Showing posts sorted by relevance for query types. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query types. Sort by date Show all posts

Friday, January 21, 2022

review of Radical Feminism by Finn Mackay

Finn Mackay has a lot to say about sex work in her book. Before we come on to that I want to tell you about her attitude to political lesbianism and celibacy. Radical Feminists often say that women should become lesbians: it doesn't mean having sex with women but it does mean definitely not having sex with men.

I've always suspected that this means that most of them don't have sex with anyone, they are celibate. They are trying to stop men and women from having sex together, and this is their main motivation in wanting to ban sex work. It's not that they are full of compassion for sex workers and wish to end their suffering.

Let us have a look at what is the clearest explanation of how political lesbianism usually means celibacy. Page 67.

"Contrary to much rumour since, the paper was not suggesting that women should simply pursue same-sex sexual activity. It was about the political choice to dedicate one's life to women. In fact, in the paper, the Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group clearly reassured heterosexuals that the lesbian bit is not compulsory, and that celibacy is always an option."

The idea of heterosexual lesbians is an interesting one. Particularly as they are always telling us about reality and fiction. It is a fiction that a man can become a woman, it is not reality, so they tell us. Considering that most people are heterosexual, then most political lesbians would be celibate. Like the nuns of Ruhama they want to stop men and women fornicating. Ruhama campaigned for the Nordic model in Ireland.

The paper she is referring to is 'Political Lesbianism' by the Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group which was led by Sheila Jeffreys. Jeffreys wrote "all feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women." 

Mackay explains that there are in fact four different types of feminist. The Radicals and the Revolutionaries, who are similar. Then there are the Liberals and the Socialists. I don't think this includes Third Wave feminists, who she doesn't have much time for.

Mackay quotes the opinion of an activist about sex work: "It is a form of exploitation, slavery: and a very specific one. I don't like the red umbrellas one bit." Page 207. Slaves don't get paid, neither do they choose their work or how they work. Sex work is the opposite of that: they are paid more than most people, and they do what they do in preference to the alternatives, having a great deal of autonomy in how they do it. Of course, there is modern slavery within sex work just as there is modern slavery within other types of work.

Mackay writes that so many feminists oppose prostitution because "they are against the presumption of a male right to sexual access to women's bodies."  Page 208. I don't have a right to have sex with any sex worker, she can turn me down if I don't meet her criteria. Lots of sex work involves a masseur using her hands not just for massage but to bring her client to orgasm. Is that 'sexual access to women's bodies'? If not, then presumably she doesn't have a problem with it. Except of course she does because they always have a problem with sex between men and women, even in marriage.

She writes that under the Nordic model 'women are not criminalised'. She also writes that 'Any such legal move must go alongside a large and dedicated financial investment in both harm-minimisation and exit services ... ' (page 210). She doesn't know that women are arrested in Nordic model countries for brothel keeping just like in Britain. Women are evicted from their homes and deported. The promised exit services don't materialise and the authorities don't like anyone giving them condoms.

She doesn't distinguish between legalisation and decriminalisation. She writes that the ECP (English Collective of Prostitutes) and the IUSW (International Union of Sex Workers) advocate the New Zealand model. The ECP 'favour small owner-operated ventures over larger big business brothel chains.' Page 211. The big business chains are thriving in New Zealand though, she writes, and there was a planning application for a 15-storey brothel. Well, that's not true.

She writes that legalisation would result in a bigger demand and more women involved in prostitution. She also writes that there will be an illegal sector. Page 212. However, in New Zealand there was not an expansion of prostitution after decriminalisation.

There is no reason why exit services should not still exist under decriminalisation. If a factory worker wants to retrain to become an office worker they should be helped to do that. If a sex worker wants to retrain they should be helped too. They should be offered advice about debt, benefits and housing. For the minority who take drugs they should be offered rehab.

