Brutalizing Animals Violates Bodily Rights

Is human consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs simply a bodily rights issue as some non-vegans may argue? That is, accusing people speaking out against cruelty toward animals in these industries of interfering with their bodily rights while acting like other people shouldn’t care what they eat since this is (according to them), an individual issue. I have noticed such an argument used before. If only this issue were so simple, but it isn’t…..

If this were simply an issue of being able to make a choice about what they put in their bodies without animals being routinely brutalized, forced to live in horrific confinement, and killed, then I would agree with the argument that this is just an issue of people making choices for what to put in their own bodies. However, that’s all too often not the case and this isn’t mainly an issue about people’s bodies. Unless the animals are choosing to be brutalized and forced to live in extreme confinement before being killed, this isn’t simply a choice issue. My concerns aren’t simply based on caring about animals. Rather, they are based on being against brutalizing animals.

My focus isn’t mainly on what people choose to eat in and of itself, but on stopping the very unnecessary brutalization of non-human animals for human consumption. Though I cannot control what other people eat and am far from perfect myself, I will still lead by example and unapologetically encourage a vegan lifestyle. Peacefully encouraging a vegan lifestyle is not imposing on anybody’s bodily rights. Rather, it promotes bodily rights which extend beyond just people.

Supporting Monica Jones, Opposing Transphobia and Coercive “Diversion” Programs

Monica Jones is a trans woman actively involved in supporting the human rights of sex workers and trans*-identified people. In the Phoenix area where she is located, an anti-sex work “diversion” program called Project ROSE in partnership with the local police conduct routine round ups to arrest sex workers. Yet, because sex workers are given the “option” of going through the Project ROSE program in lieu of serving prison time, a report I read said “the powers that be” are denying that this is arrest. However, if they’re forcibly handcuffing sex workers and forcibly taking sex workers to the police station even if they do meet with people from Project ROSE, I don’t know what else to call this other than arresting.

Though Monica Jones is a self-identified sex worker, this doesn’t mean she’s doing nothing but sex work 24-7. She asserts that when she was arrested, she was just out in public, wasn’t doing sex work, and was profiled for being a trans woman of color in a low-income neighborhood. She was charged with a vaguely defined crime called “manifestation of prostitution.” She also reported having been subject to transphobic statements from police on repeated occasions.

The next phase of her trial is set for April 11 and her case is among many illustrating the harmful intersections of transphobia and oppressive laws against sex workers. The way Monica Jones described it in an interview, she was told to either go through the Project ROSE Program or be criminally charge with prostitution–where she risks prison time and being stuck with prostitution on her permanent record. Then, she explained later being told she couldn’t go through the Project ROSE program because she had already been in a prostitution “diversion” program years before. She has become an outspoken opponent of Project ROSE.

Though I do not support arresting any sex workers for prostitution, the horrible situation could be magnified for trans* sex workers. Monica Jones explained that if sent to prison, she could be forced into the men’s jail, even though she identifies as a woman. This could make here even more vulnerable to harassment and violence than if she were cis.

Here’s my perspective on diversion programs: I am not against providing voluntarily programs to sex workers wishing to go through such programs. Yet, to tell sex workers that they either have to go through diversion program or face criminal charges for prostitution where they could face prison time if convicted is coercive. This is coercing sex workers into diversion programs who may not want or need such programs.

My understanding is that such programs are also used as a way to discourage sex workers from fighting the charges and oppressive laws. For example, scaring sex workers into thinking that if they fight the charges, they will be convicted and have to spend time in jail as well as stuck with prostitution on their permanent record for life. Monica Jones also explained that she wasn’t given the option to speak with a lawyer after being arrested and made to meet with people from Project ROSE. Yet, the right to a lawyer is a Constitutional right in the U.S.

Furthermore, though there may be some variations between programs, my understanding is that various coercive “diversion” programs require sex workers to be there all day long 5-days a week like a 9-5 job. Yet, being coerced into spending this amount of time in “diversion” programs they are not getting paid for dismisses how various sex workers are people with bills and living expenses to pay who need to make a living. The time spent in the coerced “diversion” programs thus interferes with sex workers being able to do this at any job and may subsequently create additional financial strains for the sex workers.

