* Some Thomas Circle neighbors are unnerved by sex workers walking near their Pilates studio. Why I never!

* Metro Weekly interviews the guys behind FUK!T, the safe-sex initiative behind the safe sex gay porn spoofs. FUK!T's Terry Gerace on daring to sexualize sex: "There are a lot of places where it's inappropriate to use sex to sell things, but when you're trying to sell something that you use during sex it's actually appropriate to sexualize it and not make it clinical or a fear-based campaign."

* Via GLAA Forum, a woman has sued D.C.'s Covenant Baptist Church for performing a civil commitment ceremony in 2007, which she attended and found "totally disgusting." She wants her donations to the church back.

* Via Jezebel, why it's OK to shamelessly objectify the men of the World Cup. All right, but is it OK to shamelessly objectify them immediately after the United States suffers a crushing loss to Ghana, everyone in the Black Squirrel is drunk and depressed, the the players begin dutifully removing their shirts, in a sad way? Because my brain was saying "woo!," but my heart was saying "too soon."

* Tonight, Bears Do Yoga moves to the Green Lantern!

Photo via Nationaal Archief

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?"

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?

"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.

—wait a second, are we talking strippers? Shake it! Sh-sh-sh-shake it! To hear WaPo's Paul Schwartzman tell Thompson's tale, the real news here is that exotic dancers exist, and it is super easy to make jokes about them. Let's start with the lede:

To hear Quansa Thompson talk of her life as an exotic dancer, to listen to her describe how men offer cash as she sashays, gyrates and jiggles the night away, is to evoke a thousand titillating thoughts, not a single one having anything to do with the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Paul Schwartzman, you are speaking my language. Because I'm the kind of guy who likes to scan the Washington Post for a little bit of jiggly-jiggly, you know what I'm saying? Hey, you know what really gets me off? A bunch of dudes crowding around a lady and throwing some cash at her while she "jiggles." But you already knew that, since you've decided to frame stripping as a universally titllating experience, sure to overload the brain of any reader who might happen to pick up this newspaper. Man, woman, child—we all believe this to be sexy. But less talk more jiggling:

That is, until Thompson brings up the Depression-era law, which she discovered last summer after being fired by her then-employer, the House, a den of prurient entertainment on Georgia Avenue NW. Thompson is suing the House in U.S. District Court, alleging that the club pays dancers no wages, but ought to under the law. The club has denied the charge.

All this legal speak is harshing my boner. This stripper wants a fair wage, you say? I'll show her a fair wage . . . if she shows me her jiggly, am I right? High five!

By her own account, Thompson — or "Love" as she calls herself onstage — had to overcome a good deal of self-doubt six years ago, when she started dancing alongside a veritable conga line of statuesque beauties with show biz names such as "Wild Cherry," "French Kiss" and "Wet."

She learned to feel the music, to move her hips just so, to smile with enough mystery that men in her audience leaned forward, hands extended, fingers offering up $20 bills, fifties, hundreds. The high-rollers, the "ballers," as she called them, "would make it rain," literally showering her with fistfuls of dollars.

Fact-check time: One has to wonder how much time Schwartzmen spent observing the House technique. I understand it involves more than smiling. But I digress:

Yet Thompson said that aspects of the stripping life bothered her. The House paid her and the other dancers $20 for showing up each day, with the understanding that they could keep their tips after they paid the management a couple of fees: $20 to the DJ, $20 to the bartender. If a dancer was late to the stage, Thompson said, the club charged a $10 penalty. The fine for missing a shift was $80, even if it was because of an illness, which is what Thompson claimed when she didn't show up for work one night last year.

And here we have the Obligatory Discussion Of Issues Not Directly Related To Jiggling. You know what this story needs? More stripper jokes.

Thompson found a lawyer, Philip Zipin, who, after some research, concluded that the House, like a preponderance of strip clubs nationwide, classified their dancers as "independent contractors," as if they were plumbers, only without the tool belt (not to mention the shirt, pants and underwear).

Yeah! Stripper joke!

Yet there are strippers who don't want full-time gigs, who prefer the freedom of floating from club to club. "There are advantages — the write-offs, for one," said Lia Scholl, founder of the now-defunct Star Light Ministries, which counseled exotic dancers. "You can write off breast augmentation. You can write off mileage. They can determine their own schedules and be their own bosses."

The disadvantages of being an independent contractor include being responsible for one's own Social Security taxes and not being entitled to workman's compensation. "If you fall off the pole," Scholl said, "there's no safety net."

