Why you can Write About Bad Dates, but you Need to use the Right Language

Hi all,

I recently read a Vice article that I took exception to ("We Interviewed a Sex Industry Hobbyist: The Worst Kind of John") and I am pretty mad right now. Some might say that that is the point of journalism - to get people mad. I disagree. Vice has continually shown which side they are on in terms of the law in Canada and they tend to be on the providers' side. That is why I was genuinely shocked and disappointed to see this kind of article giving this kind of airtime to this kind of opinion. It is not necessary and it is, frankly, disgusting.

As a caveat: not a lot of my clients are on review boards; but I have met decent guys through events thrown by review boards, and they are not threatening, bullying, or negative trolls, all of which I imagine this guy to be. In fact, this man would not pass my screening process.

The article is written in the form of a Q&A with a person who likes young girls (not more than 10 weeks into the trade). At 10 weeks, they become (insert disgusting, objectifying adjective here). He prefers to see girls who are 19-23 (at 24, I guess they become the same thing, or "old" or "actresses", I honestly don't know). The fact is, that even when we've been doing this for a couple of years, we are still actors/actresses; you escape into a fantasy with us.

So here's where you missed the nuance, Vice: pointing out that people like this ABSOLUTE CREEP exist is not wrong. The language ("hooker; whore") is wrong, and the fact that you condemn an entire group of people because one person on one board has one opinion IS wrong. A side note: we are trying to reclaim those words, and, much like the N word, you can only use them if you're one of us. So don't go saying, "He said it; all we did was quote him." (Although it is worth noting that during this time, the author has reached out to me over Twitter to tell me that she could not alter quotes). As Miss Marceau noted, calling him a "slobbyist" as opposed to a hobbyist would have been better and more accurate. For a reason why this should be, please follow the Twitter account @FCK_TER.

I could list all the things he said that were wrong, in my experience: I don't lie about my age; I have photoshoots taken every three months so my photos are always accurate; younger/newer is not always more appealing, because people take advantage of you and, if you're new, you don't know how to fight back, especially in an agency situation; agencies and independents are wholly different ballgames; etc, etc. I won't, though. It seems if you're interested in talking to a slobbyist like that (slobbyist: Twitter slang for controlling troll who does nothing but post negative reviews and is a misogynist down to his rotten core), and giving him that much space...well.

I have read articles which are shorter on sex workers' views. The fact that this Q&A went on for so long and showed the absolute worst side of the industry not only does the workers (who voluntarily do it) an injustice, it plays right into the rescue industry's hands. There is still a lot of work and advocacy to be done, and I and hopefully other SPs will do it, but I think you should add that this article has been severely condemned by independent providers and does not show the true colours of the industry.

Xoxo,

Olivia

NB: As was made clear above, the author has since reached out to me on Twitter to tell me that she was unable to alter quotes, so any whorephobic language in the article is strictly the interviewee's.