Also, what about sex worker who may have other “square” jobs or schooling during the hours they must spend in the diversion program. Though I don’t agree with coercing people into such programs even if they don’t have jobs outside of sex work or are not going to school studying to do something else, if the intent is to divert people away from prostitution, then keeping them away from schooling or “square” jobs to go through this program seems counterproductive. What if sex workers loose other jobs or fall behind in school because of time conflicts with when they have to be at “diversion” programs. Furthermore, I don’t know of the diversion programs providing or covering the costs of child care for sex workers who are parents and may need this while they attend the “diversion” program they were coerced into.

It’s very disturbing that Arizona State’s School of Social Work (where Monica Jones is also a student) is in partnership with Project ROSE and the Phoenix Police who are arresting sex workers. The coerciveness of such a program violates social work codes of ethics.

Please check out this Facebook page in support of Monica Jones: https://www.facebook.com/SupportMonicaJones .

Yes, Policies toward Sex Workers Do Matter

To former and non-sex workers:

Please don’t act like policies toward sex workers don’t matter.  You aren’t the ones currently doing sex work, so it’s not your place to decide this for current sex workers.  There are sex workers globally putting themselves on the line to tirelessly advocate against being criminalized–which would not be the case if policies didn’t matter to the sex workers.  To various sex workers, the fear of not only dangerous customers, but also that the next “client” will be some undercover cop who arrests them and may further humiliate, rape, or sexually assault them before forcing them into handcuffs, a police vehicle, and a jail cage is a very real fear.

I’m not saying that all police are bad people and have no doubt some are great people.  The same holds true for people in various industries. My main issue here isn’t just with the individual police officers, but with the oppressive laws and attitudes that lead to such abuses.  Thus, I’m viewing this issue systematically rather than just individually–looking at the big picture.  This isn’t to excuse harms individuals (whether police officers or not) commit against sex workers.

Yes, I agree that laws and policies aren’t the only issue.  There are an intersectionlity of issues that could affect sex workers and not all sex workers are subject to these equally, such as sexism, racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, migration status, and probably many more.

I unapologically assert that laws and policies toward sex work are part of the intersectionality, not a totally separate issue.  Anti-prostitution laws give authorities another tool to unjustly go after marginalized groups of people and makes it a lot easier to do so–such as profiling certain groups of people as sex workers and using this to harass them for perhaps just being on the sidewalks whether they are sex workers or not.  The authorities don’t even have to be creative enough to come up with another reason for doing this under anti-prostitution laws–they could just use such laws as a way to excuse this behavior.

Additionally, I don’t mean to conflate former and non-sex workers together.  A difference is that former sex workers have experience working as sex workers while non-sex workers do not.    Yet, former sex workers are not currently doing sex work and are not presently affected by policies in the same way current sex workers are–such as having to worry about whether your next client is an undercover cop or that your next client could be violent because the hatred against sex workers and oppressive laws combining to make sex workers “easy targets” for perpetrators of violence–as they may rest assured that they could just get away with it.  After all, under criminalized systems, sex workers in prostitution cannot report the violence without incriminating themselves in the process.  Yet, I realize that former sex workers may still be affected by anti-prostitution laws, such as being denied other jobs or finding it tougher to rent an apartment because prostitution is on their permanent record.  This is another example of how policies toward sex workers do matter–affecting not only current sex workers but also people who used to do sex work.

Various former and non sex workers recognize the importance of policies affecting sex workers and some are great allies to current sex workers.  If this describes you, then I have two words: Thank you.  To former and non-sex workers who dismiss sex workers’ efforts to decriminalize prostitution by using the argument that working towards decriminalizing prostitution is a privileged perspective, I ask you to do some introspection and look within yourself, being mindful of your own privileges and how expressing such an attitude toward sex workers while not currently being one represents a privileged perspective.  Also, please consider if you would make the same claim about any other marginalized group advocating against their unjust criminalization.

Brutality against Animals Vs. Shooting Clay: A Vegan’s Perspective

Are there contradictions between being anti-violence and eating meat?  This is something I think about a lot.  I cannot figure out why some people who identify as anti-violence, anti-guns, and anti-drones still eat meat, and largely or entirely ignore the violence and killing in this industry. Though I wasn’t a huge supporter of either mainstream candidate this election, I encourage anybody who eats meat while identifying as pro-peace and opposes Obama on the grounds that he authorized the  use of war drones to please apply the same standards of peace and anti-violence to animals.  I say the same to people who eat meat, but are anti-guns on the grounds that guns are violent. Though I realize guns have been used in very violent ways and am not disagreeing with you here, the cruelty that happens to animals on factory farms and some other types is often even more inhumane than guns–though I’m not supporting either form of violence.

