CONFUSION OVER ISSUES RELATED TO LANGUAGE
For a few years now, I've been getting an increasing number of posts, emails, phone calls, letters, etc. that have pretty much this sentiment from people I have no clue who they are. These people have never read our Recovery Guide, nor listened to our radio show, attended a meeting, or spent five minutes on the phone with me. But for some reason they come stomping onto my playground trying to tell me what I'm supposed to call myself. This is what it looks like:
Notice this person joined our group first of all. Then after doing so - she attacks me over the name of the program, and then demands we change our name.
On top of this, I've had problems with groups like Project Rose. When they first started Project Rose, which was the same time Catholic Charities took over the Dignity Program in Phoenix, Arizona, I got a call from the new director, Cathy Bauer, when she came on board that "they would no longer be holding any Prostitutes Anonymous meetings" and I got a click after that.
Which frankly confused me. Dignity was founded by Kathleen Mitchell who has been very open in interviews that after being arrested for the umpteenth time - she wrote us from jail. We sent her the jail step study program we created for inmates that allows them to work the steps while not incriminating themselves that we send free to those who ask us to.
After her release - she then took Prostitutes Anonymous meetings (as we were originally called when we started in 1987 and this was 1990) back into the jail. About 1991, some people came to her and helped her start the Dignity Project. From day one, they had held Prostitutes Anonymous meetings in their program. A program that I had personally put many a trafficking victim that needed help to escape her pimp into for those years that did a very good job at helping the members. In fact, we still have many members who have come through Dignity who still attend our program regularly and have maintained their recovery since the early 1990's. So having a PA meeting as part of Dignity clearly worked. This was further validated by research done by professor Sharon Oselin who quoted interviews from these women in her book about how our meetings helped them make it "this time". http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/ex-prostitutes-who-proselytize-6431069
But in 2007-2008, when Catholic Charities takes over Dignity - Cathy told me they "won't be holding any PA meetings" and also refused to reorder new Recovery Guides for the new members. Yet after telling me they were not going to be holding meetings - I get phone calls and emails from people who are telling me they've attended meetings there recently. So yes this was very confusing. I could also not understand why the very program that the founder of Dignity got her recovery in, and that their clients got recovery from - was now suddenly being 86'd now that Catholic Charities took over.
Only I find out it wasn't 86'd. Despite telling me they had "discontinued" the meeting - they were in fact still holding the meetings while lying to me. Not just them either - but again Project Rose also was using our meetings - but lying to me about it at the same time. Here's proof - http://apaac.az.gov/images/stories/Agendas/CXL22113/Att.VII-Prostitution%20Diversion%20Program%20Articles.pdf
Trying to figure out why - I asked some of these callers what was going on in these meetings they were clearly trying to hide from me. The things they told me were being taught as what our program stood for had nothing to do with us. So not only were these people violating our common law trademarks and our copyrights - but they were also defrauding people. I'm sorry but that's what I call it when you represent you're one thing while asking for money but then aren't delivering what you're representing to be delivering - fraud.
One of the things they were doing, and why they didn't want our Recovery Guide, or literature, involved in their meetings they represented as us was the fact that they were opposing the sex industry itself which is what these funders were requiring of programs to get their money. Different members were also reporting to me they were being told that "prostitution was a life long disease like alcoholism". These are NOT our official views or policies in our program but it was what these programs handing out money were wanting you to say to get their money. Now the picture is becoming clearer. .
Now you might say "well anyone can start an AA meeting so what's the big deal?" That's not really true. To start a meeting, you are asked to get a starter kit from any other 12 step program. Then they give you guidelines of how you're supposed to conduct the meeting you agree to. On top of that, you agree to put out the literature they ask you to put out and sell. You also can't apply for grants in their name without their consent, or even sell books they don't approve of without them also suing you. You can check out the lawsuit of NA vs.Dave Moorhead or AA vs. Hazelton Publishing to see what I mean by this.
Because it wasn't just in Phoenix - but in 11 other states. There were people holding meetings calling themselves "Prostitutes Anonymous" all over the USA that in fact were not consisting of what our program is or does .
How do I know? Well for one thing - if they're not using our literature that's a good sign. Since the literature is ordered through me - then I know they're not using our literature. So tell me when's the last time you went to an AA or NA meeting with no book or literature on the table? I mean what would you read from? What would you study from?
That's a good question I'd like to ask the NY Anti-Trafficking Network. There they are supposedly teaching trafficking victims yoga - but not even speaking to me about referring their clients to a Sex Workers Anonymous meeting.
Here's where I got really confused. I sent these groups a meeting registration form. There is absolutely no cost involved in starting a meeting. I don't get a set cut of the donations in the basket either . If a group elects not to send the world service office a dime out of the basket - that's their right to make that decision. But when I heard these groups were holding unregistered meetings - I sent them a meeting registration form. I told them I'd give them permission to use our name, use our literature, etc., as long as they signed the form and returned it. They all refused. Even when I explained that them collecting money while holding illegal meetings could be considered the crime of fraud that they'd be liable for UNLESS they signed the form giving them my consent to use our name, our copyrights, our literature, our intellectual property, etc. They all flatly refused to register the meeting with us.
So that was it - whatever they were doing was in total opposition to what's in our literature and even after informing them what they were doing was a crime - they STILL refused to even sign registration forms. Why would these people insist on running our meetings illegally?
Check this out - https://libtool.ulib.iupui.edu/myul/node/2872 It states pretty much these people will not fund, nor associate with, nor support, in any way any program that does not SPECIFICALLY OPPOSE prostitution and/or sex work. Because what each of these groups shared was a common denominator of accepting money from funds that required these "written policies".
