Sex writer Violet Blue is one of the best things at the Hearst-run SFGate website, an authentic local voice singing the praises of sex-positive San Francisco. So of course, the soulless and snarky hacks over at the SF Weekly felt compelled to try to knock her down a few notches, sneering at the notion that many of us are accepting of sex workers. And for that, they have been rhetorically bent over and pegged by the lovely Mistress Blue in a blog post earlier today.
You've really got to read this thing, which is more investigative in nature than your average flame. She brings up the Weekly's weird history of fake journalism on another sex story, and digs up some good dirt on the latest perpetrator, freelance writer Benjamin Wachs. Now, we couldn't verify the rumors about Wachs' efforts to start a right-wing news site in San Francisco (hey, Ben, good luck with that one). But our research does show the guy moved here a year ago from Rochester, NY, which might come as a surprise to the Brighton-Pittsford Post in New York, where he's supposedly a local columnist.
Messages to Wachs and the Weekly went unanswered -- no surprise -- but I'll update if I hear anything new. Or if you see Ben around town...
...maybe you can ask him why he wanted to live in San Francisco if he has such a problem with our values.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (4)
There's nothing "sex positive" about prostitution. Prostitution is about renting body parts for ejaculation purposes. It's about money.
Sex on the other hand is a fabulous and glorious many splendored thing.
When people start droning on about how great sex work and the sex industry is, you can bet that a. they are making money off it and b. they aren't the ones doing 5 blow jobs for money today.
Prostitution is not healthy for prostitutes. You might be surprised to learn, for example, that many if not most johns want to avoid the condom. Now that doesn't make sense, right? They would be exposing themselves and their partners to things right? Well, the twisted non-thinking johns all think that everyone else is wearing a condom and they are the exception. They want to believe the prostitute really cares about them, that he is able to bring her to a crowning orgasm, that he is the only guy she'll be with today.
Why doesn't Violet cover realities like that in her happy hooker columns? Because Violet is in the prostitution spin cycle along with all the pimps and publishers and johns...all convincing each other it's really cool to rent a woman to ejaculate into her and then get rid of her as soon as possible. They all want to believe the prostitute really loves it.
When will we get some real writers in this city with the balls to tell the truth? Prostitutes are human beings, not wind up sex toys. They are damaged by what they do and see every day. There is a reason they do drugs to numb the pain. It's a horrible life, don't believe the propoganda.
Posted by hardly | June 3, 2008 03:40 AM
Update: I just spoke with Ben Wachs, who called me for a piece he's writing on the Daly-Guardian rift, so I asked him about whether he's indeed involved with starting a right-wing website here in town. "Mark Norrell has expressed his interest as far as my writing," Wachs told me, although he didn't think Norrell, a local Republican Party operative, has done anything to act on the idea.
Posted by Steven T. Jones | June 5, 2008 01:33 PM
I clicked through to the Wachs blog, and I have to admit that I don't understand the fuss. He's written a humor piece about a parochial sex-poisitive attitude common among SF residents; whether or not one finds it humorous, the reaction on the Guardian blog seems to indicate that the attitude about which he's making (rather light) fun is, indeed, not uncommon, and goes along with a very thin skin indeed.
Framing the portions of the piece that Wachs was quoting in his blog as merely demonstrating "that many of us are accepting of sex workers" is misleading: those selections were indicative of the "we have the best sex workers...and johns!" attitude that he was mocking. If one feels that it's improper to mock that attitude, address that; if he misrepresented the original piece by taking those quotes out of context, then address that; but it's dishonest to misrepresent his piece for the sake of setting up something easy to rebut.
Posted by Mike | June 11, 2008 03:15 PM
Where do you get your facts, silly? are you one of those "johns" who insists on not wearing a condom?
Here's a fact for ya: only 10% of prostitutes are streetwalkers, have pimps and even use words like "johns". The other 90% are housewives, students, office workers, agency girls, high end mistresses, tantra providers, massage with a happy ending providers, ect, ect, ect. The media wants you to beleive that prostitution is a dirty, dirty thing with drugs and diseases and other horrible things.. but, sorry to burst your bubble, it's not. Most prositutes are normal girls. And it's not bad for you. Heck, it's not even about sex sometimes. See ya!
Posted by Annalee | June 18, 2008 02:35 PM