La Libertine's Salon

Par for the Course

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:15:00 +0000

I'm reading, "The Courtesan's Arts", one of the books on my list in the previous post. The first chapter talks about the ancient Greek hetaira and specifically Phryne. The author of that chapter, James Davidson, discusses at some length the disbelief among some modern day scholars of ancient Greece (and probably antiquity in general) that the hetaira and Phryne herself were all they were reported to be. These same scholars according to Davidson also express disbelief that words attributed to the hetairae are their own words and not that of men speaking for them or general male flights of fancy.

While Davidson seems to be nonplussed at this historical contention, many sex workers know such disbelief in our innate intelligence is par for the course. It's amazing that the scholars who think the hetairae could not have possibly been speaking with their own words still accept the fact that the clients of these women were attracted to them because they could speak their own minds. If the hetairae couldn't hold up their end of the conversation then they would have had no business at all. Since the ancient Greek male that patronized hetairae would have been wealthy and powerful that also means he would have had free, unrestrained access to any number of other free or less expensive sexual options.

It is those same scholars and Certain Feminists who probably also think modern day sex workers are mere puppets of men who have forced them into the sex trade. The CFs especially say this about sex worker rights activists or, as they like to call us, the "Pro-Pimp Lobby" or using the scare quotes around sex work. Right.

So threatening is the thought that a woman is so sexual and intelligent that she must be erased from history, neutralized within their own historical accounts or silenced to the point of disbelief or even censorship. Because sluts are just plain old stupid and Serious Women would never enjoy sex to the point of making a profession out of it.

And never the 'twain shall meet.

Just as scary is the thought that a Serious Woman might realize that being a slut isn't mutually exclusive with her intellect (see: many, many sex workers) and may just decide to cross The Line, buoyed by the fact that a woman using her sexuality and intelligence, as a profession, in equal parts has been done before. And they were successful. That's far too threatening to the status quo.

Nail, Head: BAM!

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:25:00 +0000

This is why I LOVE Salon.com's Tom Tomorrow, the illustrator and writer of This Modern World.

Go! Read it!

My Winter Break Reading List

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:00:00 +0000

Hello mon cheries!

I know, it's been a while, but I will actually have time to post with the start of my winter break next Wednesday. YAY! It's been a hellafying quarter that followed an equally hellafying summer. I'm hoping for a better year in 2010, preferably starting in November 2009.

Anyway, I went to my university's library and had a nerdgasm last night. Researching books for my art history paper on the intersection of prostitution, money and erotic art in ancient Rome (yes, it was an awesome paper to write!) I saw many other books on the subject that I want to read. Though I only read parts of the books for my paper for obvious reasons, I'm going back to read all of them in addition to the five I checked out last night. There's another book I wanted to use for my paper but some jackass got to it before I did. Hopefully, they'll return it soon so I can add it to my list. So between that and hopefully working for an escort agency, I expect my December to be very full.

Here's the list. I can't wait to sink my teeth in!

Roman Sexualities Ed. by Judith Hallett and Marilyn Skinner
Daily Life in Ancient Rome by Florence Dupont
Prostitution, Sexuality and the Law in Ancient Rome and The Economy of Prostitution in the Roman World by Thomas A.J. McGinn
The Moral Mirror of Roman Art by Rabun Taylor
Eros in Antiquity by Antonia Mulas (book of photographs)

Defending Pornography by Nadine Strossen (finally!)
Grandes Horizontales by Virginia Rounding (been looking for this book for ages)
The Courtesan's Arts: Cross-Cultural Perspectives Ed. Martha Feldman and Bonnie Gordon
Global Sex Workers by Kamala Kempadoo and Jo Doezema
Making Work, Making Trouble: Prostitution as a Social Problem by Deborah R. Brock

I'm not sure exactly when in this schedule I will have time to sleep.

Chicago-area announcements: 11-10-09

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:39:00 +0000

I saw the film and it was very good, so I highly recommend you come out for this screening if you are able to. Unfortunately, I won't be there as a rare opportunity has presented itself.

*****************************************************************************

SEX POSITIVE
pro-SEX, pro-QUEER, pro-KINK
a free documentary film series for people who like sex.