Why bother with us at all then? Well for a while - I had people coming to me asking me, no offering me, that if I'd change our "official" policy and literature that I too could get onto the money trough. Only I explained that this would be violating our traditions and could not. So they saw I was refusing. Then the attacks started up with people I had no idea who they were attacking me about the name. Only our members were a-okay with the name.
So why not just not have a 12 step program at all for these people? I'll tell you why. For the very reason I chose a 12 step program in the first place when I founded our program in 1987. I had gone to the governor, the mayor, and the legal court system of California explaining about trafficking to them and how I felt it was wrong for these victims to be treated like criminals. I was told that "we'll never see prostitution decriminalized" meaning not labeling these victims as criminals. But that in the meantime, we could set up a 12 step program as an "alternative to sentencing". They explained to me under laws already set in place by AA and NA - that if I formed a 12 step program that I could go into any courtroom anywhere in the USA and a victim of trafficking could ask the judge to order him/her to a 12 step meeting instead of jail, even when there was a mandatory sentence.
Further, that most government grants required a 12 step program in order to operate. For example, a program to help alcoholics has to have AA as part of that. To open a treatment center for alcoholics and to be able to take grant and insurance payments you have to have a 12 step program. Many jails can't get a license without holding 12 step meetings. So I was told that to offer these things without passing new laws - we could do so immediately with a 12 step format. So therefore we became a 12 step group for that reason.
So frankly these people were trying to please two factions with what they were doing. Getting the legal approval to offer alternative sentencing by having a 12 step meeting - and to get this grant money by making sure our literature which does not "oppose" prostitution was not incorporated. Again, if you ask me - it's downright shady.
Because Houston we have a problem here. Because Alcoholics Anonymous does not try and bring back prohibition. Nor does NA get up and testify for tougher drug laws even though we're seeing an opiate drug epidemic right now in this country where the leading cause of death now seems to be prescription pain killers. Neither too therefore does Sex Workers Anonymous have a "written policy opposing sex work and prostitution".
Why? Because the traditions of a 12 step program specifically state that they do not "have an opinion on outside issues" for one thing. But where did we get the idea that alcoholism and addiction was a disease then if AA did not have "an opinion on outside issues". Well Bill Wilson and Marty Mann created the National Council on Alcoholism. https://ncadd.org/about-ncadd/testimonials-from-the-media
Why didn't Bill Wilson take the founding role? Because as founder of AA everyone knew that pretty much whatever would come out of Bill's mouth would be viewed as being the view of AA and not just his personal opinion. So after achieving her sobriety in AA under Bill's program - Marty Mann created the National Council on Alcoholism (which was later adapted into the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. Now THEY stated that alcoholism "was a disease" - not AA.
Now I've talked about why we had to change our name in 1995 to Sex Workers Anonymous before on other blog postings. To repeat - IT WAS NOT TO LEGITIMIZE SEX WORK because that WOULD BE AN OPINION. There were TWO REASONS and two reasons only why we changed our name. First, because the adult filters on computers and search engines were blocking the word "prostitute". That's not my fault and just a reality. Meaning I was getting calls from people who were using college libraries to research us to find help - and they were being blocked when coming to us because of the name. For some reason, those same filters did not block the word "Sex Workers Anonymous".
Now - to prove this point - you can go to Yellow Pages online. When I try and list our program as Prostitutes Anonymous - we're blocked. But we're not blocked when using the name Sex Workers Anonymous. The same for the filters on Backpage and Craigslist. I run ads for our program on those sites for anyone who wants help to call us. The filters on those sites will block the word "prostitute" but not "sex workers" for some reason.
So 1/2 of the reason we HAD to change our name was because computers are stupid but we have to rely on them for people who need us to find us. The computer and search engines block the word "prostitute". Therefore, we have to have a name that will be seen by, and not blocked by, these computer programs. For some reason, it does not block the words "sex workers anonymous".
Now the 2nd reason was because of the invention of the internet. We were seeing new members coming in to see us who were working as webcam models or phone sex operators and insisting that it was not a relapse or a "transaction" because "no physical intercourse took place". To us, that was like an addict saying "well I didn't get relapse even though I shot up heroin because I didn't get high on it". If we limit the sex industry to only physical intercourse for money - there goes about 80 percent of the sex industry. There goes pornography, strip clubs, and yes too webcam studios and phone sex operations - which are ALL part of the sex industry from which we need to abstain from in order to recover.
Now let's get something very clear here - human trafficking exists in ANY industry. It's definition is that it's taking place when someone is forced to engage in some form of work where they are not given the money for that work, or forced to surrender the money. In the clothing industry - you have tailors and seamstresses and then you have sweat shops that employ trafficking victims. In the mining industry - you have minors and then you have trafficking victims. When it comes to maids - some are highly paid professionals while others are forced to sleep in laundry rooms and not paid any cash while being threatened with deportation.
Now when someone who was forced to be a maid is rescued - she does not shout out to have all maids outlawed. When a person who was forced to pick grapes is rescued - he does not call out to have all farming outlawed. But that's what these people seem to want to do when it comes to prostitution and/or sex work.
However, there is two teeny tiny little problems with this philosophy. First of all, in many countries, and even in a part of Nevada PROSTITUTION IS LEGAL. So when these people are stating you have to be "against" something - they're stating you have to oppose a legal industry as defined by our federal government or as other governments have defined it as legal. So if I go standing in front of the Bunny Ranch, or at an Amsterdam or UK legal brothel and say I'm in "opposition" to that - I'm saying I'm opposed to something that was is legal in the eyes of the government. To me, that sounds like it's breaking the law - something we also don't do in Sex Workers Anonymous.
