Amber has already written a lengthy, well thought-out response to the AJC article about Craigslist shutting down its erotic services section. I emailed Megan Matteucci, the author of the piece, this morning, the text of which follows:
Hi Megan,
I am writing in response to the article titled “Atlanta group: Craigslist must do more to fight child prostitution” which ran on May 13.
We all can agree that human trafficking is one of the most deplorable acts people perpetrate against one another. However, I take exception to the lede in your article that “children will be a little safer now that Craigslist will no longer post prostitution and other ‘erotic services’ ads.”
While there are exceptions, few of the people doing actual human trafficking are using Craigslist. Most of the people who are targeted by this change are adults engaging in consensual business transactions.
It is extremely important not to conflate the two because it does everyone involved a disservice. If people are interested in “saving” adult prostitutes who are in the profession consensually (a term I also find objectionable, but which is a discussion for another time), putting a felony on their record is a terrible way to go about it. Targeting trafficking is an extremely difficult and scary proposition, and shutting down adult services on Craigslist accomplishes nothing on that front.
I recommend reading my partner Amber Rhea’s response to your article. It may seem a little harsh on first pass, but there is a lot of good information and links to other sources and perspectives in there:
http://www.beingamberrhea.com/2009/05/13/craigslist-erotic-services-ads-ajc-get-it-so-so-so-very-wrong/
I hope the next time you write a story on this subject you will take some of these perspectives into consideration.
Thanks,
Rusty Tanton
East Atlanta
I have yet to receive a response, but will update this if I do. I may rework it into a regular letter to the editor later.
Can we discuss your use of the word partner, as in, “I recommend reading my partner Amber Rhea’s response to your article.” In what context did you mean this? In a business sense – Georgia Podcast Network – or in a relationship sense?
I’ve often felt that there needs to be a better word to describe someone who is more than a casual girlfriend / boyfriend, but who is not one’s legal wife / husband. Obviously, gay people have been using the word partner, but that’s often because they are not able to use the latter. (And of course, I recognize that plenty of gay people would still choose not to be married even if the option was available.)
Also, people seem to automatically discount one’s opinion when it’s discovered that they’re in a relationship with that person, as if they’re parroting their mates opinion (usually towards the female mate).
Ugh. This comment was really clumsy, but.. there it is.
It was in the relationship sense, though I guess it could have been in the Georgia Podcast Network sense as well.
I 100 percent agree there needs to be a better word. I cringe a little when I use it for a variety of reasons, but I also don’t have a better word. I’ve always thought there’s a gap in the vocabulary when someone I was banging for a week gets the same word that someone I’ve been with four years gets.
I’m less concerned about people automatically discounting something I say because they might think I’m parroting Amber’s opinion. Anyone who’s read me enough knows there are a lot of things I disagree with her about, and that I write about those things publicly. Haters gonna hate whether I try to craft my opinions to please them or not.
I know, right? We should come up with one and somehow make it common use.
That’s why I like “partner” – it seems to accomplish all those things. Also I do get a little bit of satisfaction when people who can’t imagine that “partner” could apply to het relationships hear me talk about my partner and then meet him and I can tell they’re surprised he’s not a she. Also “partner” carries an implication of egalitarianism which I’m a fan of.
And, ha, I don’t know that there’s PLENTY that we disagree on – that makes it sound like we have all these differences and are constantly butting heads! But that’s not the case at all. We don’t agree on everything (who does?) but we agree on more stuff than not. I’m not someone who would be able to be in a serious long-term relationship with someone who holds a bunch of views that are fundamentally opposed to my own!
Oh wait, you didn’t say “plenty,” you said “a lot.” My comment still stands though!
Well, no, obviously I didn’t mean to give that impression. But there are little things like, for example, I think people should be able to smoke in bars and you don’t.
Tony and I disagree on some fundamental things, like whether time travel is lineal (e.g., Terminator / Harry Potter) or non-lineal (e.g., Star Trek / Back to the Future). We still manage to make it work though.
Oh, Rusty and I argue about time travel frequently. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s a sore spot, but it’s definitely a point of contention in the relationship.
Jen,
If this were Facebook I would “Like” that comment. But it’s not. BLOGSSUCKBLOGGINGISDEADRAR