TUESDAY NOVEMBER 10

“Petals: Journey Into Self-Discovery” (2007)

This documentary follows the journey of photographer Nick Karras in producing his artistic book 'Petals', about the beauty of female anatomy, examining the many unspoken beliefs and myths that affect women's sexual self-esteem. The movie records the reactions of sex educators, women's health professionals, art critics, female participants in the project, as well as the man/woman-in-the-street as they confront the mystery of womanhood.

Join us for our second year of radically inclusive documentary films about positive sexuality. Originally created and curated by Clarisse Thorn, the 2010 series is curated by a diverse committee of SEX+++ attendees including activists, sex workers, scholars, and kinksters. To recommend a film for the series, please contact ljunkin@uic.edu

FREE -- All are welcome!
RSVP’s STRONGLY RECOMMENDED: 312.413.5353

THANKS TO THE GREAT SUPPORTERS WHO ARE MAKING THIS SERIES POSSIBLE!
CHICAGO SPONSORS:
+ Early to Bed: Feminist Sex Toys
+ Women and Children First: Feminist Bookstore
+ Galleria Domain Two NFP, Inc.
+ Illinois Caucus of Adolescent Health
+ Polyamory Weekly
+ Comstock Films
+ EdenFantasys SexIs Magazine
+ Creative Filth
+ We're seeking more Chicago sponsors -- get in touch if you're interested!

CHICAGO PARTNERS:
+ Center on Halsted: LGBT Community Center
+ Sex Workers Outreach Project

FILMMAKERS AND FILM RESOURCES:
+ Picture This Productions
+ Erin Palmquist, filmmaker
+ Seventh Art Releasing
+ Sensory Image Pty, Ltd.
+ Cinema Libre Studio
+ Women Make Movies
+ Sam Feder, filmmaker
+ Beyondmedia Education
+ Regent Releasing
+ Indie Pictures
+ Marianna Beck, filmmaker
+ Comstock Films
+ Becky Goldberg, filmmaker
+ Frameline Distribution
+ Accord Alliance

*SEX +++ FILM SERIES
2nd Tuesdays at 7PM*
[ http://www.uic.edu/jaddams/hull/Events/sexPositive/sexPositive.html ]

Jane Addams Hull-House Museum
800 South Halsted
312.413.5353
FREE
All are welcome!

Chicago-area announcements: 10-23-09

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:21:00 +0000

SWOP-Chicago is pleased to announce that our October workshop will be a self-defense workshop for sex workers and other kinky people with Kevin Sogor of International Hapkido USA. This introductory course will teach some basic self defense techniques specifically designed for the adult industry professional who may find themselves in compromising positions or unique situations they must escape from. Participants are encouraged to wear clothing they would normally work or play in, such as high heels, skirts, corsets, etc., while taking the class. Open to all genders. Please call Kevin at (773) 252-4470 for more information on the class.

Date- Wednesday, October 28

Time- 7-9 PM

Location- International Hapkido USA
1385 N. Milwaukee Ave, Chicago, 60622

Cost- $25 per person.
If you can’t afford cost of the class, but would like to participate, please email sexworkchicago@gmail.com to inquire about a scholarship

Email sexworkchicago@gmail.com if you would like to register for this workshop.

http://redlightchicago.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/self-defense-workshop-wednesday-october-28/

Return of the Courtesan

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:01:00 +0000

The Examiner talks about the profession of the courtesan and the sexual politics therein. It's a good read, so check it out!

Bollocks!

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:36:00 +0000

From USA-Today: 'Men less picky about looks when it comes to casual sex':

Men are much more likely to seek and have casual sex than women, and are far less choosy about the looks of their sex partners.

That's the conclusion of a new study by British researchers who analyzed questionnaire responses from 860 American, German and Italian students.
The students were asked to imagine being approached by a member of the opposite sex, described as either "slightly unattractive," "moderately attractive" or "exceptionally attractive." The participants were then asked what their response would be if such members of the opposite sex offered to go out, go to their apartment, and to go to bed with them.

The 427 men were more likely than the 433 women to agree to casual sex, and the men expressed a greater desire for it than women. The study also found that the men were more likely to go out, go to the apartment, and go to bed with members of the opposite sex in all three categories of attractiveness.