Wooooo stripper joke!

She'd be more than willing to return to the stage full time, if she were treated like a full-fledged member of the labor force, albeit one who awakes each day to get undressed for work. "It would be the best job," she said. "People would have more respect for it."

. . . aaaaaand really terrible stripper joke ("what's the difference between a real worker and a stripper? Strippers get undressed for work!") . . . followed the inevitable "But Seriously, Folks" moment. Even though it's obvious from the entire tenor of this piece that the writer does not respect women who are employed in the sex industry, why not finish with a plea for everyone else to get serious about this issue? Because when it comes down to it, strippers are people, too, and—ooooh. Jiggly.

Mistresses! Whenever a public figure takes one as a secret lover, Society at Large is obligated to publicly shame this woman for her untoward behavior. But just how much shame shall we pile on a woman accused of having sex with a man who has pledged to only have sex with one other lady? Use this handy guide to determine how much irrational hatred she deserves:

a) if she is a mysterious and beautiful Argentinian mother of two, leak romantic e-mails.

b) if she is a fertile campaign videographer, proceed with light mockery over musical tastes.

c) if she is a cocktail waitress, insinuate that she is actually a sex worker.

d) if she works in a strip club, lose all ability to refer to her as anything other than "stripper."

e) if she is a porn performer, release grainy video stills of her shaking her boobs in front of a fire truck.

f) if she is literally the Devil, insinuate that she is actually a sex worker.

In this week's edition of Sexist Beatdown, Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown and I discuss why mistresses receive the brunt of all our projected self-hatred, wonder why the term "Mistress" has no male counterpart (I nominate "Mrstress"), and respectfully request that Tiger Woods set his Facebook statuses to private.

SADY: Mistresses!

AMANDA: Indeed. I have heard many sordid tales of their existence as of late.

SADY: sometimes, mistresses talk about being mistresses. At other times, they do not talk. In either case, it is fine to talk about them! For they are MISTRESSES, scourge of the "I am married to a cheater" world.

AMANDA: Can we talk for a second about this "mistress" business? Is there a word for the "mister" of a married woman? like a "Mrster"? Or something?

SADY: I prefer the term "Mister Mistress." Which is also the name of my new glam-metal band, in case you were looking for an update on that.

AMANDA: I think that was also a Hulk Hogan movie.

SADY: But really, we know that the appropriate word for "man mistress" is "totally rocking dude."

AMANDA: The only other term I can think of that is dismissive (dismistress!) in the same way is "pool boy."

SADY: Yeah. Basically, the only words we have for dudes who are being cruelly exploited for sex on the side by lady types are class (and often race) based.

AMANDA: Yeah. "Mistresses" (ugh) on the other hand, have to be cornered into this odd cultural Other Wife space, even though they are not married to this guy, and they actually have plenty of their own shit going on as well. They are still defined solely by this relationship.

SADY: Yeah. I mean, we have this strangely romantic Victorian version of the mistress, STILL. It is not just "I hooked up with a dude, he is married, sometimes I make bad decisions in my personal life," it is this strange thing where we still think of them as dissolute Women of Leisure who are sexfully attending to their patron's sexful needs while draped in diamonds which of course are the whole point. And I think, weirdly, though I definitely GET that intimacy and all of that are scary, and the fact that you could love someone and they could love hooking up with other people is really unsettling for just about anyone, our need to drag mistresses into the light and be like, "mistress! Behold ye alle this Creature, captured in thee most Wanton Abandon!" Well, it's people working out personal anxieties, sure. We WANT to hate them because then the people who are cheating on us are clearly choosing people lesser than ourselves. But also: it's a way of deciding which women are all right. A way of deciding what makes a good woman (being cheated on!) and a bad one (being cheated with!) if that makes sense.

AMANDA: Yeah, and I have found that to be a really weird part of the Sanford / Edwards ladies' narratives, where there is an attempt to make some sort of Character Coup out of being cheated on.

SADY: Well, but also, that excerpt from "Game Change," about the affair, went to great lengths to portray Elizabeth Edwards as a screaming, controlling harpy who clearly deserved to be cheated on.

AMANDA: But the thing that really disturbs me when people get to talkin' about cheating, is that we know that about 50 percent of married men and women (and men I think do it at higher rates than women, but not significantly higher) will cheat on their spouses at some point. And so all of this faux outrage tends to worry me, because either these people are just ignoring their own realities, or they are attempting to work out their personal issues by piling their hatred onto these women.

