an agreement with 40 states and the District of Columbia "to tame its notoriously unruly 'erotic services' listings," the New York Times reports. Craigslist, which has an extensive "personals" section—including the sex-specific "casual encounters"—often sees prostitutes and Johns listing for-pay services along with solicitations for unfunded hook-ups.

The purging of paid sex services on the site came after Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal contacted Craigslist on behalf of 40 states. Blumenthal "sent a letter to Craigslist demanding that it purge the site of such material and better enforce its own rules against illegal activity, including prostitution." The agreement between the states and Craigslist is aimed at identifying the posters who advertise erotic services, reports NYT.

In March, Craigslist began asking its erotic services advertisers to provide a phone number, which an automated system calls. The system reads a series of digits, which the advertiser types into a Web page as verification before the ad will appear on the site. Craigslist said that ended most of the illicit material. Under the broader agreement announced Thursday, Craigslist is going further, asking that advertisers provide valid identification. It said that it will charge erotic services vendors a small fee for each ad—$5 to $10, Mr. Buckmaster said—and require that they use a credit card for the payment. This, theoretically, will let the company confirm users’ identities. It will donate the money to charities, including those that combat child exploitation and human trafficking.

But even if a prostitute or John offers up valid ID when posting their ads, how many of these people will really be prosecuted for offering "200 ROSES" for a couple hours of "DEEP TISSUE MISSAGE"?

Photo by Mugley.

Michael James Dodd of Washington, DC, was arrested at his rented house in the capital, Phnom Penh, on Sunday, said police Maj. Gen. Bith Kimhong.

He said police who raided the house found the two girls, ages 13 and 14, inside with Dodd.

Dodd was charged during a court appearance on Tuesday, said prosecutor Sok Kalyan. If convicted, Dodd could face up to 10 years in prison, Sok Kalyan said.

The suspect's Cambodian lawyer, So Dara, said his client denied the allegation against him.

Cambodia has long been a magnet for foreign pedophiles because of poverty and law enforcement undermined by corruption. But the country's police and courts have stepped up action against sex offenders in recent years.

Access the extensive report here [PDF].

It gets weirder, reports the Windy Citizen: Painter Bruce Elliot used his own daughter as a nude model for the piece. "My daughter is a heck of a stand-in for Sarah Palin," Elliot told the pub. "She can even do the voice." Dad, you are so embarrassing.

* It looks like the titular blogger of "Confessions of a College Call Girl" is closing her little black blog:

I’m tired of talking about whoring—at some point reliving these stories becomes less about healing and more about playing with fire, dipping my toe into the quicksand. I’m not sure if my life is interesting enough these days to write about; it’s a tribute to how much writing this blog has helped me that I’m mostly sane and boring today.

She does tell "one last" story. There's lots of fucking.

* Jezebel's Megan Carpentier responds to yesterday's Jezebel-referencing post in The Times titled, "Women have so many don'ts. What's a guy to do?" Writes Carpentier:

The difficulty with all the post-feminist whining about how women have "rules" that change that men don't know how to follow is that it continues to be a failure to recognize that women are all different, just as all dudes are different. . . . And — this might be shocking — there was no halcyon time when women all wanted the same thing any more than there was one when men did.