They usurp our voices on a regular basis because they’re sitting around getting paid to do fake research that’s never subjected to the usual cursory peer review so they invade our industry to prop up their sagging pathetic lack of professional life.

My expert opinion is that these people who advocate for the criminalization of prostitution is really a cover to act out their own fetish. Paternalism and slave ownership.

Unfortunately, this incident illustrates the continued gulf between perception and reality with respect to sexwork. Public perception, even in RI, still seems to be that sexwork is a dirty business, engaged in by desperate, emotionally troubled clients and, at least in this case, tattooed prostitutes forced into it out of economic desperation. The truth is far more complex and generally happier, of course.

To help educate the general public, though, it is important to recognize that how the legalization message is communicated can be as important as the message itself. This is not to say that public advocates of sex rights need to be from the Ivy-educated, pantsuit and pumps crowd, but it does help to present an empathetic presence with which the public and their political representatives can identify and, over time, support. Politicians may visit this world, but they are not of it.

The role of sex-industry related press also needs to be considered, as illustrated by Donna Hughes’ reaction to $pread. Thoughtful articles are there to find, of course, but to someone inclined to see the industry as dirty and unappealing, it would be easy to write it all off as deviant erotica and nothing more.

This isn’t to say that publications like $pread aren’t constructive contributors to the industry – they are – but they are not likely to change the minds of politicians who are focused on attracting businesses to their districts and building stable housing markets, and more importantly on raising money from constituents for re-election. In fact, they can harm the cause.