The second thing has to be looked at like this - for an addict it doesn't matter if the drugs are street drugs or legally prescribed. It doesn't matter if a doctor prescribed it or if he stole it off a drug dealer downtown - a drug is a drug is a drug. For the alcoholic - it doesn't matter if it's beer, or wine, or hard alcohol or even moonshine. For that matter, for the alcoholic it doesn't matter if it's alcohol in mouthwash or medicine either. Alcohol is alcohol and therefore it must be abstained from.
Now in our program we have to define what we are "abstaining" from. What our definition of "sobriety" or "time" is. Now if I state that our only thing we're abstinent from is physical intercourse for money - then guess what? I'm telling the drug addict that he can take a legally prescribed drug from a doctor and that's okay.
So I'm not defining sex work as something that's right or wrong - I'm defining sex work as to what our members have to be abstinent from in order to be in recovery and not having a "relapse". FOR US, that means "any form of sex, or sexually related, activity, where there is an exchange of cash, and/or goods, and/or services" which includes any form of the sex industry. This encompasses strip clubs, brothels, dungeons, webcam studios, phone sex operations, even right on down to sell dirty underwear to perverted Japanese businessmen off a website or in a vending machine.
Now is selling dirty underwear to a guy for $50 considered physical intercourse for cash? No it's not. But in our program IT IS. Meaning that if we continued to call ourselves "Prostitutes Anonymous" then we're saying that it's ONLY prostitution that we're to abstain from. Which is why Narcotics Anonymous chose their name - they needed to cover both street and prescribed drugs in their program. For us, after the internet was born and we started seeing new members coming in saying to us "well I'm not prostituting anymore but I am doing webcam sex on camera for money" we had to find a way to explain to them that this is also covered in our definition of abstinence.
All the old members used to do then was point to our name "well you're Prostitutes Anonymous so therefore it's only prostitution that I need to be abstinent from". They had a point. So in order to make sure that people understand that our definition of abstinence includes ANY form of sex for any form of exchange - we had to also change our name.
Now does that mean we're "legitimizing" the industry? How can we when we "have no opinion on outside issues?" We did not pick the name to make an opinion about anything OTHER then what our definition of abstinence is about - and we define it as any part of the sex industry - not just prostitution.
Now does that mean I personally "have no opinion on outside issues?" Of course not. I'm a very opinionated person. For that reason, I did what Bill Wilson did in a sense. He helped Marty Mann from behind the scenes form the National Council on Alcoholism to do the things they could not do within the parameters of AA. He did not do it himself because people would get very confused about what his opinions were in the NCA vs. that of AA.
Now in my case - no one else wanted to break their anonymity and take such a position as to create an other separate program. There are people who are very much interested in getting involved in changing the laws with respect to trafficking and prostitution. I myself personally am so opposed to "legalization" of prostitution that I've been waging a one woman war on the brothels out of Nevada that from the looks of it appear that I'm winning.
When Joe Conforte put up a $1,000,000 into a PR firm in 1988 to expand the brothels into California - the only person I saw standing up to him to oppose that was myself. I exposed his so called "research" that claimed "no brothel prostitute had HIV" as rigged, and I went on every TV show, radio show, interview, etc., he went on countering his statements about what really goes on within a legal brothel.
We won. I see no legal brothels in California.
Do you see the Mob Museum in Las Vegas? For years, ex-mayor Oscar Goodman had been inviting investors, businessmen, and even had an architect draw up some plans to build "magnificent brothels" where that museum is today. I spent years fighting that campaign - and won. Now not only is the Mob Museum where he had wanted to put a brothel - but we even have an Arts district there now instead of a red light district that he had wanted to create there.
The last time the Nevada Brothel Association Lobbyist, George Flynt appeared at the Nevada legislature in an "off calendar" meeting to ask their permission to open a brothel in Las Vegas - it was our group that found out about this meeting and got an ex-brothel prostitute who had been trafficked within a legal brothel to appear there testifying to counter his statements. http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada-legislature/prostitution-bill-not-nevada-legislatures-agenda
We won. If you'd like a tape of that meeting where she blows him out of the water - I'll be happy to send it to you.
So I think our "opposition to legalized prostitution" is pretty clear here. I don't have to run around talking about it because we've been busy fighting it back successfully in the USA for almost three decades now.
But I technically can't do this under our 12 step structure without violating our traditions. So for that reason, I formed a separate group also called "Trafficking and Prostitution Services". There I can express my personal viewpoints, and get involved in helping legislatures make up laws, or make decisions like they did about the legal brothels, etc.
Now in Alcoholics Anonymous - they are there to help alcoholics. They can't call themselves "something else" because the word "alcoholic is offensive". The word is not a statement of opinion - but rather a statement of who their members are, as well as what their abstinence is about. The same for Narcotics Anonymous.
Now in Narcotics Anonymous - they don't call themselves "narcotics". They do however call themselves an "addict". The reason? An alcoholic can call themselves an alcoholic. However, in Narcotics Anonymous they can't call themselves a "narcotic" nor could they identify by their drug of choice - like I'm pill head, and I'm a speed freak. So to create a common bond - they call themselves "addicts".
Meaning that what the members call themselves is what they share. Now we have members in our program who were not trafficking victims. We have members who were. We have some who prostituted - while we have some who merely worked at a phone sex line. Some had pimps and some didn't. Some were arrested for working illegally - while others worked all legal.