Men needed to be exceptionally attractive to tempt women to consider casual sex, said Dr. Achim Schutzwohl, of the department of psychology at the University of Brunel in the U.K., and colleagues.

German men were less likely to accept date, apartment and sex offers than Italian and American men. Italian men were more likely than Americans to accept an offer of sex.

"While men are not entirely insensitive to their requestor's attractiveness, women have higher standards and are more likely to engage in casual sex with an exceptionally attractive man than with a less attractive man," the researchers concluded.

The study was published online Aug. 11 in the journal Human Nature.

Okay, let's look at a few of the statements and conclusions here:

Men are much more likely to seek and have casual sex than women

This is great timing after Ren's post here where she dissects "good girl" expectations and resulting behavior. I just love the way these mainstream scientific studies about sex and choice NEVER take societal pressures into account. The average man is never told that sex will devalue him as a person. The average woman is. So of course a random pick of average women will produce few who will seek and have casual sex. What ever happened to the scientific process? Where are the controls?

The students were asked to imagine being approached by a member of the opposite sex, described as either "slightly unattractive," "moderately attractive" or "exceptionally attractive." The participants were then asked what their response would be if such members of the opposite sex offered to go out, go to their apartment, and to go to bed with them.

Natalie Angier, author of Woman: An Intimate Geography, had a scathing critique about these types of studies in her book. I'm going to quote her because what she said is what I have to say as well:

Women don't want to take a man up on his off-the-quad overture. Fancy that. Women don't take a strange and obviously aggressive man back to their dorm room or apartment for a quickie. Could it be that they are in fear of their life rather than uninterested in the pleasure a handsome man might bring them? And could it be that young women just don't scare men physically the way young men do women? If there were no legitimate fear among the women, surely at least a couple of them would have turned out to be of the "whore" phenotype that supposedly characterizes some women and said yes. Moreover, I wonder how many of the men who said "Count me in!" to their solicitor would have followed through to a bona fide act of intercourse, would not have been a little nervous when push came to shove, if you will, about this forward, lascivious, inappropriately behaving dame, and perhaps started wondering if they were setting themselves up for a private screening of Fatal Attraction?
...Yet would a man find the prospect of a string of partners so appealing if the following rules were applied: ... that each act of casual sex will cheapen his status and make him increasingly less attractive to other women; and that society will not wink at his randiness but rather sneer at him and thik him pathetic, sullied, smaller than life? Until men are subected to the same severe standards and threats of censure as women are, and until they are given a lower hand in a so-called casual encounter from the start, it is hard to insist with such self-satisfaction that, hey, it's natural, men like a lot of sex with a lot of people and women don't.
(Natalie Angier, Woman: pp. 367-8. US pb ed.)

'Nuff said. I am not arguing whether or not women should be overly concerned with reputation and sacrificing their desire to remain "a good girl". That's a whole different discussion. What Natalie, and myself, are addressing are the very real dangers, especially the physical ones, women are at risk of. Putting this in a professional context, this is why escorts and prostitutes screen their clients to the best of their ability. This is why sex workers' rights are intimately connected with women's rights and human rights. Such a vital activity, both biologically and socially, should not be burdened with totally unnecessary side effects like violence and shame.

Men needed to be exceptionally attractive to tempt women to consider casual sex, said Dr. Achim Schutzwohl, of the department of psychology at the University of Brunel in the U.K., and colleagues.

Again, I point to Natalie's statement above and adding this point: prevailing thought in humanity is that beautiful=good. How many times have you heard, "Well they don't look harmful" and it is referring to someone with average to good looks? Women (hetero) are especially taught to believe this, because Prince Charming and the White Knight are never, ever shown to be ugly. Then again, for hetero men, the Fairy Princess isn't the ugly, evil witch unless she's using glamor and trickery. So, I'm sure the women in the study may think, "Well, I'll take a risk with a Brad Pitt clone instead of a dude who looks like Willem Dafoe as The Green Goblin on a bad day."

German men were less likely to accept date, apartment and sex offers than Italian and American men. Italian men were more likely than Americans to accept an offer of sex.