SADY: Right! And it is like: I would prefer people not to cheat on me. I am not a fan of cheating in general. I think it is a thing you should not do. And yet, affairs are such a commonplace part of human life that they form the basis of: much literature, much television, "Mad Men" specifically for like three seasons, many movies, music, and now apparently our salacious news headlines that are going on when also there is a huge recession which I find sort of important. So, when a marriage is found to contain cheating, and everyone panics gets all, "this is the worst thing! The worst thing that could happen! Ever! For marriage is a sacred covenant, united by God's holy tears of joy over the entwined bodies of lovers!" Well: but you know it happens all over, right? People just want to be clear that they are in the OTHER FIFTY PERCENT, maybe. Even right now, I am worrying that people are going to think I am a cheater because I am inappropriately freaked out by mistresses, strangely.

AMANDA: Cheater! Cheater! I think it's that people have always wanted to hold their public figures and role models to a higher standard than themselves, and that makes sense to me. But they also, now, want to bring them down to our level. Which is really easy! Because they have never been morally superior to us in the first place, and the news of their private lives has just been more strictly controlled. I think at some point we are going to have to just stop giving a shit, I guess? Because it is getting boring, to me. I don't think our 24-hour news cycle can endure the weight of all the revelations of cheating that will occur among the huge number of suddenly newsworthy people we're reporting on now. For example: I recently read a very large-fonted Huffington Post headling about Matthew Fox possibly cheating on his wife with a "stripper" (the most reviled form of Mistress!) How long can people keep clicking on that? Tell me it's not forever.

SADY: God. Okay, can we talk about this? Sex worker mistresses? One of Tiger Woods' mistresses was apparently a porn performer, and there is a lawsuit going on have been vague threats of a lawsuit which I don't clearly understand, but which has to do with her quitting porn for Tiger, and thinking she was his only girlfriend, and etc.

AMANDA: (I also don't understand the legal precedent here).

SADY: I think it is lost income? Because she stopped working due to their relationship? It does seem like a frivolous and fairly transparently mercenary deal, from all I can understand. And taking a dude to court over your failed relationship is a bit over-the-top. But also, people are just shocked, SHOCKED AND APPALLED, that a person who made PORNOGRAPHY could DARE to express hurt in public! Like: it is that, not the nature of the debate here, that is getting some I think unfair focus.

AMANDA: It ... has feelings?

SADY: She made PORNOGRAPHY Amanda! I do not understand it! I thought the pornography cameras stole your soul!

AMANDA: That is the rumor.

SADY: Like: that's the thing. Mistresses are always slutty, trashy, tacky, la la la. I think it is bad form to date a married dude, not least because what is the best-case scenario for YOU, Mistress, in this relationship? Dating a dude who hurts ladies' feelings? No. But when they are also sex workers—and there is always, if not a specifically Matthew-Fox-centric version of this rumor, a version of this rumor floating around— then they are basically the devil. Women get to be like, "and also, my husband cheated on me, and it was with Satan."

AMANDA: I think that the intensified shaming of the porn actress goes back to the idea of the Mistress as well being this woman who is committed to the married man, even though he is married. Tiger Woods has like a million "Mistresses" at this point, who are really just women he's seen at some point or another, and who were obviously not under any obligation to only have sex with Tiger Woods. But we are somehow encouraged to see them that way, because if you have sex with a married man, the only way to come out looking a tiny bit better in the public eye is if you were just so totally and hopelessly in love with him that you were sexually committed only to him, and all 12 of you thought he was the real deal, or whatever. Which is gross. Tiger Woods himself actually did get a little sensitive about his "Mistresses" seeing other dudes, from the literature I've read on the topic. So even Tiger couldn’t find a reasonable perspective on cheating with someone he was cheating on his wife with.

SADY: Right. Some mistresses get to be like, "well, but my heart and feelings were involved." And it helps if we can see them as not-at-all sexual outside of this relationship. But when a lady clearly engages in sexual activity elsewhere, people are like, "wait a minute! This is about FUCKING, isn't it? Gross!"

AMANDA: Right. Because if you're a porn star ... well, then, many other dudes who are not Tiger Woods have seen you, like, naked and stuff! Bad mistress! We grade Mistresses now.

SADY: Heart and feelings involved: A+

He really was getting divorced though and now also you have his baby: B+

Clearly having had sex with people not your Mistressifier: F. For Failure.