A sex worker is not a commodity. She is not like a bale of cotton that I can take home with me and later sell. She is offering a service, like millions of other people.

There is no reason why sex work needs to be more dangerous than other forms of work. It isn't true that 'the average age of entry into prostitution worldwide estimated at around only 14 years old.' Page 211. There is no credible evidence that the Nordic model reduces the amount of prostitution or the number of murders of prostitutes.

She goes on to write about 'markedly gendered' and 'structural inequalities' as if these phrases mean anything. They 'cannot be overlooked' she writes, without spelling out precisely what she means.

Below I have quoted from her book and replied to what she has written:-

Page 217. "To put it bluntly, being a builder does not involve making one's body sexually available to one's employers; the same is true of journalists, academics, waiters etc."

She is trying here to say that sex work is different from any other type of work. The only thing that she can come up with is that sex work has distinguishing characteristics. All types of work have their own distinguishing characteristics though. Working in an undertakers is the only work where you have to handle dead bodies: that doesn't mean that in essence it is not work.

Page 217. "But the debate around prostitution cannot and should not be shut down by turning to the refrain that all work is like prostitution - because it patently is not; and the great majority of people understand this."

In what way is all work not like prostitution, or prostitution not like all work? People have customers, they negotiate a price for a service. They choose their form of work by looking at how much it pays, how long it takes to earn money, and what it is required for them to do. I can see how celibates will never be able to accept this.

Page 220. "No feminist I know is arguing for those in prostitution to be criminalised."

She obviously hasn't read the web site of Nordic Model Now! They say quite clearly that they do not want the repeal of the law that criminalises women for running a brothel. This is the main law used to arrest women in prostitution. That law always stays in place when a country adopts the Nordic model. There is in addition the law that gets sex workers evicted from their homes.

Page 220. "It would be nonsensical to suggest that all those people - women, young people, men - earning an income through prostitution are forced or coerced in the bluntest sense. However, the fact that there are probably some people successfully navigating the 'sex industry' without any negative experiences, for both the love and the money of it, should not negate the fact that research suggests this is far from the experience of the majority."

There is no evidence that most sex workers are coerced, either in Britain or around the world. Some sex workers have had a negative experience. That is the same as in other types of work. Sex workers can minimise these experiences by working together. Another way is to end up with a limited number of regular clients. Some sex workers only see men that they have seen before, they don't have to advertise and they can refuse to see a man they don't like. When police raid a flat they arrest women who work together and confiscate their phones thus disrupting safe activity. 

Page 221. "It is usually acceptable to say that one is against trafficking, although some sex-industry lobby groups do try to suggest that it is extremely rare and they prefer to talk about 'migration for sex work'. Indeed reliable statistics are hard to find when dealing with an illegal trade where people are hidden or hiding and I do not deny that some government attempts at statistics can never be anything else than guesses."

There is a reason why experts on the subject of trafficking say it is rare and instead talk about 'migration for sex work'. Before George W Bush became president the word 'trafficking' had to by definition mean coercion or deception. He put Evangelical Christians in positions of authority and they decided to change the definition. They didn't want to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary sex work.

The UK decided to do the same. The rest of the world didn't. So it's not surprising that experts don't use the US and UK definition and instead stick to the Geneva Protocol. Below I quote two paragraphs from a recent Daily Mail article by Julie Bindel:-

"A few years ago, I attended a conference in Vienna about prostitution. I was one of only four delegates out of 185 who sat on a panel declaring we were troubled by the vile trade at all. The others held the view that all aspects of the sex industry should be decriminalised."

"Progress on the issue has been slow in recent years, however — at least in part because the language around prostitution has been unhelpfully sanitised. The trade in women has been cleaned up as ‘sex work'. Pimps are often described as ‘managers' and, especially within academia, the trafficking of women into prostitution has been rewritten as ‘migration for sex work'."

We should listen to what the academics say, not Radical/Revolutionary Feminists such as Finn Mackay or Julie Bindel.

