My op-ed in defense of sex work (Bay Area Reporter)

Discussion
21

In a later topic ("Op-Ed Piece: 'SFPD Body Cameras: Devils In The Details'"), Starchild wrote: " I stopped responding to Mitch in the other thread about sex work -- the tone was getting too personal and nasty."

Perhaps so -- but who turned to personal invective? Starchild wrote,

"'Luring out of the trade' -- now who is talking about being an imposter, lol!... Some prostitutes with whom I've spoken would probably not see a client who expressed such an intention up front, as it would make them feel uncomfortable, and/or they would be concerned the person wouldn't respect their boundaries."

I responded,

"'Luring' was obviously a bad choice of words -- particularly since it can be taken (as you were quick to pounce on it) to imply some manner of subterfuge or deceit, which is not the case. It's more like 'You can lead a horse to water' -- only to find the Chamber of Affection-as-Commerce warning, 'Don't drink from there; it's bad for business.' All the hokey incense and candles in the world don't make for the sort of encounter I'm seeking; they're (all-too-obviously) mere props for a performance.... You keep your candles, and I'll keep my money. I have nothing more to say to the Chamber of Affection-as-Commerce. It's my fondest hope that I'll find myself -- better still, arm-in-arm with a lover -- walking off into the sunset, finally turning around and declaring, 'We don't need your steenking boundaries!'"

That's the last we heard from Starchild in that discussion (other than his declaring his support for landlords, among "legitimate professions" -- lol. I therefore assume he was objecting to what I wrote, as quoted above.

Starting with my BAR op-ed (which Starchild acknowledged as civil), my overall point was that the marketing of affection is the great-granddaddy of all shuck-and-jive routines, and that in that context, "professional boundaries" constitute the last refuge of a scoundrel.

That criticism seems utterly reasonable and civil (whether or not one agrees with it) -- and not really personal (let alone nasty) at all, given that I was taking Starchild to task for his support of scoundrels, not for being one himself.

The criticism may nonetheless have struck a little too close to home -- but no personal offense was intended.

22

Mitch, You failed utterly to establish the scoundrelness of commercial affection, especially in the landscape of commercial brutality, we know as "police protection".
In this landscape, your possible criticism of commercial affection or of Starchild, is still offensive, preposterous, monstrous, and indifferent to the sensibilities of liberty.

23

John,

With all due respect, it seems Mitch has done a pretty good job of expressing his personal feelings about “commercial affection” without suggesting any restrictions on its practice. Am I wrong?

Mike

24

I would like to second Mike's point. The idea of having a discussion list such as this is to hear and opine on novel topics from novel perspectives, hopefully without malice or fear of reprisals. Within that context, I see nothing disrespectful about calling out perceived pretenses in an effort to explore what we might believe to be the true nature of things.

I for one happen to agree with Mitch's assessments. Others may not, and in my view, could express their disagreement without words such as "offensive," "preposterous," or "monstrous."

Marcy

25

Mitch,

  I don't believe I'm the one who turned to personal invective. As the wording of my comment below makes clear, what I said about your "luring out of the trade" phrase was in reference to a previous comment of yours accusing sex workers like myself of being imposters. And the remarks about candles and incense were even more clearly a personal attack -- most escorts don't use such.

  But the content (and tone) of what you said below is not the only nastiness I had in mind. You also repeatedly called me a "weasel" (in at least one message left on my phone as well as in your remarks here), and continued to use the offensive term "hooker" after I noted its offensive nature. There may have been other comments I'm forgetting now, but that is what immediately come to mind.

  Yes, your original op-ed piece was civil. I believe I expressed appreciation for that.

  And yes, I do think renting rooms out -- like renting out any other honestly acquired goods -- is a legitimate profession. What would you have landlords do? Do the work of property management for free? Just give away their properties? Keep them vacant? Have them confiscated by the State?

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

26

Starchild,

You write, "You repeatedly called me a 'weasel,' and continued to use the offensive term 'hooker' after I noted its offensive nature.... And the remarks about candles and incense were even more clearly a personal attack..."

I used the term "weasel" with reference to what I characterized elsewhere as your "bobbing and weaving" -- that is, in the same sense that Wikipedia admonishes contributors against the use of "weasel words."

My reference to incense and candles was a vivid example of "props for a performance" -- perhaps one you might recognize -- but I studiously avoided singling you out explicitly or characterizing you personally as a fraud (nor am I doing so now). Additionally, I thought it might clarify (for you alone, before you outed yourself) why I lost interest in doing business with you, without spelling out that back-story for others following the thread (to whom I was illustrating the same point as a generality). That's as close as I'll come to being a weasel myself -- but nonetheless, I've scrupulously avoided crossing the line.

As I've already noted, I was using the gently dismissive term "hooker" ironically, with regard to "those for whom desirability is the very stock-in-trade." Please forgive my despicable irreverence. :wink:

You acknowledge that my original op-ed piece was civil, but (as I've noted) its "overall point was that the marketing of affection is the great-granddaddy of all shuck-and-jive routines, and that in that context, 'professional boundaries' constitute the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Once again: I've taken you to task for supporting scoundrels, not for being one yourself. (Conversely, your own op-ed calls me out and challenges me personally on numerous matters, though I haven't taken offense.)

For my part, no personal offense has been intended, nor do I harbor any grudge.

I only ask you to recognize that in this (as usual) I'm being utterly sincere.

That said, I think it's time for us both to move on.

Mitchell

27

I don't know how anybody can call himself a libertarian who doesn't support voluntary consensual trade in sex, knowingly feigned affection or anything else for that matter
Nina