View Full Version : They Shoot Porn Stars Don't They?
LaBelleThatcher
08-04-12, 11:30
There is now a rescue industry for porn stars (warning, some of this may seem boringly familiar):
http://therealpornwikileaks.com/exclusive-porn-star-sierra-sinn-interview-shelley-lubben-ruined-my-life/
There is now a rescue industry for porn stars (warning, some of this may seem boringly familiar):
http://therealpornwikileaks.com/exclusive-porn-star-sierra-sinn-interview-shelley-lubben-ruined-my-life/
Just my two cents worth.
Not terribly surprising, Eileen, to be honest. There’s a “rescue industry” for everything nowadays, so it’s only logical to expect that there will be those seeking to “cash in” on it, even in areas where people mightn’t necessarily need or want to be “rescued” – the whole idea is about creating a perception in your mind that you need to be “rescued”.
On a broader note, the more you’ve mentioned rescue NGOs to me the more cynical I get. I recently spoke to a friend who worked for a relatively high demand NGO and even in issues that people actually need help in, such as drug or alcohol addiction, they are more concerned with being funded than actually taking steps to tackle the problems, but what’s worse is that they have almost a monopoly on help so those in need have no choice but to engage with them, or in some cases continue as addicts, or for those sent to them on probation, to go to prison.
Shelley writes, in one of her MySpace messages to you, that after “the tv show happens … you can afford not to work in the porn industry anymore.” Was it your understanding that she was assuring you a comparable standard of living if you signed on with her?
Yeah, and then she turns around and tells me to get a job at a grocery store. She wouldn’t even give me a cut of the donations until I went an applied for jobs like the grocery store, and stuff like that. She even told me that she had donations for me that she wasn’t going to give me until I was proving that I was “doing my part.”
There’s something that seriously worries me in that. Being “rescued” from something that wasn’t perfect but provided a good quality of life to go working for minimum wage in a supermarket, there’s just something ironic in that.
Certainly an idea that would get two fingers from me fairly quickly.
LaBelleThatcher
08-04-12, 14:45
...like working in Tesco is perfect? Particularly if you are unsuited to it. :(
I really have had to open bits of my mind that I locked for years here...but the truth is that everything that traumatised *me* about sex work would traumatise me as much, or worse, about a lot of other, perfectly legitimate, some menial, some not, things.
If I worked for any NGO I am personally aware of I could not live with myself at all for shame and self disgust at being part of the truth behind the empty facade, for starters...and the more I was paid, the more impossible that would be...let alone live with the cut throat, back-stabbing ambition and plentiful pathological control issues that are an overactive part of the internal politics.
If I worked at something menial (I tried) I would be consistently and ruthlessly bullied , mostly by management, just for my intelligence, which is inevitably perceived as threatening in a menial postion (and I can tell you now, before anyone gets a sudden urge to become a school dinner lady, the same would happen to anyone else I see here). In fact the ONLY people who will generally employ unusually intelligent people in menial positions are the ones who intend to bully them as part of an ongoing toxic workplace dynamic...and *THAT* can be as bad, or worse, than any pimp...and far more abusive and harmful than any client I ever had...
Maybe, just maybe, anything up to 99% of sex workers, are where they are right now, however they feel about it, and for whatever reason, because they are intelligent people who know who they are, their strengths, their limitations and their issues and situation. Maybe they are in sex work because they *DO* know what is best for them, and, overall, sex work is it right now?
...and you cannot argue with that...which is why the NGOs have changed tack and tried to claim (in some whacked out instances) up to 80-90% of sex workers are coerced and trafficked.
It is also why they try to claim 99% or street workers are addicts (DIDN'T Paddy O'Gorman get lucky finding 2 that were not to interview for Pat Kenny Radio at that rate of going?), because that is the about ONLY way they can stop the general public starting to worry where they will find the money they need for essentials instead. The fact that the majority of street workers are still not addicts (hardly any were before the '93 law...I think the additional stress of the law played a huge part in increasing the numbers), and, if you stop them making money will be up sh*t creek without a paddle is only a minor detail nobody needs concern themselves with as long as the support and funding keep coming in.
Even where a sex worker *IS* and addict, it is most likely she chose sex work to support her habit because she is not ready to recover yet, but does not want to hurt anyone or compound her problems with a criminal record to sustain the income she needs...
The dogs in the streets knows that an addict will never recover until they are ready...but, apparently the Rescue industry knows better...all you have to do is persecute clients, erdaicate sex work, take her income away, and any addict will spontaneously go "cold turkey" first thing next morning...
*snap*
Just like that...
But, of course, the truth is that is you eradicate sex work and take that income away any addict will just be driven by their addiction to find other, criminal and/or seriously destructive ways to get the money instead...
GOOD JOB!
...like working in Tesco is perfect? Particularly if you are unsuited to it. :(
I really have had to open bits of my mind that I locked for years here...but the truth is that everything that traumatised *me* about sex work would traumatise me as much, or worse, about a lot of other, perfectly legitimate, some menial, some not, things.