Page 222. "it is not surprising then that global research finds that around 90 per cent of those in it would leave if they had the economic freedom to do so (Farley et al 2003)."

The 'global research' she mentions is not lots of researchers around the world. It all comes from Melissa Farley who is a Radical Feminist. I have dealt with this particular piece of research here.

Page 223. "It is time to envision a society, and a world, without prostitution. This may sound idealistic, but the theory matters, the direction of travel matters, the aspiration matters, because if we can't envision such a society, then we cannot even begin to build it."

Page 224. "This is not natural, it is not inevitable, and it can be reduced, maybe ended; at the very least it can be challenged, rather than glamourised, normalised and condoned.

The real question about prostitution is the question of men's rights and, whether we as a society believe that men have the right to buy and sell women's bodies or whether they do not."

Page 224. "Imagine if every country stood up and said that this is not acceptable, as Sweden has done, stood up and said that every woman is worth more than what some man will pay for her and that we will criminalise rather than condone men who assume the right to buy the body of another human being."

There is no reason to believe that the Nordic model reduces the amount of prostitution. They have manipulated the statistics to make it appear so. The official report into the Northern Ireland law says that there has been an increase. The statistics from Sweden show an increase in the proportion of Swedish men who are active sex buyers and an increase in the proportion of Swedish women who have sold sex at some time in their life. They also show a decrease in the proportion of Swedish men who have bought sex at some time in their life, the widely reported drop from 13% to 8%, followed by an increase.

If it were possible to end prostitution, that would be one thing. But to burden sex workers and make their lives more difficult with no end in sight is not something we should contemplate.

I have never bought a woman's body. Trying to link it to slavery doesn't make any sense. I don't believe that women are only good for sex - only worth 'what some man will pay for her'. This explains more about why punters are hated - people are being told that we buy women and that we think that women have no value apart from sex. This kind of hatred can only come from a repressed sexuality.

If I go to see a doctor, and it turns out to be a female doctor, do you think that I would say 'I don't want to see you, you're a woman, you're only good for sex'? Of course not. I have respect for women, and I have respect for sex workers.

Page 225. "This is despite the changes in the Policing and Crime Act 2009 under the last Labour government, which were indeed a step forward, for the first time directing the eyes of the law onto those who fuel prostitution - punters. This victory was a result of the tireless campaigning by women's groups, led by the feminist, abolitionist 'Demand Change' campaign."

She must be referring to the law that can criminalise a man if he pays for sex with a woman who has been coerced or deceived, even if he didn't know. In some parts of the country no man has been convicted. The law was based on a false idea that most women in prostitution are coerced or deceived. It's not surprising that celibates like Finn Mackay believe that.

According to this study "section 14 had not been used by the majority (81%) of police forces across England and Wales". According to MP Fiona Mactaggart "In the first year of that being law there were 49 prosecutions—I was a bit disappointed because I did not think that was very many—with the men being found guilty in 43 cases. The following year there were 17 prosecutions, with 12 guilty verdicts, and the year after there were nine prosecutions, with six guilty verdicts".

So it's hardly some kind of great victory for the prohibitionists. They obviously thought that it was going to be their foot in the door. However, they are just wasting everybody's time. We would have to be mad to introduce the Nordic model in Britain.


Tuesday, July 26, 2022

review of The Case Against the Sexual Revolution by Louise Perry

Chapter 7 of this book is about prostitution and I will limit myself to commenting on this. I will deal with three points that she makes. Otherwise it would be a very long post.

Right at the start of the book we have the idea that an archaeologist will say 'a pit of newborn babies' bones was how to spot a brothel'. One wonders what this is to do with the modern world. If you are interested in the remains of newborn babies in the modern world and not the ancient you will find them in great quantities in the grounds of a Magdalene laundry. The Magdalene laundries in Ireland where young women and girls were incarcerated. The laundries that would still be there were it not for the changes in attitudes in society which brought about the sexual revolution.