Here, the researchers somewhat skirt the edges of taking culture into account. There's a sprinkling of cultural stereotyping here too. Notice that? Especially with the Italian men. I'm going to stop right there.

"While men are not entirely insensitive to their requestor's attractiveness, women have higher standards and are more likely to engage in casual sex with an exceptionally attractive man than with a less attractive man," the researchers concluded.

This isn't flattering for women or men. For women, this conclusion merely glosses over the other valid concerns women have about casual sex. Simply put, women are in more danger of being physically harmed in a casual encounter due to the prevailing societal thought of women who would be deemed "sluts" or "whores" for doing so. I know there are some who would contest that, but they also contest things like the reality of sexism and racism. Whatever. For the men, this makes it seem as though they have no standards and that they could never be genuinely, physically attracted to a woman who is ugly for a casual, sexual encounter.

Manchester Pride sings to Lily Allen

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:18:00 +0000

Love this:

(Note to A Song of Ice and Fire fans: In case you missed the news, Lily Allen's brother Alfie Owen-Allen will play Theon Greyjoy in HBO's adaption of A Game of Thrones. Cool!)

Funnies: Insect Overlords

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 06:22:00 +0000

This has to be the funniest 45 seconds of The Simpsons in its entire run:

Announcement: New blog name

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 04:41:00 +0000

So I'm renaming the blog: Carnal Caprine. The address will be changing soon. I'll keep you all up to date on that. On blogger, I can change the address of the blog but I'm not sure what that will do to my previous posts and to your bookmarks, ie. will everything be redirected? I dunno. We'll find out soon enough!

Ass: U and Me

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:41:00 +0000

One of my new haunts is Pam's House Blend. It is a blog and forum that focuses on LGBTQ issues, as well as discussion of other topics. The blogmistress, a black NC-based lesbian named Pam Spaulding, is awesome and funny and much detested by certain conservative elements.

So Pam broached a topic about African-American hair, specifically women's, which she cross-posted on Salon.com when she filled in for the brilliant Glenn Greenwald. I both agree and disagree with her some of views on African-American women using chemical relaxers. Now, another reader at Pam's House Blend, a white woman, has posted a diary on her views of African-American hair. It's full of what I consider "well-meaning liberal racist fetishizing". She is just so in love with styles like braids, afros, cornrows, etc. I like them too, on other people not necessarily on me. Braids and cornrows pull my scalp to the point of bleeding and quite honestly, I do not think they look good on me; an afro would be short-lived as my hair grows out then down (not quite unlike Krusty the Klown) and besides with my three or four different textures, wearing it natural leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. I have no wish to spend a half-hour applying product to my hair so that the textures can synchronize and give me a style that will last all day. But the poster thinks black women straightening their hair betrays a conformity and self-hatred. Make sure you read her diary post before continuing.

I cannot express enough how much I absolutely detest other people making assumptions on the personal grooming choices of another person. All beauty decisions made by ME are quite honestly based on my self-love. Some may call it vanity or narcissism. I call it acknowledging a beautiful truth. But that's me.

There are many politics that apply to African-American hair, especially post 1960s. What really pissed me off about this woman's diary post is the underlying entitlement. I posted this in response (part of a longer response):

I find myself chafing under the double standards some people use when it comes to hair. Somehow, if black women straighten their hair, wear weaves or wigs, dye their hair certain shades it's seen as self-hatred, overly conforming, ugly, ghetto, etc. Yet white and other non-black women do the same things and it is not nearly as demonized; in fact it is seen as glamorous. Why is this?

Paris Hilton has her own line of hair extensions, Raquel Welch has her own line of wigs and then of course there is the Japanese Hair Straightening technique started in Japan for Japanese women! In fact, the Yuko/Japanese/Thermal straightener is not recommended for the tightly curled, kinky hair found among most (but not all) black African ethnicities. So, you know, not for most African-American women. Most every female celebrity you can name has at some point worn wigs, weaves, extensions, etc. to achieve a different look on the Red Carpet. But these inconvenient facts have been ignored by all those who want to impose yet another double standard and Catch-22 on black women.