Also, the thought that anybody would be outraged by skeet shooting on the grounds that it involves using a gun without the same level of outrage against animals being brutalized disgusts me. Hanging animals upside down by their ankles on an assembly line and slitting their throats (which seems to be common practice in cow and chicken killing for meat) is far more cruel, inhumane, and horrific than shooting at a piece of clay. Forcibly taking a mother cow’s children away from her so people can have her milk is also far crueler than shooting at clay. Personally I do not own a gun nor do I engage in skeet or any other form of shooting. Yet, I can’t figure out why anybody who is anti-violence would be more outraged by shooting at clay than by horrific abuses against animals that happen routinely in the meat, dairy and egg industries, even if practices may vary on different types of farms.

Even outside of factory farms where the brutality may not be as bad (but  could be in some cases), I still see the unnecessary killing of animals for meat as a form of violence. There are plenty of other things we can eat and humans can live very healthy lives as herbivores. Some may argue this position is culturally insensitive because in some cultures, raising animals for meat and hunting animals is an important part of their culture. Looking at this from strictly a cultural perspective is only focusing on the people, but I’m also concerned about the animals.

I spent time in Mexico and some people in my group attended a bull fight. I declined because I don’t support brutalizing animals for entertainment no matter what culture is involved. There are many other forms of entertainment that don’t involve brutalizing animals for us to enjoy. Also, bull fighting isn’t native to Mexico, but the Spaniards brought it over–not that this would make a difference in whether I attended either way.

To anybody has trouble believing the cruelty in the meat, dairy, and egg industries is really so bad, please watch a documentary called “Earthlings” : http://earthlings.com/ .

Mandatory Condoms in Porn?

Voters in Los Angeles County will have the opportunity to vote on Measure B in this upcoming election, which if passed, will mandate condom use in all porn productions filmed in the County involving sexual intercourse and oral sex.

I have very mixed feelings about this. On the surface, it would seem like requiring condom use would decrease sex workers’ autonomy, but that isn’t necessarily the case. My understanding is that as things are now in LA County, it’s very hard to get porn work if people refuse to have sex without a condom, which could make people feel more pressure to have unprotected sex just so they could get work.

In the legal Nevada brothel system where I’ve worked, there are mandatory condom laws that I support. If they didn’t exist, then management could just fire or refuse to hire any sex worker who wouldn’t have sex without a condom. In the book titled “Live Sex Acts: Women Performing Erotic Labor”, Wendy Chapkis wrote about this happening somewhere (don’t remember the exact location). Under Nevada existing laws, it’s very rare that a customer even asks for sex without a condom in my experience. I see these laws as an occupational health and safety measure.

Yet, the Nevada brothel system isn’t totally identical to the LA County porn industry.  In LA County, all porn performers are required to undergo regular  STI/STD (sexually transmitted infections/sexually transmitted diseases) testing and provide their test results to the porn producers.  In the Nevada brothel system, the clients are not required to be STI/STD tested, so it could be riskier having sex without a condom in this context.

Also, HIV/AIDS outbreaks are relatively rare in the LA area porn industry, though they do occasionally happen.  I’m not sure about other STI/STD’s.  A recent syphilis outbreak in the industry could have also promoted Measure B, but it’s unclear whether the performers got syphilis on or off the set, or whether it’s more prevalent in porn than in the outside society.

A porn performer who I heard speak at an event said that condom use decreases business, which could also decrease income and work for porn performers.  He said porn producers in LA County would likely start producing more in other places if mandatory condom laws were implemented in the County.

Since I’m not doing porn (other than solo live webcam), I feel that the porn performers should have more of a voice in this, because they’ll be the ones mainly affected.

Boo to Lady Gaga, Stop Supporting Animal Cruelty

I used to respect Lady Gaga and her unique, maverick style. Unfortunately, that has all changed now that I’ve learned that not only does she wear fur, but she also wears meat corsets. I’ve been against fur for a long time, not only for the killing, but also for the cruel practices: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/fur.aspx ,  I became even more against fur while watching a documentary called the “Skin Trade” that goes inside the fur industry and shows what’s actually happening on a deep level.  This documentary motivated me to participate in my first anti-fur protest. Despite the stereotypes, there were no red spray paint cans to be found and nobody was spray painting people’s fur coats. People were just peacefully holding up signs and handing out educational information. Fur is also so unnecessary, as there are many other materials clothing and accessories can be made with that do not involve brutalizing animals.