In Chapter 7 on page 147 Louise Perry writes this:-

"Decriminalisation or legalisation of the sex industry increases the demand for commercial sex. In countries that have adopted these legal models, the proportion of the male population who have ever bought sex is higher, and the sex tourism industry is larger. Given that the number of women who will willingly enter the sex trade is small, when demand grows, unwilling women must be sought out in order to meet it."

Decriminalisation and legalisation are two different legal models. I support the former not the latter. The only country that has adopted decriminalisation is New Zealand, although Belgium has recently adopted it too. In New Zealand demand has not increased. Some people say that it has but that is not true. I don't know if it has increased in the Netherlands or Germany. I have not seen evidence of that and Perry offers no evidence.

It is interesting that she uses the phrase 'the proportion of the male population who have ever bought sex'. From my analysis of statistics from Sweden I know that there is a difference between the proportion of men who are active sex buyers and the proportion who have ever bought sex. The proportion of men who were active sex buyers before the Nordic model was 1.3%, after it was introduced it was 1.8%. The proportion of men who had ever bought sex dropped from about 13% to about 8% in the same period.

That is because the proportion who have ever done it will change as older generations become too old to participate in surveys. The cut off age is 74 years old. It will depend on factors such as whether the country was at war or whether they had large scale conscription decades ago. It won't depend on recent changes in law. The proportion of men who are active sex buyers will probably change because of changes in the law but will certainly change because of a financial crisis when men have less money to spend.

When demand grows the existing sex workers make more money. They have more customers and each customer will pay more. It doesn't mean that women will be forced to become sex workers. They may be more incentivised to become sex workers, but that is a different matter.

On page 145 Perry quotes from sociologist Elizabeth Bernstein. These quotes however don't support her assertion that well-paid sex workers are 'highly unrepresentative'. Bernstein quite correctly states that there are two ends of the continuum. There are well-paid sex workers at one end of the continuum and homeless women addicted to crack or heroin who are pimped at the other. That doesn't mean that there are only two types of sex worker, and it doesn't mean that the vast majority are the pimped drug addicts.

In fact we know that drug addicts have never been more than about 15% of the total number of sex workers. That is what Professor Belinda Brooks-Gordon has said*. So does that mean that 85% or more of sex workers are the well-paid sort? That is what you would have to believe if you believed that there are only two types of sex worker. Far from being 'tourists' ie highly unrepresentative, these well paid 'call-girls, escorts, exotic dancers and masseuses' would be the norm.

We know that's not the case though. There are many different categories of sex worker. It isn't true that most working-class women in sex work are drug addicts or pimped. Women who come to Britain from abroad are rarely drug addicts. Most white British working class prostitutes are not drug addicts. There is no 'prostituted class'.

There was a revealing television series called Taken: Hunting the Sex Traffickers. Although they were trying to say that traffickers are evil, they didn't manage to do that. One of the Brazilian sex workers had been arrested and deported. They showed her at the airport returning to Britain to resume her life as a sex worker. She said she wanted money for university. Often women come to Britain so that they can invest in their future.

There was an older Brazilian woman who spoke Portuguese and English. Her job was to answer the phone. Every time she directed a punter to one of the sex workers she got £10. The sex workers got £60 or £70. This older woman was prosecuted for being a pimp and a trafficker.

There are thousands of women in Britain from abroad who use their hands for massage and then sometimes use their hands to bring their clients to orgasm. That is all they do. This is the most visible form of prostitution. In the nearest city to me, Liverpool, there are several of these establishments in the centre and even more further out. They are not drug addicts, and often they are saving their money to invest in their future back home.

When Elizabeth Bernstein was writing about pimped drug addicts, it is important to remember that this in America. In America men are prosecuted for paying for sex. Women are prosecuted for selling sex. Yet still prostitution exists in America and is widespread. So how on earth does Louise Perry think that the Nordic model is going to get rid of prostitution? How does she think that she is going to save the drug addicted women of the world?