Here's what I read between the lines: non-black women can straighten, extend, dye, wig-over, etc. their hair all they want because they are entitled to those looks by virtue of their heritage...but a black (or mixed black and that's a whole diff can of worms) woman who does it is merely appropriating and should not don those looks because they're not "natural" for them.

I'm not ignoring the fact that the Anglo-European standard of beauty does not have a significant influence in the lives of women who are not. I can talk for days about how that has a very negative impact on non-white women, especially African-American women. But to make the assumption that this guides every fraking beauty decision made by black women is so fucking offensive. It reminds me of the accusation, "Why you talkin' white?", as though speaking proper American English is the exclusive province of "white" folks.

So if black women are only supposed to wear styles in tune with their black African heritage and chemically straightening or weaving or extending or wearing a wig denotes conformity and "self-hatred", what about the black woman who goes completely bald? I mean, nary a hair on her scalp. She opts to get rid of all her hair, does that mean she hates/ashamed of it? That she's self-hating? Or perhaps it is because she really likes the way she looks with no hair at all?

Then the diarist had go to and mention Bo Derek in 10. Believe me, you want to hear a black woman over 50 rant about hair? Talk about how "awesome" Bo looked with cornrows in that movie. But remember, you bring the ensuing 'straigtening out' on yourself. That controversy with Bo Derek and the cornrows was the first time double-standard was explained to me. Appropriately enough, I was ten-years-old the first time I saw that iconic picture of her.

Wear your hair however you want so long as it looks good on YOU. Does your style compliment the shape of your face? Does the color make your eyes sparkle? Do, deep down, feel good with that style? Yes? Then work it and don't worry about it. Pay no attention to what anyone else says, unless you genuinely want advice on how to make your style even better for you.

EDIT: Pam lives in Maine, but hails from North Carolina.

Oh! The IRONY!

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:03:00 +0000

If you're not familiar with Michele Bachmann, well, count your brain cells fortunate. But if you want a quick update, talk to my main man Anthony JK who has several posts breaking down the sheer lunacy that is Michele Bachmann. Or here is my overview of her: she is a Minnesota congresswoman, archconservative and a wingnut non-pareil. She makes Bill O'Reilly look sane by comparison and the only person who can out-crazy* her is Glenn Beck....but by an extremely narrow margin. They're both rather crazy go nuts.

Watch this clip (h/t Pam's House Blend)

Blogger Louise over at Pam's House Blend highlighted this statement:

"That's why people need to continue to go to the town halls, continue to melt the phone lines of their liberal members of Congress," said Bachmann, "and let them know, under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions."

*shock* THIS from a woman who is anti-choice when it comes to abortion and reproductive rights?

So when it's us "slutty-slut sluts" who want public access to abortion, birth control, condoms, then the government is supposed to have final say on it. This is to say nothing of sex workers whose rights are truncated due to the government having the audacity to have control over our bodies and what we do with them. But oy, Obama does a public option feint with regard to health care reform and suddenly, the wingnuts say:

MY BODY MY CHOICE!

What was that? Appropriating the language of us "feminazis" and "sluts" and "abortion mongers"? Excuse me? The hubris and gall of these people just doesn't cease to amaze.

*I hate to use crazy as a pejorative here.

Wordage. Signage.

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:52:00 +0000

I wish I had gotten a picture of this sign near my parent's block. I may have to walk to the location at another time and snap a picture. Anyway, the sign, professionally printed and all that, is hanging on a fence surrounding an empty lot supposedly earmarked for development.

It reads: Coming Soon: STRIP CENTER!
Then another sign printed by the same company is next to it and says: TURN-ON for FREE!

-_^

I'm sure a strip club isn't going up there, a damn shame in my opinion. But one thing I do know is that turn-ons are not free at Strip Centers. Hehe.

Sets the blood a-boilin'

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:25:00 +0000

Sex worker allies, especially vocal ones, are far and few between. The further up the hierarchy of influence one goes, the fewer they become. However, as the educational advocacy of sex worker rights organizations intensifies our allies list grows. Still, we are as a whole a demonized and misunderstood group. We seem to have plenty of silent allies, even among powerful and influential law enforcement agents, politicians, diplomats, et cetera and for reasons that are not difficult to figure out, we know why that group stays silent. All silent allies fear ad hominem attacks, like the one Donna Hughes recently visited upon Elizabeth Wood of Sex in the Public Square, who is also a professor in the SUNY system of colleges in New York. Ren has the full Hughes letter here.