So what is our "common bond"? In SWA we identify ourselves as "prostitutes" but not because of intercourse for money. There are other definitions of "prostitute" that we feel define what it is that each of us have in common with the other. That is this one "to put to any base or unworthy use".
ALL of our members do feel and share with each other the common connection and activity that they felt they were put to a "base or unworthy use" whether they were madams, or strippers, or porn performers, or street corner prostitutes. Whether legal or not, whether trafficked or not - again they do all agree they have been put to an "unworthy use".
Now here's where our governments, and some of these groups working in this field have got to start using a little logic here. You can't help an alcoholic without an AA program. You can't help an addict without an NA program. It won't work. Now in cases where someone was sexually trafficked, then rescued, and then that person went on about their business without an issue - then I'd say our program is not needed.
However, the realities just don't reflect but maybe, maybe, a small percentage of those who have been in the sex industry in some form, have that experience. The truth of the matter that many trafficking victims report to us - is that some engaged in some form of sex work prior to being trafficked, and many then fall back upon it when rescued because they were so damaged by what happened they were unable to find work.
Here's a classic example of what many of our members report - take Michael's case. He was sold at 8 years old to a biker gang. When he hit about 10 years old he was sold to a NY pimp. That pimp used to trafficking in only young boys. He'd make one of the boys killer another boy once a month not only to maintain control - but also to have dirt on everyone. Knowing his turn was coming - he turned the gun on the pimp and killed him to save him and the other boys.
He was put into a group home where the people running the program would let in perverts at night to sell the kids to them. Only this time he was locked down in a juvenile facility and had no where to go for help. To save himself again - he ran away from this group home at about 15 years of age to hit the streets. Now how does a 15 year old boy on female hormones support himself?
You got it. He went out to a corner and started prostituting himself to survive. We've talked to victim after victim where they've escaped trafficking - only still had to support themselves. Whether it was because of their age, their criminal record, their disabilities, whatever the case - they went out and prostituted themselves in some fashion until they could find another way out. Many do webcam until they can get through school or find their way into a good job.
Just like finding a "pure" alcoholic these days (someone who only drank alcohol but did not abuse any drugs at all) is very very rare - so too is the sex trafficking victim that's been trafficked, then rescued, then never ever goes back to sex work. The realities are that it's often very hard once they've escaped to support themselves, many can't prosecute their traffickers for one reason or another (I couldn't), and without proof of trafficking they can't get special services - so they've been on their own.
So honestly -if we shame someone for being in the industry - then we're shaming the survivors. Also, many victims are so brainwashed that they are there by choice - that to call them a victim means they don't identify with what you're saying.
Take a woman I saw on an MSNBC "Sex Slave" interview show one time. She was arrested for prostitution and the producer came to interview her. Then she says "oh I've seen your show" to the producer. The producer says "well then why are you out here getting arrested for prostitution then?" To which the woman says "but I'm not a trafficking victim - I am prostituting".
So you have to realize that I'm dealing with the realities of our members. I have to be able to have them find us. I could have a name that everyone approves of - but if people can't find me online because I'm being blocked or left out of search engine retrievals - then what's the point if I can't be found? So to bypass many of these filters and blocks - I found our name works.
The second reason is we have to be a word that all of our members can agree upon. This is what our members agree upon and relate to. They decided in a group vote we took of the whole program in 1995, and again in 2013 to use the name "Sex Workers Anonymous" for our name. So that's what THEY decided - not me personally.
But if you were to apply this same logic to drug treatment - then you'd see the problems with this policy https://libtool.ulib.iupui.edu/myul/node/2872 Because Narcotics Anonymous does not push for harsher drug restrictions and Alcoholics Anonymous does not push to have prohibition brought back or to educate the public about the horrors of drinking. They focus only and solely upon what each member needs to do in order for them to find recovery and also to not go back.
Which is our job. Our job is to help our members get out of, and stay out of, any part of the sex industry. We're good at our job too. I've got lots of testimonials up at www.blogtalkradio.com/stopsextrafficktalk and also www.hightechmadam.com and frankly I'm the founder of the modern day sex trafficking movement. When I got up demanding our government change the system to help us, and to stop treating us like criminals, and created the first hotline for victims to call for help at a time when society viewed this as an urban myth - that makes me the founder of the movement itself.
Making it even more ridiculous to keep hearing we're being blocked from helping victims because of the name of our program. Now we're not trying to apply for any government grants anymore than AA is - but we are working with programs who are. And when they are telling us they can't refer victims to us because of this policy - someone needs to address that this doesn't apply to us. To make a public statement against anything - violates our traditions.
At some point however, I have to consider some of this "economic interference". Which under the law states when a "competitor" tries to illegally gain an advantage over you. This is how I'm seeing this being used lately - by people who are stepping up to the plate saying "I'll sign such a statement" and then trying to take over the jobs we were doing, or should be doing.
Now I do grant that for children - it is a different issue. Any sex with anyone under legal age is rape. So yes clearly I do agree that any sex with a child under age is rape. Because of this - I have granted that our program for those under legal age should be different - but also should be available to them. For that reason, we have decided to adapt our older name "Prostitutes Anonymous" to those under legal age. I talk about that decision here - http://sexworkersanonymousmeeting.blogspot.com/2015/08/adult-members-vs-children-and-teens.html
That does not violate our traditions because even AA has programs like Alateen and Alatot - they acknowledge their program is different for children so we can take a lesson from them on that. But until we see them take a stand against alcohol - then we can't take a stand for nor against any form of sex work. Our name therefore is only for identification and abstinence - and not a "statement" or "endorsement".