Drug addicts are helped by rehab. That is the way to help them. Not handing them ASBOs. Not trying to drive away their clients. Not putting all sex work in the hands of organised crime. Benefits and housing are important too. I support spending more money on rehab, benefits and housing. I support welfare workers who ask sex workers what they need. I know that this doesn't happen in Nordic model countries. That is what they promise, help to exit, but as Dr Geoffrey Shannon stated in the official report into the Nordic model in Ireland this has not happened.

The homicide rate for drug addicts is higher. The mortality rate due to drugs or alcohol is higher. Because some prostitutes are drug addicts that can make it seem that prostitution is more dangerous than it really is. Not letting prostitutes work together doesn't help. Not letting them work together means they work alone or for a pimp. That needs to change. It hasn't changed in countries that have adopted the Nordic model.

I have written more about this book here.

*I can't remember where Professor Belinda Brooks-Gordon wrote this. She is Professor of Forensic Psychology and Public Policy, Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck University. In one of Dr Brooke Magnanti's books she wrote that the estimate is between 5% and 20%. On this page the estimate is between 3% and 25%. We can say that the proportion of sex workers who are street based and drug addicted can't be more than a quarter. Especially when you think that some street based sex workers aren't addicts. It certainly isn't true what Janice Turner wrote in the Times this Saturday "The vast majority of prostitutes ... were abused as children, lured in by pimp-boyfriends and muffle their pain with drugs or alcohol".

UPDATE: I have found the statistic. Apparently Belinda Brooks-Gordon said "Lots of people mistakenly think that drug addicts form the majority of people in the sex industry. They do not. They are only a tiny proportion. And on-street prostitution only accounts for about 10 to 15 per cent of all prostitution. Decriminalisation makes it safer for people. It could be made no different to any other forms of business - with age guidelines, health and safety rules and zoning areas."

It was reported in this newspaper article.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

interesting research into cocaine and prostitution

If you go here http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102197200.html you can see some interesting research to do with cocaine use among different groups of prostitutes, including escorts. I have emboldened the most interesting parts.

OBJECTIVE: To determine patterns of cocaine use in relation to HIV risks. METHODS: Two groups of prostitutes were interviewed about drug use: 86 participants in a clinic study of HIV/STD risk (gp.A); 64 participants in a non-clinic study on the streets of West London (gp.B). Follow-up interviews were conducted with a sub-group of 46 clinic attenders (gp.A1) about cocaine use in relation to sexual behaviour. RESULTS: In a standardised interview of risk behaviour, 50 of 86 women (58%) in gp.A reported ever using cocaine. Twenty-nine (34%) reported current use (past 3 months); 6 of these reported use of freebase cocaine/crack. In gp.A1, 19 of 46 women (41%) reported current use of cocaine, 14 at work and 6 of these only ever at work. Cocaine use was reported by women working on the streets and in hotels, through escort agencies and madames, in flats and saunas and through private referral. Reports suggest an increase during 1989 in cocaine-bookings (where cocaine use is a condition of commercial sex). Two of 23 women reported unsafe sex exclusively in association with cocaine-bookings. In gp.B, 15 of 64 women (23%) reported current cocaine use, of whom 12 used freebase cocaine or crack. CONCLUSION: Cocaine use is common in all types of prostitution and reportedly increasing at work in relation to client demand, where it may be associated with HIV risks. In these groups, crack use cannot be analysed independently since the terms freebase and crack were interchangeable and reportedly linked with other forms of cocaine use in all cases. These results indicate a different pattern of cocaine use in the London sex industry at the current time than that reported elsewhere.
This research is saying that all types of prostitues - including high-class prostitutes - are likely to be using cocaine. No one is surprised that street girls use cocaine or crack cocaine, but many will be surprised that escorts do too. I am not sure what 'cocaine-bookings' are, I will try to find out more about this.

