I have decided not to be sarcastic in this post, because it comes from a place of sorrow and I think some things need to be stated very bluntly and openly. Much of this material comes from Rebecca, who of course has had these tactics used on her again and again. My reason for writing this is that I have seen so many times on the blogosphere, in real life, on television, in the written media very nasty tactics used to silence those who have suffered sexual violence, particularly in the sex ‘industry’. So I would ask readers to take note of what is down here, and refuse to be taken in by the following tricks. We always demand that survivors are brave, let us be brave and not allow survivors to be bullied and suppressed by those who benefit from the industry that tried to destroy them.
The parts in italics are Rebecca’s words. The pro-porner is referred to as ‘the writer’ throughout.
The Tactics
1: The Opening
The rebuttal to the survivor will often begin with a sentence or sentiment such as ‘X’s voice is important’, ‘We must listen to X’. The purpose of this seemingly innocuous beginning is, to be blunt, to make the writer sound like less of a jerk. It is a rhetorical trick, so that when questioned on their callousness, the writer can wail ‘I said she was important! I said her voice was important! I said we should listen’. One method that bullies often use is to alternate niceness with nastiness. That way, their victim thinks ‘but they were nice to me before, so they must be right when they say I’m wrong’. It functions to confuse and wear down the abuse victim.
So begin with ‘X’s voice is important’, and then proceed to tell X why she should shut up. Note that the very assertion implies that the writer him/herself is setting him/herself up as the true judge of what is ‘important’.
2: The writer has the full story
The best way to undermined a survivor is to say “your ’story’ is sad, horrible, terrible etc – but it is only your story”. This is usually placed alongside other truths/stories that are seen to be more worthy – such as the happy hooker, the porn star who is rich and in control of her career, the women who loved to read porn. Their stories are vital to know, their stories are more important that survivor’s stories – especially survivors of prostitution who speak of sexual torture, rape and mental, or women who were in porn and have diseases and were sexually tortured, or women who were raped by men copying porn. This works on the false assumption that those who enjoy a practice should have the same time allotted to them in a discussion of the practice as those who have been tortured by it. And this assumption ignores the fact that those who have suffered will, by the nature of their suffering and the violence committed against them, have less access to speech and reasons why they might not feel it safe to speak. I think of it as the Fox News syndrome: Fox News claims it splits its time 50/50 between one argument and the other. This, even if it were true, is besides the point, not taking into account how they treat the less favoured 50, and how they present their views.
Say if she is speaking the truth it is only a tiny aspect of the sex trade. Say that most of the sex trade does respect, care for and give great conditions for the women that they “employed”.
This is usually back up with the language of “sex workers” and concepts of unions or co-operatives. All this to show that it the prostituted woman who hold the power, not the men, especially not the pimps/managers or johns
In this world-view, any violence that the prostitute or porn actress is on the receiving end of is her own fault, because she is weak, mentally ill, or just stupid. We must never blame the men.
The writer claims that s/he has access to the full truth, while the survivor does not.
3: She is mentally ill, or biased (or both!)
It must be remember that the word of a survivor of pornstitution is unreliable. Her word that there was extreme violence, both mental and physical, cannot never be proved – for it may she that is lying or mentally ill. Whilst the other side always speak the truth, and never have motives for backing the sex trade. The demand for proof comes up again and again; if she is believed (and truly believed, not just lip-service ‘otherwise-I-look-like-the-jerk-I-am believed) her trauma will be used as proof she cannot be trusted on the issue.
It may be insinuated that she enjoyed it.
4: Minimise the problem; personalise it
If there is violence, it is just a few men that are bad apples.
Strange how these bloody bad apples go into their millions when it comes to the sex trade and it’s consumers. Insinuate that if she knew better about judging ‘clients’, if she knew what the signs were, she may have avoided the bad apples.
5: Say she doesn’t get the rules
That many survivors have come from other forms of male violence, such as rape or child abuse, and may be confused or misread the normal sexual exchanges that make up the sex trade as violence.
Like being told not understanding the rules of rough sex or s/m, like being told that when shooting porn it is ok to have sex that may disgust you it just pushing boundaries.
Sometimes, it is told to survivors that porn/violent sex may cure them of their past abuses. That is a lie that can draw many women/girls in. The survivor’s very experience of sexual violence can be used against her. Because of her experiences, the survivor is told that she cannot understand what consensual sex is- and that she has been having it all this time. The only cure, they will say, is to live it over, again and again and again. Until she is deadened, hardened, more than she thought possible, until she denies her own right to bodily intregrity. Yeah, a ‘cure’ alright!
6: The evil feminists have manipulated her!
Saying that the survivor has influenced by others to say her “lies” about the sex trade. This could be radical feminists, religious groups, wanting to hide the truth from new friends that she was “happy”. She will painted as right-wing, a rabid feminist, a prude, can’t get a man too ugly, mentally unstable, does it for fame.
She cannot have a mind of her own.
7: Deliberately remain ignorant
A survivor must never believed unless she give complete and irrefutable evidence of what she says.
Nothing is said that it almost impossible to have have evidence, when all the rapes and violence are made invisible by force of the sex trade.
It is made invisible and made into just “part of the job” – so must women would not think or dare to complain. Make it part of her contract; she has to do it. If she doesn’t have the court papers to prove the abuse, it didn’t happen. Violence becomes normalised, it’s what she’s there to suffer, it’s part of the job. We all have parts of our jobs we don’t like. Why are you complaining?
Demand the evidence that she will never be able to supply.
8: Make it all about you
The writer will make sure the survivor knows that whatever she says, it’s always really a personal insult to the writer. Everything the survivor comments on, every little negative detail is designed to ruin the writer’s life, destroy his/her sexual pleasure, stop him/her doing whatsoever s/he wants. The writer takes it personally, demands the survivor’s space, time and sympathy. The writer will shout and scream and yell about how unfair it all is, demand equal space in the discussion. The writer demands attention, demands precedence, demands the survivor to concede.
9: Inviting allies to join the party
After making it all about themselves, the writer may appeal to others, to make it all about them as well. The selfish bitch is trying to ruin everything! Make sure they know they can tear her down too. The writer will gleefully allow abusive men to publish their nasty comments under the everlasting aegis of ‘free speech’, which the writer holds above human dignity and the physical and mental integrity of women. The men will put her in her place, even if you can’t. Encourage your friends to comment, invite them to insult, deride and torment the survivor; allow them to do the dirty work for you.
When the survivor refuses to give in to the writer’s more subtle abuse, the writer will go in for the direct attack. They will insinuate that the survivor has asked for it, for she has not answered the writer’s supposedly valid criticisms, has not provided proof (or anything the writer will condescend to accept as proof), has not responded, is rude, has not given the writer exactly what s/he wants. Then, the writer will smirk, the gloves are off, and she totally asked for whatever abuse comes her way.
10: War without end
The writer will continue 1-9 over and over and over again. Neither decency nor self-respect will stop him/her. S/he will make sure it never ends, will bully and torment until s/he identifies another enemy.