(copyright 2015 J. Williams - All Rights Reserved)
Notice this person joined our group first of all. Then after doing so - she attacks me over the name of the program, and then demands we change our name.
On top of this, I've had problems with groups like Project Rose. When they first started Project Rose, which was the same time Catholic Charities took over the Dignity Program in Phoenix, Arizona, I got a call from the new director, Cathy Bauer, when she came on board that "they would no longer be holding any Prostitutes Anonymous meetings" and I got a click after that.
Which frankly confused me. Dignity was founded by Kathleen Mitchell who has been very open in interviews that after being arrested for the umpteenth time - she wrote us from jail. We sent her the jail step study program we created for inmates that allows them to work the steps while not incriminating themselves that we send free to those who ask us to.
After her release - she then took Prostitutes Anonymous meetings (as we were originally called when we started in 1987 and this was 1990) back into the jail. About 1991, some people came to her and helped her start the Dignity Project. From day one, they had held Prostitutes Anonymous meetings in their program. A program that I had personally put many a trafficking victim that needed help to escape her pimp into for those years that did a very good job at helping the members. In fact, we still have many members who have come through Dignity who still attend our program regularly and have maintained their recovery since the early 1990's. So having a PA meeting as part of Dignity clearly worked. This was further validated by research done by professor Sharon Oselin who quoted interviews from these women in her book about how our meetings helped them make it "this time". http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/ex-prostitutes-who-proselytize-6431069
But in 2007-2008, when Catholic Charities takes over Dignity - Cathy told me they "won't be holding any PA meetings" and also refused to reorder new Recovery Guides for the new members. Yet after telling me they were not going to be holding meetings - I get phone calls and emails from people who are telling me they've attended meetings there recently. So yes this was very confusing. I could also not understand why the very program that the founder of Dignity got her recovery in, and that their clients got recovery from - was now suddenly being 86'd now that Catholic Charities took over.
Only I find out it wasn't 86'd. Despite telling me they had "discontinued" the meeting - they were in fact still holding the meetings while lying to me. Not just them either - but again Project Rose also was using our meetings - but lying to me about it at the same time. Here's proof - http://apaac.az.gov/images/stories/Agendas/CXL22113/Att.VII-Prostitution%20Diversion%20Program%20Articles.pdf
Trying to figure out why - I asked some of these callers what was going on in these meetings they were clearly trying to hide from me. The things they told me were being taught as what our program stood for had nothing to do with us. So not only were these people violating our common law trademarks and our copyrights - but they were also defrauding people. I'm sorry but that's what I call it when you represent you're one thing while asking for money but then aren't delivering what you're representing to be delivering - fraud.
One of the things they were doing, and why they didn't want our Recovery Guide, or literature, involved in their meetings they represented as us was the fact that they were opposing the sex industry itself which is what these funders were requiring of programs to get their money. Different members were also reporting to me they were being told that "prostitution was a life long disease like alcoholism". These are NOT our official views or policies in our program but it was what these programs handing out money were wanting you to say to get their money. Now the picture is becoming clearer. .
Now you might say "well anyone can start an AA meeting so what's the big deal?" That's not really true. To start a meeting, you are asked to get a starter kit from any other 12 step program. Then they give you guidelines of how you're supposed to conduct the meeting you agree to. On top of that, you agree to put out the literature they ask you to put out and sell. You also can't apply for grants in their name without their consent, or even sell books they don't approve of without them also suing you. You can check out the lawsuit of NA vs.Dave Moorhead or AA vs. Hazelton Publishing to see what I mean by this.
Because it wasn't just in Phoenix - but in 11 other states. There were people holding meetings calling themselves "Prostitutes Anonymous" all over the USA that in fact were not consisting of what our program is or does .
How do I know? Well for one thing - if they're not using our literature that's a good sign. Since the literature is ordered through me - then I know they're not using our literature. So tell me when's the last time you went to an AA or NA meeting with no book or literature on the table? I mean what would you read from? What would you study from?
That's a good question I'd like to ask the NY Anti-Trafficking Network. There they are supposedly teaching trafficking victims yoga - but not even speaking to me about referring their clients to a Sex Workers Anonymous meeting.
Here's where I got really confused. I sent these groups a meeting registration form. There is absolutely no cost involved in starting a meeting. I don't get a set cut of the donations in the basket either . If a group elects not to send the world service office a dime out of the basket - that's their right to make that decision. But when I heard these groups were holding unregistered meetings - I sent them a meeting registration form. I told them I'd give them permission to use our name, use our literature, etc., as long as they signed the form and returned it. They all refused. Even when I explained that them collecting money while holding illegal meetings could be considered the crime of fraud that they'd be liable for UNLESS they signed the form giving them my consent to use our name, our copyrights, our literature, our intellectual property, etc. They all flatly refused to register the meeting with us.
So that was it - whatever they were doing was in total opposition to what's in our literature and even after informing them what they were doing was a crime - they STILL refused to even sign registration forms. Why would these people insist on running our meetings illegally?
Check this out - https://libtool.ulib.iupui.edu/myul/node/2872 It states pretty much these people will not fund, nor associate with, nor support, in any way any program that does not SPECIFICALLY OPPOSE prostitution and/or sex work. Because what each of these groups shared was a common denominator of accepting money from funds that required these "written policies".