Monday, July 27, 2009

bleak future for street girls

I like to read the PunterNet forum and sometimes I contribute. There has been a thread recently called 'Street girls'. I was going to make a contribution but I didn't get round to it and now it has been closed. There were a lot of snide remarks and it dealt with issues that have been dealt with before by myself and others in previous threads, so it wasn't a high priority for me. It was interesting how much hatred some people have for men who have sex with street girls. I think there were contributors who were not involved in prostitution but were either extreme feminists or religious.

Extreme feminists and religious people have a lot in common, although they would not like to admit it. They both take an ideological approach, see everything in black-and-white terms, and don't want to learn anything because they think they know it all already. Ideological approaches always end up harming the people that they say they want to help. They are all hypocrites because if they really wanted to help they would first try to understand what the problems are.

Now it has been decided that there will be no more discussions on the PunterNet forum of the subject of the street scene. I predict that this will make the PunterNet site less credible in the eyes of the general public. Many people will have thought “They discuss prostitution but at least they are willing to show the dark side as well as its more acceptable side”. Now they are not willing to discuss the dark side. They want to make out that it is like Secret Diary of a Call Girl. Hiding the truth will not make anything better.

There were many points raised in this thread that I would like to address. I am no longer able to contribute to the thread because it has been closed. I am no longer able to start a new thread because the subject of the street scene has been banned. So I have to do it here. There were 2 points that I thought were the most important. I will address them both in this posting and then if I can be bothered I can address other points in later postings.

Someone made the point that street girls have enormous problems and that people like me are adding to them. It is not me who is adding to their problems, it is people who want to ban things and drive them further underground.

I have mentioned Amanda Austin, the local resident who campaigned for prostitutes to be removed from Tooting Bec Common. Now it seems that she has achieved her aims. I have only seen 2 prostitutes there this year. This is probably more due to the activities of Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith than Amanda Austin.

According to Amanda Austin the Common was awash with used condoms and drugs paraphernalia. This was a lie. Tooting Bec Common is a big park and the prostitutes restricted their activities to one small area of the park. The only used condoms that could be seen were in particular areas of the undergrowth. The only drugs paraphernalia I have ever seen in several years of going there was an improvised crack pipe. It was there for many weeks, which just shows that what rubbish could be seen was an accumulation of many weeks-worth.

I often wonder if Amanda Austin and her fellow campaigners ever thing about what has happened to these women, as I do. Perhaps they think that they have all given up drugs. I don't think they care, there seemed to be a lot of hostility to the women from residents, although of course they are always willing to shed crocodile tears if it helps them get their way.

When I first started going to the Common about 9 years ago, there were many women there of different types. I would say 3 different types. There were women who occasionally went to the Common when they had rent to pay or a bill, or because of delays in getting benefits. There were other women who drank or took some drugs but were not addicts, or who would not have considered themselves addicts but recreational users. The third group were the hardened drug addicts who came to the Common because it was a safer and easier option for them than getting into cars at 2 or 3 in the morning in New Park Road or Brixton Hill.

What has happened to these women is different in each case.

The first group will be having even more problems because of the economic downturn (caused by Harriet Harman and her chums) and they will be getting evicted or sitting in the dark or not having gas to cook their children food (Ms Harman is getting 'evicted' soon).

The second group will be shoplifting and committing other crimes. Perhaps the men in their lives will have to do more burglaries. Or maybe selling cocaine to kiddies (there has recently been a big rise in cocaine use among young people). So if Amanda Austin gets burgled and her teenage daughter gets a cocaine addiction like Daniella Westbrook it should not come as a big surprise.

And then the third group will be getting into cars at 2 or 3 in the morning in New Park Road or Brixton Hill and maybe sometimes never be seen again. They are likely to face injury. So I wonder if Harriet and Amanda and their fellow campaigners are proud of themselves about what they have achieved.