If you have an insatiable desire for furs that you just refuse to give up, please check out Fabulous Furs: http://fabulousfurs.com/ . This company specializes in faux furs. In case you’re wondering how to figure out if faux is really faux, there are different things you can do. You can smell the coat and from what I’ve learned, real fur has a leather-like smell. You can also pull back strands, to see whether there is skin underneath or whether it’s some sort of fabric. With faux, it would obviously be the latter. In terms of reading the label, that could help if it’s over $150. If not, then according the “Skin Trade” documentary, manufacturers are not required by law to list the materials on products sold in the U.S.

I recognize that it’s common for people to eat meat in the U.S. and much of the world, but Lady Gaga even wore a meat corset.   I mean come on… Is it really necessary to kill animals for corsets. Give me a break: http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-presses/lady-gaga-debuts-yet-another-meat-garment-224747910.html . As if that weren’t horrible enough, Lady Gaga also wore a fox as an accessory: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/09/lady-gaga-fox-head-fur-scarf-peta .

She wrote a letter to fans critical of her for wearing fur saying that she respects their right to make style decisions, and she asks that they respect her’s: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1691871/lady-gaga-fur-coat-kim-kardashian.jhtml. If this were simply an issue of personal style preferences and nothing more, then I would agree with Lady Gaga, but that’s not the main issue here. The main issues  are animal brutality and unnecessary killing.  Thus, this isn’t just about Lady Gaga and her personal style preferences.

Unfortunately, Lady Gaga isn’t alone. She isn’t the only fur supporting or fur wearing celebrity. Janet Jackson and Kim Kardashian are also on the list: http://hollywoodlife.com/2011/12/28/peta-celebrity-grinch-2011-kim-kardashian-janet-jackson/ . On a positive note, there are celebrities who are very supportive of animal welfare, such as Alecia Silverstone, Pam Anderson, Ellen DeGeneres, Forest Whitaker, and the list goes on…. Fur is beautiful on non-human mammals, and that’s where it belongs.

Madams, Management, Pimps, and Hypocracy

In the previous message I wrote in memory of Robyn Few, I mentioned how she has been subject to verbal assaults for her advocacy, yet kept persevering.  Among such people vilifying Robyn was Melissa Farley, on the grounds that Robyn was a madam and therefore lacks credibility to speak on sex workers’ issues and policies affecting sex workers. -even though Robyn also identified as a sex worker.  This was very hypocritical considering that Farley was aligned with a madam named Jody Williams–nicknamed “the high tech madam” who was convicted for running a prostitution service: http://sexworkersanonymous.webs.com/aboutthefounder.htm.

Thus, I’m not stupid and naive enough to believe for one second that Farley’s objections to Robyn or anybody in the sex workers’ rights movement have anything to do with whether they were in management when she herself was aligned with somebody in sex work management, and perhaps still is.  This seems like nothing more than a tactic to draw attention away from the actual arguments of this movement because she lacks any legitimate rebuttals.  If she’s really so against madams, then why would she align with at least one…

Also, if Farley is going to define everybody in sex work management as a pimp, then she was aligned with a pimp by her definition.  As part of this alliance, Jody Williams wrote a chapter in Farley’s book against the legal Nevada brothel system and participated in a panel promoting the book and her’s as well as Farley’s agenda against sex workers in the legal brothels:  http://archive.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2007/Sep-07-Fri-2007/news/16519321.html .

Yes, you read that correctly.  I say their agenda against sex workers in the legal brothels because they were trying to take away one of only two ways we had to work legally in this country.  (At the time, indoor prostitution through agencies or independently was legal in Rhode Island, but has since been criminalized. Now, the legal Nevada brothels are the only way that sex workers in prostitution can work legally in the U.S., though this is restricted to just cis women and also perhaps trans women who can pass for cis.  One legal Nevada brothel hired men, but that didn’t last long.  )  I’ve worked in the legal Nevada brothel system and acknowledge that it leaves a lot to be desired and is far from ideal, but I do not know of any sex workers in the these legal brothels who want the brothels  to be criminalized and who want to be pushed onto the criminalized sector, regardless of whether we enjoy working in the brothels or not.

Though Melissa and her supporters may defend their support and alliance with Jody on the grounds that she is doing such wonderful stuff and has experienced atrocities in her life, the same can be said of Robyn.  Yet, that doesn’t stop them from vilifying her.  What’s Melissa saying–that madams are pimps unless they’re aligned with her and then they’re not so bad?