A little background in brief, Rhode Island had a loophole that allowed indoor prostitution to take place. Now politicians are seeking to close that loophole for all the typical reasons: property values, moral values, what about the children?!?!, so on. Recently, a group of fifty academics, headed by Elizabeth Wood and Ronald Weitzer, a professor at George Washington University, wrote a letter protesting this change in law. In it, they outline the difference between indoor prostitution and the street economy level, without demonizing the latter (something that often occurs even with well-intentioned advocates) and stressing the dangers that evolve as a result of total criminalization of prostitution. These academics research sex work and actively engage in dialogue with a wide range of sex workers.

Naturally, those against sex work in any form, those who see it all as exploitation without exception, objected to the letter written by Wood and Weitzer. That the abolitionists objected is not the problem. Everyone has a right to voice their concern, approval, objection, or whatever to legal measures in this country. But what Professor Donna Hughes was not merely voicing objection to what Wood and Weitzer wrote. She attacked them.

Or should I say, she attacked Elizabeth Wood. As my chica Jane Brazen points out, why did she only pick on Elizabeth? Hughes describes herself as a feminist and yet she follows in the patriarchal society's footsteps of personally attacking a woman for behavior that is permissible for men. What gives, Donna? This made me sick to my stomach and my blood ran hot. The anti-feminist types love that, Professor Hughes. The in-fighting. Doing their job of destroying women's rights for them. This is self-defeating.

The only goal Donna Hughes' invective against Elizabeth Wood demonstrates is that her ideology is on shaky ground. That is what happens when a person knows they're losing and you can see an identical ideological meltdown among Hughes' allies on the political Right. It is pathetic. It is obscene. It is so very transparent. In the end, Hughes' despicable behavior may well help our cause. I think people are understanding that personal attacks only come when nothing else relevant can be said.

Accusations like sex offender and pervert should not be bandied about so easily. These are serious accusations and for someone like Hughes who claims to want to combat sexual exploitation, I'd think she would use those words with a sober tone. You don't call someone a sex offender simply because you disagree with their personal, sexual, consensual behavior.

This enrages me! So much so that I actually posted for the first time in months. Y'all know it's serious.

Then Hughes turns her sights onto $pread Magazine. She claims Elizabeth Wood is the editor of the magazine, as though that is an insult. Not insulting, just stupid. This is such a simple fact to check and that Hughes could not do this is a further detriment to her case. Elizabeth Wood is not the editor, but a subscriber. $pread is a magazine by and for current and former sex workers. It was created for the purpose of giving sex workers a safe space to air their thoughts, show their talents and talk about issues affecting our industry. It is not strictly a "prostitute's rights" magazine as Hughes claims for many reasons, but here are two: 1) let's clear this up: sex worker is not a synonym or euphemism for prostitute. It is anyone who works with sexual arousal. The magazine has contributions from prostitutes, exotic dancers, porn performers, phone sex operators, etc. Also, the movement is about sex worker rights and even legal forms of sex work have grievances that need to be redressed by having rights; and 2) $pread does not only talk about labour concerns. There are articles about beauty, health, advice columns, relationships, product reviews, etc. Yes, mostly from a sex worker pov but, hey, doesn't that sound like, you know, any other magazine? Of course, that sex worker point of view in those topics would not be welcome in Marie Claire, Vogue, Men's Health or any other mainstream media unless a shock piece is being produced. That is why $pread exists.

$pread should be praised instead of panned by radical feminists and other social justice crusaders. Here are the workers coming together, working together, sharing and comparing and providing support and criticism amongst ourselves. This is only threatening to those who wish for the already marginalized to remain so. It is not threatening for anyone who actually wants to see social improvement. What is so difficult to understand about that?