If I worked for any NGO I am personally aware of I could not live with myself at all for shame and self disgust at being part of the truth behind the empty facade, for starters...and the more I was paid, the more impossible that would be...let alone live with the cut throat, back-stabbing ambition and plentiful pathological control issues that are an overactive part of the internal politics.
If I worked at something menial (I tried) I would be consistently and ruthlessly bullied , mostly by management, just for my intelligence, which is inevitably perceived as threatening in a menial postion (and I can tell you now, before anyone gets a sudden urge to become a school dinner lady, the same would happen to anyone else I see here). In fact the ONLY people who will generally employ unusually intelligent people in menial positions are the ones who intend to bully them as part of an ongoing toxic workplace dynamic...and *THAT* can be as bad, or worse, than any pimp...and far more abusive and harmful than any client I ever had...
Maybe, just maybe, anything up to 99% of sex workers, are where they are right now, however they feel about it, and for whatever reason, because they are intelligent people who know who they are, their strengths, their limitations and their issues and situation. Maybe they are in sex work because they *DO* know what is best for them, and, overall, sex work is it right now?
...and you cannot argue with that...which is why the NGOs have changed tack and tried to claim (in some whacked out instances) up to 80-90% of sex workers are coerced and trafficked.
It is also why they try to claim 99% or street workers are addicts (DIDN'T Paddy O'Gorman get lucky finding 2 that were not to interview for Pat Kenny Radio at that rate of going?), because that is the about ONLY way they can stop the general public starting to worry where they will find the money they need for essentials instead. The fact that the majority of street workers are still not addicts (hardly any were before the '93 law...I think the additional stress of the law played a huge part in increasing the numbers), and, if you stop them making money will be up sh*t creek without a paddle is only a minor detail nobody needs concern themselves with as long as the support and funding keep coming in.
Even where a sex worker *IS* and addict, it is most likely she chose sex work to support her habit because she is not ready to recover yet, but does not want to hurt anyone or compound her problems with a criminal record to sustain the income she needs...
The dogs in the streets knows that an addict will never recover until they are ready...but, apparently the Rescue industry knows better...all you have to do is persecute clients, erdaicate sex work, take her income away, and any addict will spontaneously go "cold turkey" first thing next morning...
*snap*
Just like that...
But, of course, the truth is that is you eradicate sex work and take that income away any addict will just be driven by their addiction to find other, criminal and/or seriously destructive ways to get the money instead...
GOOD JOB!
An absolutely epic post I must admit, I think this really emphasizes my own thoughts on the whole thing, including the part about menial work.
But, of course, the truth is that is you eradicate sex work and take that income away any addict will just be driven by their addiction to find other, criminal and/or seriously destructive ways to get the money instead...
GOOD JOB
This is the part of the whole debate which actually worries me the most. Any proposed legislation based on the Swedish approach doesn't solve the problem and it doesn't address the actual needs that are there. Necessity knows no law - people are going to do what they have to do to maintain their standard of living.
Although it's often said, prohibition will drive things underground. You can't eradicate things like this, it just doesn't work, and in effect all it does is increase the risks of negative consequences for those who are involved and I don't agree with that direction. It seems illogical.
LaBelleThatcher
08-04-12, 15:55
An absolutely epic post I must admit, I think this really emphasizes my own thoughts on the whole thing, including the part about menial work.
This is the part of the whole debate which actually worries me the most. Any proposed legislation based on the Swedish approach doesn't solve the problem and it doesn't address the actual needs that are there.
It goes further than "not addressing" it...or even "showing no interest in it"...they are consciously, deliberately, concealing and deflecting attention *AWAY* from that aspect of reality...and believe me, they have every intention of doing what they always have and leaving the victims (and their families, BTW) high and dry while prating on about how much "help" and "support" they give them (and no, the answer to that is DEFINATELY not to "give them more resources", which will only be used to take on more staff and buy more ads to prate about how much more money they need to give "help and support" to the women who's lives they have just used the last batch of cash to feck up completely).
If a lady has used sex work to buy a good, wholesome lifestyle for her family...nice area, nice schools...loads of future prospects, then, try as I might, *if* she knows she can go on handling sex work, I cannot, for the life of me, find one, single moral justification for her to give it up, and leave her children to grow up with all the resources a sink estate has to offer them, for ANY reason, let alone because the rescue industry tells her they have statistics to prove she is being coerced, trafficked and traumatised.
She may have more than a survival street worker now, but that just means she has more to lose. In this economy, even with substantial savings, she could wind up just as fecked. The extra she has just buys a little more time before she has to realise how fecked she is...it doesn't buy rescue.
Necessity knows no law - people are going to do what they have to do to maintain their standard of living.
Of course they are, as is both their moral right and their obligation.
Although it's often said, prohibition will drive things underground. You can't eradicate things like this, it just doesn't work, and in effect all it does is increase the risks of negative consequences for those who are involved and I don't agree with that direction. It seems illogical.
Apart from a very few simple minded souls, the rescue industry realise this just as much as we do...and they still, cold bloodedly, push on...doing what they have to do to maintain their standard of living consciously at the expense of other's wellbeing and safety.
:(