Here are my feelings about madams.  Though I’ve never been one, I have worked for madams in the legal Nevada brothel system and don’t agree with conflating all madams with abusive pimps.  I don’t support enslaving anybody into prostitution or any industry, so I certainly don’t support madams who do this.  I also oppose all forms of verbal and physical abuse against sex workers, whether committed by madams or somebody else.  However, I have worked for madams who treat sex workers with more kindness and dignity than some anti-sex work folks do and some sex workers may prefer to work in brothels or for agencies with ethical management since such management could take care of behind the scenes business work such as getting us clients and setting us up with appointments (thus helping us make a living which is more than many of these anti-sex work folks are doing ), providing us with website space, transportation, screening, and providing a person or place where we can call into when we arrive and leave a session as a safety precaution. In the case of brothels, management can provide us with a place to work when we may not have another location.

This vilification against all management totally ignores ways ethical management can be helpful to us as sex workers.  However, I also totally support the right of sex workers to work independently and realize some prefer to go that route…and I support the right not to be sex workers and to exit sex work without being discriminated against in other jobs because we have been sex workers.  This is one of many reasons why I advocate against the criminalization and stigmatization of sex workers.

Furthermore, some people who hold management positions are or have been sex workers themselves, so simply saying somebody holds a management position doesn’t necessarily deny their experience as a sex worker or their ability to speak on this experience.  If we’re going to discredit the voices of all sex workers who hold management positions, then that would discredit the voices of the dancers at the Lusty Lady peep show in San Francisco who successfully unionized to improve conditions and then bought out the club to form a worker-owned co-op.

Please don’t mistake me.  I don’t write this message to vilify Jody for being a madam, as I have worked for madams before and don’t consider them all to be bad.  I write this to point out the hypocracy on the issue, how certain opponents are arguing that some people in the sex workers’ rights movement hold management positions and then using this to discredit our whole movement, even sex workers who do not even hold management positions when  Melissa Farley has herself aligned with somebody who was in management in the sex trade.  Stop the hypocracy.  It does nothing to promote the rights and well-being of sex workers nor does it stop pimps who actually are abusive.

In Loving Memory of Robyn Few

Sadly, Robyn Few, a founder of the Sex Workers’ Outreach Project-USA, passed away this morning (Sept. 13) from cancer. I remember Robyn as a strong, compassionate, caring, vivacious, and intelligent person. We first met in-person during the Measure Q campaign (an initiative to symbolically decriminalize prostitution) in Berkeley, CA in 2004. I have fond memories of sleeping on her floor for three weeks. We’ve seen each other various times since then, the most recent being at the opening of the Robyn Few Sex Workers’ Resource Center in Tucson, AZ this past June.  Robyn was a very resilient person, identifying as a survivor of incest who ran away from home at age 14. She really had the strength to put herself “on the line” as social justice advocate, being subject to verbal assaults by some openents of the sex workers’ justice movement.  Yet, nothing got in the way of her compassion and determination to support the human rights of sex workers. She devoted so much time and energy to advcating for the rights and well-being of sex workers, even amidst all the backlash and verbal attacks she was subject to for this advocacy-which still persisted while her condition was deteriorating due to cancer and she was no longer in a position to defend herself.  I’m proud to say sex worker advocacy lives on and we’re not letting anybody’s maliciousness stop us from promoting the human rights of sex workers. Though Robyn has passed on, her spirit remains with us. Here’s a beautiful website honoring Robyn, where we can learn about her and post stories: http://robynfew.com/ .  The last I checked, the website hasn’t been updated since Robyn passed away, so it still said she lives in the Bay Area.

Backlash against Sex Positive Feminism

There are so many types of feminisms that I have trouble keeping track of them all. One type is sex positive feminism. Broadly speaking, this feminist genre focuses on how sexuality can be liberating and empowering to women. Sex positive feminists challenge puritanical, narrow views of sex and address how there are many sides to sexuality. They also seek to shift the focus in feminism from mainly negative things with the word “sexual” to focus on the positive. This does not mean ignoring issues such as sexual assault or sexual violence, and sex positive feminists are addressing such issues from different angles than feminists traditionally have. An example would be the book titled “Yes Means Yes”, which I interpret as a sex positive feminist anthology with writings from multiple authors.
“No means no” has been a long-time slogan in feminist movements as a way to protest rape and additional forms of violence, arguing that if we say no, you need to listen, take us seriously, and respect that. “Yes means yes” doesn’t negate “no means no”. Both slogans can and must exist in harmony. To me, “yes means yes” addresses how allowing women freedom to our bodies must also mean allowing us the freedom to say “yes, oh yes!”