But back to Elizabeth. As Renegade Evolution points out, Elizabeth Wood is a much needed ally. She has stood by us and has now put her neck on the line for a just cause. She has been endangered by being accused as a sex offender. People get whipped into a frenzy, with due cause, whenever the topic of sex offenders come up. Sometimes violently. That is not something that should be directed at Elizabeth. It is completely unwarranted.

Finally, Ren shows some prophecy skillz. The day before this broke, she wrote a piece here about silencing in regard to us sexual outlaws. Ren talks about how our side seems to be prohibited by The Others in displaying the same behaviors and emotions they permit of themselves. Hughes' degradation of Elizabeth Wood is a perfect example. If any of us were to attack Hughes personally, we would be denounced to high heaven. Understandable because, as I said, personal attacks are unnecessary when your views have a leg to stand on. Hughes objects to sex worker rights activists outside of Rhode Island taking an interest in the happenings there and trying to appeal to legislators in that state.

But she teaches International Women's Studies. Oh, the hypocrisy!

Heeeeere's Johnny!

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:40:00 +0000

I'm back! And kicking some ass in a post to follow later today!

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:38:00 +0000

Announcement: I'm done...for a while

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 06:25:00 +0000

I'm frustrated, poor, pissed, angry and all sorts of other lovely emotions right now.

Taking a break. Tired of being a pillar of strength and trudging through it all.

Done.

Don't know when I'll be back but for now, I'm going to be a little ball curled up in the corner until my fortunes, and with it my attitude, improves.

Bye y'all.

To make up for yesterday...

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:58:00 +0000

Super Fun Finals Study and Worry Time took priority over Sexy Sunday. So teh menz and teh womenz will be sharing a day. Yay!

First, the menfolk:

The Ladies:

This is why I'm so vehemently pro-choice

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:28:00 +0000

Because folks like Dr. Tiller's murderer are a scary blend of far-right Christian nuttery and far-right white supremacist nuttery. This AlterNet piece (via Heather Corinna's Facebook), explores the connection between the two groups that the universe would be much better without. As the article states, the collaboration between the two far right groups makes perfect sense. Very scary. But here's my favorite part:

The Freemen aimed to rid the nation of "14th Amendment citizens" -- anyone who wasn't a white Anglo Saxon directly descended from God.

I guess that'd include corporations too, though they are overwhelmingly headed by white Anglo-Saxon males. You all know about that loophole right? I doubt the Freemen do, they're not the sharpest tools in the shed. After all, they think:

Nonwhites, or "mud people," weren't really people at all, but God's failed attempts to create Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Never mind that, for argument's sake only, Adam and Eve were nowhere close to being white Anglo-Saxon considering, again for argument's sake, white folks hadn't been "made flesh" yet. Nope. Just, well, those two assholes. ...oh yeah, and a talking snake. But of course, people like this believe that racially biased paintings of Biblical stories are candid photos. Ugh. People like that make me wish that stupidity was fatal.

Entitlement, pt. 2

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:35:00 +0000

So, apparently, zealot anti-choice, anti-abortionists feel they alone are entitled to murder. Even as they accuse abortion doctors, and quite frankly, anyone who dispenses birth control, murderers. Of course it is always different when they do it. I'm still numb from Dr. Tiller's murder. What is particularly ironic is that he was gunned down at church, ostensibly in the main view of the deity the zealots claim they serve. Isn't church supposed to be a House of Peace?

This is yet another form of entitlement. Alexa and I talked about this on Twitter last Sunday night when the news broke and we were trying to figure out if there has ever been a female abortion doctor killer. Has there? For all the vitriolic anger some women can conjure, I don't think there has ever been a woman who has done this to an abortion doctor. So, we're wondering, is this another manifestation of male entitlement? Overwhelmingly, the most vocal anti-choice, anti-abortion types are men who want to make sure women don't get full sovereignty over their bodies. It is the extremist of these types who take that entitlement further and feel they can kill any and all of those who assist women in exercising reproductive health.

But please, tell me if I'm wrong. Point me to some news articles where a woman has gunned down an abortion doctor.

...continuing on the entitlement and personal freedoms theme:

I remember watching this happen. It wasn't until I got older that I realized what a mark it left on me. I am extremely vehement about civil liberties and exercising my personal freedoms be it over my body, my speech, my simple being. Because if you don't think that could happen in America, then I formally and cordially invite you to pull your head out of your ass.