AMANDA: Being married to a guy who cheats on you with a woman who does porn: Priceless, or something.

SADY: Yeah. I feel for that lady. TO THE MAX. In conclusion, can we all just agree that sometimes DUDES who cheat are really the ones who Destroyed This Marriage, though?

AMANDA: Sure, but can we also agree that unless the dude in question is like a noted marriage advocate or some shit, I don't particularly want to see him stand on a podium and cry about it? Just go deal with your own business.

SADY: Yeah. Seriously. We are not Facebook friends, your Relationship Status Updates are not really my personal concern. TIGER WOODS IS IT'S COMPLICATED.

Image via Wikipedia Commons

Humans have been celebrating variations on a "Valentine's Day" since the fourth century, when ancient Romans celebrated their mid-February pagan fertility rite. Nowadays, the Valentine's Day tradition persists in order to market shitty ensemble romantic comedies, prod our significant others into buying shitty chocolate, and make single folks feel shitty about themselves. Valentine's Day has not been particularly good to us.

Thankfully, some enterprising groups have figured out how to capitalize on the obligatory Valentine's Day celebration in ways that don't involve a 5-buck Hallmark card (or Patrick Dempsey). Below, three Valentine's-themed events that support women around the world:

Crafting Hope Trailer from Erin Yokel on Vimeo.

Event: A fund-raiser Crafting Hope, a documentary film by Greenbelt, Md. native Erin Yokel. According to Yokel, "The film Crafting Hope explores how income generating livelihood projects started by three resourceful women are breaking the cycle of poverty for communities in the Philippines, Uganda and Haiti."

Valentine's Twist: Instead of hitting up a corporate Valentinemonger like Hallmark, those wishing to celebrate the holiday can "shop for fair trade, handcrafted Valentine’s gifts" at Bethesday's Ten Thousand Villages store. Romantic extra: the filmmakers will be on-hand to discuss the problem of women's poverty worldwide.

Host: Crafting Hope and Bethesda's Ten Thousand Villages store.

Details: The fund-raiser will be held on Fri., Feb. 12 from 6-10 p.m. at the Ten Thousand Villages store, 4959 Elm Street, Bethesda (Check the film's Web site for weather updates).

—

Event: The Valentine's Benefit Concert, a showcase including local bands The Sweater Set, FREE, and Nila, plus a silent auction.

Valentine's Twist: Valentine-themed entertainment that won't make you spew. Plus, proceeds from the event will go to Courtney’s House , "the first shelter in DC for sex-trafficked children and young women."

Host: V-Day D.C., a local volunteer group devoted to ending violence against women.

Details: The show will be held on Friday, Feb. 12 at 8 p.m. at Bloombars, 3222 11th St. NW. Suggested donation is $10.

—

Event: "Reclaim Valentine's Day," an effort to remind "the women in our lives how they empower and inspire us."

Valentine Twist: Instead of sending a Valentine to a significant other in a begrudging nod to societal expectation, send a platonic "V-Tine" to a female friend you really love.

Host: The Younger Women's Task Force, a national organization of young female political activists.

Details: Sign up to send a "V-tine or $5. Proceeds benefit the Younger Women's Task Force.

Photo via George Eastman House

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.

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.

Earlier this summer, FOX deciphered the secret sexting codes teens use to fuck each other on their cell phones. But teens aren't the only ones who need to hide their sexual exploits with absurdly elaborate acronyms. Sex workers and their clients, too, are trained to use the whoooole alphabet.

If you plan to patronize sex workers—and obnoxiously detail your exploits on the Internet—you better be versed in these 31 common trade acronyms. While these sex codes are meant to help johns avoid law enforcement, they have the added benefit of making any guy who uses them sound super douchey.

Do you know the correct racial slur for your masseuse/prostitute? The right acronym to obscure your Holocaust survivor fetish? Can you describe a shitty blowjob in just four easy letters? Test yourself in our sex code quiz, below. Answers after the jump.

SEX CODE WORD:

1. AAMP
2. Aircon BBBJ + Hacks
3. Asian Cowgirl
4. Babyback
5. Baja Sur
6. Barracuda
7. BBBJ
8. BBBJTC
9. BBBJTCWS
10. Beret
11. Blue Steel
12. CCL
13. Civilian
14. CMD
15. Date
16. DFF
17. Ed Zachary disease
18. FOV
19. GFE
20. GF3
21. Hardwood Floors
22. HHHJ
23. Interpreter
24. LBFM
25. Man in a boat
26. NQNS
27. PRC
28. Russian
29. Sybian
30. TCSS
31. XOXO

—

SEX, DECODED: Editor's note: I did not make these up. I swear. Not even "Concentration Camp Look." If these decoded answers still do not make sense to you, well, maybe you just weren't cut out for the world of online john commentary. Consider yourself lucky.