Though sex positive feminism is not just about sex work, the backlash against sex positive feminism has also permeated into the sex workers rights movement, on the ground that people (and not only people who are anti-sex work) have criticized this movement for being too sex positive and addressed how sex positive feminism is detrimental to the movement. Instead of arguing that the sex workers rights movement is too sex positive, I would argue that the sex workers rights movement recognizes multiple realities in the sex industry-trade, instead of looking at it as all one way or as a binary where it is all either this way or that way. Yes, there are people within the movement who have expressed positive experiences with and outlooks on sex work, but the movement still recognizes that this isn’t the only side.

Even considering how the conflation with sex positive feminism is used against the sex workers’ rights movement, I argue against silencing sex workers in the movement who express positive attitudes because that would go against what I see as one of the main tenets of sex workers’ rights advocacy–supporting the right of sex workers to define our experiences for ourselves. Though it’s important to acknowledge our privileges, attempting to shut up sex workers who speak positively about our work is a way of “otherizing” sex workers. I say this because I do not know of any other occupation where people’s perspectives are dismissed on the grounds that they’re too overly privileged or out of touch with reality when they speak positively about their work, and sex workers should not be treated this way either. Like, would we say this about a doctor who describes their work as important or meaningful. After all, there are privileges to being a doctor, such as often making really nice salaries and it takes some level of privilege to be able to spend all those years in medical school, which takes time away from being able to work for pay which some people need to do to survive. I’m not saying we should dismiss doctors who express positive perspectives about their work, but hopefully, people get the point…Furthermore, I’m not saying that sex work is just like any other occupation because no two occupations are identical, but sex workers still deserve the same human rights and the same freedom to define our experiences and perspectives for ourselves.

Additionally, when sex workers speak positively about our work, that does not mean all of our experiences have been positive. Rather, this could be a way to give us positive energy that we need, as it can be very distressing to just focus on the negative.

Sex positive feminism has also been criticized for focusing little to none on race and class issues. Though these are valid criticisms important to be mindful of and address, sex positive feminism still does make important contributions despite its shortcomings. I’ll draw an analogy to the gay rights movement (now called the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) rights movement). When this movement emerged on a large scale, the movement took on a positive word “gay”, which means happy. This was a positive way to challenge the negativity against and “pathologizing” of gays. Likewise, sex positive feminism has also taken on positive language such as the word “positive” to challenge the negativity toward women’s sexuality and sexual expression, and to challenge stigmas against sex workers who make a living through sexual services, entertainment, and/or companionship.

That being said, it’s important not to assume that everybody who doesn’t identify as a sex positive feminist is sex negative.  There’s not that simply of a binary or a dichotomy, and there are a complexity of reasons why people might or might not identify by the sex positive label.

 

Going Home from a Brothel

I haven’t posted on here in over a month, so what the heck, I’ll post as I’m waiting for dinner at the brothel. Fortunately, the cook here tonight is very vegan friendly. There’s a sex worker here who is a vegetarian and another sex worker who doesn’t eat pork or red meat, but I’ve never met any vegan sex workers at brothels I know of in the 10 plus years I’ve been in the biz.

Though there’s stuff I like about working at a brothel, I’ve been getting bored and depressed this stay because it has been so slow for me, and some other women have told me it’s slower than usual for them. I began working in the legal Nevada brothel system over 10 years ago, and this is my slowest two week trip ever.  I made less this past week than I often make in a day. Yet, it could be worse. I at least made enough to cover my room rent and weekly STI testing even after the 50/50 split of what I make with the brothel.  On another positive note, the the customers who I spent time with seemed very satisfied, which makes me feel good.  I pride myself in providing relaxing, pleasurable, enjoyable experiences.

There are ways to deal with boredom here, like coming onto this blog and posting. Since I can do this, I obviously have Internet access. There’s also a small exercise room here which I have been using, and a couple of the sex workers have become workout buddies. I’ve also been faithfully doing my yoga DVD in my room. There have been some visitors coming in, but just more sex workers than we have the business for. I’m not giving up, as there are so many ebbs and flows in this business. I’ve also had very busy trips to brothels, so it isn’t always like this.  This is my last night here during this stay, after being here for two weeks.  Well, the dinner bell just rang, so bye-bye for now.  The cook is making vegan chili.  Yummy!