Which, speaking of the Tiananmen Square massacre anniversary, SoS Hillary Rodham Clinton, on behalf of the Obama Administration, had the audacity to call on the Chinese to:

...examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal.

When the administration and president she works for continuously insists on "looking forward and not backward" on Bush Administration accountability for their crimes by publicly denouncing the need for a Truth Commission and criminal persecutions of torturers and endorsing things like "preventative detention" and retconning the law to suppress photos that are believed to show torture.

Ya know, I could almost understand this if he was trying to cover his own ass. But these things didn't happen on his watch. So, why is he sticking up for Bush? Are they homies now or something?

Oh, I can hear the Obamabots now. "But...but, it's different because Obama is just trying to protect us! It's not like what the Chinese did! This is against a Real Threat(TM)!" Yes. I'm sure the Chinese government would say the same thing about their infamous massacre. The exact same thing. That man and those students were a Real Threat(TM) according to the Chinese government and damn if you tell them different.

And hey, it's what Bush said for about eight years but I distinctly remember all manner of people who aren't war-mongers still not accepting the exchange of civil liberties for "safety".

Coming soon...REAL posts!

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:45:00 +0000

Hey all!

School has been insane in the membrane. But I do want to do posts about George Tiller as well as an extremely important anniversary today.

Lovely Lunes 8: Canadians

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:16:00 +0000

Just like with the fellas...Thanks to my love of sci-fi shows produced in Canada, I have noticed that the Great White North hosts a bevy of hotties. Those Canucks know how to bring teh sexy, eh? All these gorgeous souls are born and/or bred Canadians.

Super shiny.

Sexy Sunday 8: Canadians

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Sun, 31 May 2009 18:07:00 +0000

Thanks to my love of sci-fi shows produced in Canada, I have noticed that the Great White North hosts a bevy of hotties. Those Canucks know how to bring teh sexy, eh? All these gorgeous souls are born and/or bred Canadians.

Shiny.

Why satire is more realistic than we think

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Sat, 30 May 2009 18:54:00 +0000

To prove my point, read this insanely accurate and hilarious piece from The Onion: Oh, No! It's Making Well-Reasoned Arguments Backed With Facts! Run!

This is why The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are so popular. Comedy tells many truths.

$pread magazine documentary

cortigiane.oneste@gmail.com (Aspasia) — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:07:00 +0000

From $pread:

Come out to a screening of "In Our Own Image: Sex Worker Produced Media & The Story of $pread Magazine" 2009, Mandona Productions, 20 minutes

Wed. May 27th @ 7pm
(Please be on time as the film is only 20 minutes.)
Bluestockings Books, 172 Allen St., New York, NY
(directions below)

$5 suggested donation benefits Sex Worker Empowerment Project.

What happens when sex workers become not just the subjects of media gaze, but reporters and publishers of sex trade news? This documentary short looks at $pread Magazine, an example of sex worker-made media, and discusses its aim to change the way media itself approaches sex work. Followed by a panel/discussion on sex worker rights media, movements and legislation.

Panelists:

Andrea Ritchie, esq.: Civil Rights attorney and Director, Sex Workers Project at the Urban Justice Center

Louise Cheung: current Photo Editor of $pread magazine, involved with the magazine for the past 2 1/2 years.

Ignacio Rivera: Queer, gender-shifting, Trans- Entity, Black Boricua performance artist, activist, sex educator and sex worker. Ignacio is founder of Poly Patao Productions and founding board member of Queers for Economic Justice.

DIRECTIONS TO BLUESTOCKINGS BOOKSTORES

From www.bluestockings.com:
“Bluestockings is located in the Lower East Side of Manhattan at 172 Allen Street between Stanton and Rivington - which means that we are 1 block south of Houston and 1st Avenue.
By train: We are 1 block south of the F train’s 2nd Avenue stop and just 5 blocks from the JMZ-line’s Essex / Delancey Street stop.
By car: If you take the Houston exit off of the FDR, then turn left onto Essex (aka Avenue A), then right on Rivington, and finally right on Allen, you will be very, very close.”