Why bother with us at all then? Well for a while - I had people coming to me asking me, no offering me, that if I'd change our "official" policy and literature that I too could get onto the money trough. Only I explained that this would be violating our traditions and could not. So they saw I was refusing. Then the attacks started up with people I had no idea who they were attacking me about the name. Only our members were a-okay with the name.
So why not just not have a 12 step program at all for these people? I'll tell you why. For the very reason I chose a 12 step program in the first place when I founded our program in 1987. I had gone to the governor, the mayor, and the legal court system of California explaining about trafficking to them and how I felt it was wrong for these victims to be treated like criminals. I was told that "we'll never see prostitution decriminalized" meaning not labeling these victims as criminals. But that in the meantime, we could set up a 12 step program as an "alternative to sentencing". They explained to me under laws already set in place by AA and NA - that if I formed a 12 step program that I could go into any courtroom anywhere in the USA and a victim of trafficking could ask the judge to order him/her to a 12 step meeting instead of jail, even when there was a mandatory sentence.
Further, that most government grants required a 12 step program in order to operate. For example, a program to help alcoholics has to have AA as part of that. To open a treatment center for alcoholics and to be able to take grant and insurance payments you have to have a 12 step program. Many jails can't get a license without holding 12 step meetings. So I was told that to offer these things without passing new laws - we could do so immediately with a 12 step format. So therefore we became a 12 step group for that reason.
So frankly these people were trying to please two factions with what they were doing. Getting the legal approval to offer alternative sentencing by having a 12 step meeting - and to get this grant money by making sure our literature which does not "oppose" prostitution was not incorporated. Again, if you ask me - it's downright shady.
Because Houston we have a problem here. Because Alcoholics Anonymous does not try and bring back prohibition. Nor does NA get up and testify for tougher drug laws even though we're seeing an opiate drug epidemic right now in this country where the leading cause of death now seems to be prescription pain killers. Neither too therefore does Sex Workers Anonymous have a "written policy opposing sex work and prostitution".
Why? Because the traditions of a 12 step program specifically state that they do not "have an opinion on outside issues" for one thing. But where did we get the idea that alcoholism and addiction was a disease then if AA did not have "an opinion on outside issues". Well Bill Wilson and Marty Mann created the National Council on Alcoholism. https://ncadd.org/about-ncadd/testimonials-from-the-media
Why didn't Bill Wilson take the founding role? Because as founder of AA everyone knew that pretty much whatever would come out of Bill's mouth would be viewed as being the view of AA and not just his personal opinion. So after achieving her sobriety in AA under Bill's program - Marty Mann created the National Council on Alcoholism (which was later adapted into the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. Now THEY stated that alcoholism "was a disease" - not AA.
Now I've talked about why we had to change our name in 1995 to Sex Workers Anonymous before on other blog postings. To repeat - IT WAS NOT TO LEGITIMIZE SEX WORK because that WOULD BE AN OPINION. There were TWO REASONS and two reasons only why we changed our name. First, because the adult filters on computers and search engines were blocking the word "prostitute". That's not my fault and just a reality. Meaning I was getting calls from people who were using college libraries to research us to find help - and they were being blocked when coming to us because of the name. For some reason, those same filters did not block the word "Sex Workers Anonymous".
Now - to prove this point - you can go to Yellow Pages online. When I try and list our program as Prostitutes Anonymous - we're blocked. But we're not blocked when using the name Sex Workers Anonymous. The same for the filters on Backpage and Craigslist. I run ads for our program on those sites for anyone who wants help to call us. The filters on those sites will block the word "prostitute" but not "sex workers" for some reason.
So 1/2 of the reason we HAD to change our name was because computers are stupid but we have to rely on them for people who need us to find us. The computer and search engines block the word "prostitute". Therefore, we have to have a name that will be seen by, and not blocked by, these computer programs. For some reason, it does not block the words "sex workers anonymous".
Now the 2nd reason was because of the invention of the internet. We were seeing new members coming in to see us who were working as webcam models or phone sex operators and insisting that it was not a relapse or a "transaction" because "no physical intercourse took place". To us, that was like an addict saying "well I didn't get relapse even though I shot up heroin because I didn't get high on it". If we limit the sex industry to only physical intercourse for money - there goes about 80 percent of the sex industry. There goes pornography, strip clubs, and yes too webcam studios and phone sex operations - which are ALL part of the sex industry from which we need to abstain from in order to recover.
Now let's get something very clear here - human trafficking exists in ANY industry. It's definition is that it's taking place when someone is forced to engage in some form of work where they are not given the money for that work, or forced to surrender the money. In the clothing industry - you have tailors and seamstresses and then you have sweat shops that employ trafficking victims. In the mining industry - you have minors and then you have trafficking victims. When it comes to maids - some are highly paid professionals while others are forced to sleep in laundry rooms and not paid any cash while being threatened with deportation.
Now when someone who was forced to be a maid is rescued - she does not shout out to have all maids outlawed. When a person who was forced to pick grapes is rescued - he does not call out to have all farming outlawed. But that's what these people seem to want to do when it comes to prostitution and/or sex work.
However, there is two teeny tiny little problems with this philosophy. First of all, in many countries, and even in a part of Nevada PROSTITUTION IS LEGAL. So when these people are stating you have to be "against" something - they're stating you have to oppose a legal industry as defined by our federal government or as other governments have defined it as legal. So if I go standing in front of the Bunny Ranch, or at an Amsterdam or UK legal brothel and say I'm in "opposition" to that - I'm saying I'm opposed to something that was is legal in the eyes of the government. To me, that sounds like it's breaking the law - something we also don't do in Sex Workers Anonymous.