1. "Asian-American Massage Parlor. This is the politically correct acronym."

2. "Scenario: When the maseuse ask, 'want aircon?' if yes, she pop one hacks sweet into her mouth and start blowing."

3. "Girl on top, squatting."

4. "Petite, young, attractive Asian."

5. "Genitals. From the spanish 'the low south'".

6. "A professional prostitute who's only purpose is to separate you from your money as quickly as possible, preferably without giving you anything in return."

7. "Bare Back Blow Job (oral sex without condom)"

8. "Bare Back Blow Job to Completion (oral sex to orgasm)"

9. "Bare Back Blow Job to Completion with Swallowing"

10. "A condom."

11. "Viagra"

12. "Concentration Camp Look."

13. "A woman who makes herself available for sexual encounters but not for financial gain. May be less discreet than a provider and more interested in a relationship."

14. "Carpet Matches Drapes (typically a natural blonde)"

15. "A session with a prostitute"

16. "Dead Fish Fuck"

17. "A woman with an unattractive face."

18. "Finger Outside Vagina"

19. "Girl Friend Experience"

20. "Girl Friend Experience w/all three holes"

21.  "Clean shaven pussy."

22. "Half Hearted Hand Job."

23. "Condom (e.g. She spoke French without the aid of an interpreter = BBBJ)"

24. "Little Brown Fucking Machine"

25. "Clitoris"

26. "Non-quitter, non-spitter"

27. "Women from the People's Republic of China"

28. "Penis between breasts""

29. "A mechanical sex device that is in the shape of half-barrel with a dildo attachment mounted in the middle."

30. "Talk Cock Sing Song"

31. "Kisses & Hugs"

Photo by Todd Huffman

Some people believe that every human being has the right to a full and healthy life. Others believe that every human being has a right to a full and healthy life—as long as they aren't gay, addicted to drugs, or a prostitute.

And then, there are those who believe that only pre-born babies are innocent enough to deserve a full and healthy life. These people are the reason that the campaign against AIDS has to focus on infected pregnant women—instead of infected pregnant women, infected drug users, infected prostitutes, and infected gay men.

AIDS activist Elizabeth Pisani drove this point home in a recent interview with VICE Magazine. Pisani is a crusader against both AIDS and the bullshit which prevents health organizations from fighting it. There are a lot of insights in this long interview with Pisani. Most interesting to me is the way the fight against AIDS has been shaped by branding issues.

The face of AIDS, Pisani argues, has been focused so exclusively on the "innocents"—like pregnant women, their unborn children, and recipients of blood transfusions—that the epidemic has been left to thrive in the most at-risk populations—like gay men, drug users, and sex workers. The problem, of course, resolves itself in the most macabre way: The epidemic eventually spreads from "the wicked" to the "innocents," who are not as isolated as the judgmental types would like to believe.

Says Pisani:

Yes, gay men, drug injectors, and people who sell and buy sex, the three groups which are more likely to get HIV, are the so-called “wicked” people. At UNAIDS we had to find a way to turn it from a “disease of the wicked” into a “disease of the innocent”. Unfortunately, in the process of trying to do that, we turned attention from the groups who most needed it to the whole population. So what we were essentially trying to saying was, “If you don't invest in prevention for these high risk groups now, then you will have a bigger epidemic—i.e. innocent women and kids—later on.” What the politicians heard, however, was, “HIV prevention blah blah blah blah innocent women and children.” It's like talking to a dog who recognizes only its name and the name of the food. Can you recollect a precise moment for this shift in perception? It was when the African epidemic really hit people's radars. In Africa all of our data came from pregnant women, and you can't have a more touchy-feely innocent group than pregnant women and their unborn babies. That was the thing that really made people think it wasn't just a disease of 'the wicked'.

The whole interview is worth a read, including Pisani's explanation for why democracies have been less proactive at fighting the epidemic: "Democracy isn't all that good at protecting the rights of minority groups who don't vote. . . . when I say public health is a fascist discipline, I mean it." Hey, maybe that finally explains President Bush's initiatives to fund AIDS work in Africa?

Photo by bryan88

"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!

Access the extensive report here [PDF].