The second thing has to be looked at like this - for an addict it doesn't matter if the drugs are street drugs or legally prescribed. It doesn't matter if a doctor prescribed it or if he stole it off a drug dealer downtown - a drug is a drug is a drug. For the alcoholic - it doesn't matter if it's beer, or wine, or hard alcohol or even moonshine. For that matter, for the alcoholic it doesn't matter if it's alcohol in mouthwash or medicine either. Alcohol is alcohol and therefore it must be abstained from.
Now in our program we have to define what we are "abstaining" from. What our definition of "sobriety" or "time" is. Now if I state that our only thing we're abstinent from is physical intercourse for money - then guess what? I'm telling the drug addict that he can take a legally prescribed drug from a doctor and that's okay.
So I'm not defining sex work as something that's right or wrong - I'm defining sex work as to what our members have to be abstinent from in order to be in recovery and not having a "relapse". FOR US, that means "any form of sex, or sexually related, activity, where there is an exchange of cash, and/or goods, and/or services" which includes any form of the sex industry. This encompasses strip clubs, brothels, dungeons, webcam studios, phone sex operations, even right on down to sell dirty underwear to perverted Japanese businessmen off a website or in a vending machine.
Now is selling dirty underwear to a guy for $50 considered physical intercourse for cash? No it's not. But in our program IT IS. Meaning that if we continued to call ourselves "Prostitutes Anonymous" then we're saying that it's ONLY prostitution that we're to abstain from. Which is why Narcotics Anonymous chose their name - they needed to cover both street and prescribed drugs in their program. For us, after the internet was born and we started seeing new members coming in saying to us "well I'm not prostituting anymore but I am doing webcam sex on camera for money" we had to find a way to explain to them that this is also covered in our definition of abstinence.
All the old members used to do then was point to our name "well you're Prostitutes Anonymous so therefore it's only prostitution that I need to be abstinent from". They had a point. So in order to make sure that people understand that our definition of abstinence includes ANY form of sex for any form of exchange - we had to also change our name.
Now does that mean we're "legitimizing" the industry? How can we when we "have no opinion on outside issues?" We did not pick the name to make an opinion about anything OTHER then what our definition of abstinence is about - and we define it as any part of the sex industry - not just prostitution.
Now does that mean I personally "have no opinion on outside issues?" Of course not. I'm a very opinionated person. For that reason, I did what Bill Wilson did in a sense. He helped Marty Mann from behind the scenes form the National Council on Alcoholism to do the things they could not do within the parameters of AA. He did not do it himself because people would get very confused about what his opinions were in the NCA vs. that of AA.
Now in my case - no one else wanted to break their anonymity and take such a position as to create an other separate program. There are people who are very much interested in getting involved in changing the laws with respect to trafficking and prostitution. I myself personally am so opposed to "legalization" of prostitution that I've been waging a one woman war on the brothels out of Nevada that from the looks of it appear that I'm winning.
When Joe Conforte put up a $1,000,000 into a PR firm in 1988 to expand the brothels into California - the only person I saw standing up to him to oppose that was myself. I exposed his so called "research" that claimed "no brothel prostitute had HIV" as rigged, and I went on every TV show, radio show, interview, etc., he went on countering his statements about what really goes on within a legal brothel.
We won. I see no legal brothels in California.
Do you see the Mob Museum in Las Vegas? For years, ex-mayor Oscar Goodman had been inviting investors, businessmen, and even had an architect draw up some plans to build "magnificent brothels" where that museum is today. I spent years fighting that campaign - and won. Now not only is the Mob Museum where he had wanted to put a brothel - but we even have an Arts district there now instead of a red light district that he had wanted to create there.
The last time the Nevada Brothel Association Lobbyist, George Flynt appeared at the Nevada legislature in an "off calendar" meeting to ask their permission to open a brothel in Las Vegas - it was our group that found out about this meeting and got an ex-brothel prostitute who had been trafficked within a legal brothel to appear there testifying to counter his statements. http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada-legislature/prostitution-bill-not-nevada-legislatures-agenda
We won. If you'd like a tape of that meeting where she blows him out of the water - I'll be happy to send it to you.
So I think our "opposition to legalized prostitution" is pretty clear here. I don't have to run around talking about it because we've been busy fighting it back successfully in the USA for almost three decades now.
But I technically can't do this under our 12 step structure without violating our traditions. So for that reason, I formed a separate group also called "Trafficking and Prostitution Services". There I can express my personal viewpoints, and get involved in helping legislatures make up laws, or make decisions like they did about the legal brothels, etc.
Now in Alcoholics Anonymous - they are there to help alcoholics. They can't call themselves "something else" because the word "alcoholic is offensive". The word is not a statement of opinion - but rather a statement of who their members are, as well as what their abstinence is about. The same for Narcotics Anonymous.
Now in Narcotics Anonymous - they don't call themselves "narcotics". They do however call themselves an "addict". The reason? An alcoholic can call themselves an alcoholic. However, in Narcotics Anonymous they can't call themselves a "narcotic" nor could they identify by their drug of choice - like I'm pill head, and I'm a speed freak. So to create a common bond - they call themselves "addicts".
Meaning that what the members call themselves is what they share. Now we have members in our program who were not trafficking victims. We have members who were. We have some who prostituted - while we have some who merely worked at a phone sex line. Some had pimps and some didn't. Some were arrested for working illegally - while others worked all legal.
So what is our "common bond"? In SWA we identify ourselves as "prostitutes" but not because of intercourse for money. There are other definitions of "prostitute" that we feel define what it is that each of us have in common with the other. That is this one "to put to any base or unworthy use".
ALL of our members do feel and share with each other the common connection and activity that they felt they were put to a "base or unworthy use" whether they were madams, or strippers, or porn performers, or street corner prostitutes. Whether legal or not, whether trafficked or not - again they do all agree they have been put to an "unworthy use".
Now here's where our governments, and some of these groups working in this field have got to start using a little logic here. You can't help an alcoholic without an AA program. You can't help an addict without an NA program. It won't work. Now in cases where someone was sexually trafficked, then rescued, and then that person went on about their business without an issue - then I'd say our program is not needed.
However, the realities just don't reflect but maybe, maybe, a small percentage of those who have been in the sex industry in some form, have that experience. The truth of the matter that many trafficking victims report to us - is that some engaged in some form of sex work prior to being trafficked, and many then fall back upon it when rescued because they were so damaged by what happened they were unable to find work.
Here's a classic example of what many of our members report - take Michael's case. He was sold at 8 years old to a biker gang. When he hit about 10 years old he was sold to a NY pimp. That pimp used to trafficking in only young boys. He'd make one of the boys killer another boy once a month not only to maintain control - but also to have dirt on everyone. Knowing his turn was coming - he turned the gun on the pimp and killed him to save him and the other boys.
He was put into a group home where the people running the program would let in perverts at night to sell the kids to them. Only this time he was locked down in a juvenile facility and had no where to go for help. To save himself again - he ran away from this group home at about 15 years of age to hit the streets. Now how does a 15 year old boy on female hormones support himself?
You got it. He went out to a corner and started prostituting himself to survive. We've talked to victim after victim where they've escaped trafficking - only still had to support themselves. Whether it was because of their age, their criminal record, their disabilities, whatever the case - they went out and prostituted themselves in some fashion until they could find another way out. Many do webcam until they can get through school or find their way into a good job.
Just like finding a "pure" alcoholic these days (someone who only drank alcohol but did not abuse any drugs at all) is very very rare - so too is the sex trafficking victim that's been trafficked, then rescued, then never ever goes back to sex work. The realities are that it's often very hard once they've escaped to support themselves, many can't prosecute their traffickers for one reason or another (I couldn't), and without proof of trafficking they can't get special services - so they've been on their own.
So honestly -if we shame someone for being in the industry - then we're shaming the survivors. Also, many victims are so brainwashed that they are there by choice - that to call them a victim means they don't identify with what you're saying.
Take a woman I saw on an MSNBC "Sex Slave" interview show one time. She was arrested for prostitution and the producer came to interview her. Then she says "oh I've seen your show" to the producer. The producer says "well then why are you out here getting arrested for prostitution then?" To which the woman says "but I'm not a trafficking victim - I am prostituting".
So you have to realize that I'm dealing with the realities of our members. I have to be able to have them find us. I could have a name that everyone approves of - but if people can't find me online because I'm being blocked or left out of search engine retrievals - then what's the point if I can't be found? So to bypass many of these filters and blocks - I found our name works.
The second reason is we have to be a word that all of our members can agree upon. This is what our members agree upon and relate to. They decided in a group vote we took of the whole program in 1995, and again in 2013 to use the name "Sex Workers Anonymous" for our name. So that's what THEY decided - not me personally.
But if you were to apply this same logic to drug treatment - then you'd see the problems with this policy https://libtool.ulib.iupui.edu/myul/node/2872 Because Narcotics Anonymous does not push for harsher drug restrictions and Alcoholics Anonymous does not push to have prohibition brought back or to educate the public about the horrors of drinking. They focus only and solely upon what each member needs to do in order for them to find recovery and also to not go back.
Which is our job. Our job is to help our members get out of, and stay out of, any part of the sex industry. We're good at our job too. I've got lots of testimonials up at www.blogtalkradio.com/stopsextrafficktalk and also www.hightechmadam.com and frankly I'm the founder of the modern day sex trafficking movement. When I got up demanding our government change the system to help us, and to stop treating us like criminals, and created the first hotline for victims to call for help at a time when society viewed this as an urban myth - that makes me the founder of the movement itself.
Making it even more ridiculous to keep hearing we're being blocked from helping victims because of the name of our program. Now we're not trying to apply for any government grants anymore than AA is - but we are working with programs who are. And when they are telling us they can't refer victims to us because of this policy - someone needs to address that this doesn't apply to us. To make a public statement against anything - violates our traditions.
At some point however, I have to consider some of this "economic interference". Which under the law states when a "competitor" tries to illegally gain an advantage over you. This is how I'm seeing this being used lately - by people who are stepping up to the plate saying "I'll sign such a statement" and then trying to take over the jobs we were doing, or should be doing.
Now I do grant that for children - it is a different issue. Any sex with anyone under legal age is rape. So yes clearly I do agree that any sex with a child under age is rape. Because of this - I have granted that our program for those under legal age should be different - but also should be available to them. For that reason, we have decided to adapt our older name "Prostitutes Anonymous" to those under legal age. I talk about that decision here - http://sexworkersanonymousmeeting.blogspot.com/2015/08/adult-members-vs-children-and-teens.html
That does not violate our traditions because even AA has programs like Alateen and Alatot - they acknowledge their program is different for children so we can take a lesson from them on that. But until we see them take a stand against alcohol - then we can't take a stand for nor against any form of sex work. Our name therefore is only for identification and abstinence - and not a "statement" or "endorsement".
(copyright 2015 J. Williams - All Rights Reserved)
Comments
Post a Comment