Another possibility is the more attractive and more organised women in groups 1 and 2 decide to become full-time prostitutes. Which I'm sure is not what Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith originally intended.

The woman who made the posting that I am replying to finished by writing 'maybe it's time to go away and rethink your moral standards...?'. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that has occupied the minds of some of the most intelligent people for centuries. They have not come to any conclusions but they always stick to certain rules.

People should base their morality on thinking instead of emotion. They should be informed about issues and be willing to share information and discuss facts and opinions, without being sarcastic or insulting. They should not try to shut people up, either by intimidating them or trying to stop their contribution to the debate.

They should try to understand the consequences of their opinions and actions. If they can see that the consequences of their actions or opinions have increased human suffering then they should not continue to claim that they are altruistic. They should realize that they are not altruistic, or that they are not altruistic enough to be willing to spend a little time listening to others who know more than they do and to think about things a bit. If they are unwilling to see the consequences of their actions, as I think is the case with Amanda Austin, then they are immoral people.

How is it that so many women can be happy to bring so much misery to other women?

The other post that I want to reply to today was made by a man whose contribution was well intentioned but misguided. He said that in a job he had he encountered a street girl who told him that 'she felt that she was worthless and would never amount to anything more in life so took drugs to numb the pain she felt'. This is the sort of thing that drug addicts say to make people feel sorry for them.

The fact is that if you take a drug like cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin or crystal meth you will like it and want more. You are likely to become addicted. It has nothing to do with self-confidence or feelings of worthlessness or whether you spent your teenage years in a children's home or were abused as a child.

People think that addiction will not happen to them. They think “Well, I never lived in a children's home and I don't have feelings of worthlessness, so I'm not going to end up as a street girl”. This is a fatal (often literally fatal) error of thinking. If you think that street girls are only a certain type of unfortunate individual then you are missing an important truth.

Last year on the Common I met a woman in her thirties (I guess) called Alison. She was from Dublin. I asked her if she took crack and she said she did. I asked her if she took smack and she said she did, but only smoked it, not injected it. She said that she used to run a restaurant in Ireland. I told her that I had never taken drugs. She said don't, if you take it and you like it it can change your life. This is the sort of thing I have seen again and again in the years that I have been going to the Common. I have never seen a 'teen runaway'.

The author of this post also said that he would have liked to help this woman but she would not consider rehab. There is a reason for that. The reason for that is that the life of a crack addict is a life of much pleasure as well as pain. You may not want to believe that but people who know about drug addicts know that they are getting too much out of it to give it all up. That might sound like a crass thing to say but it is an important truth to understand. They want to party all the time.

In any case psychological opinion is changing about drug addiction. I had a CBT therapist who had worked with drug addicts. She did not see them as victims. I told her about my involvement with street girls, and that some people see me as an abuser. She could not understand this. She did not see me as an abuser, and none of the street girls have seen me as an abuser, so why should I pay any attention to dickheads?

Of course there are abusers on the street scene. Just like in any kind of prostitution or in any sphere of life. There are men who like to have women under their control and to harm them. But I have always listened to street girls and tried to help them. Just because I fuck them (occasionally) doesn't mean that I can't care about what happens to them. You might say that I am pretending that I am benefiting them and am deluded, but it is not me who is pretending to have their best interests at heart and is deluded.

There will be more abuse of street girls now. Read this from this site http://www.scot-pep.org.uk/

Since the kerb-crawling legislation came in, nobody’s drug dependency or rent arrears or benefit delays have magically cleared up overnight. Women are still working on the streets, but with many of their regular clients avoiding the scene for fear of legal repercussions, they are seeing a greater proportion of unpleasant and violent clients, with a rise in requests for sex without a condom and services at insultingly low prices. Some are resigned to being out all night, since business is slow, they still need to make money, and in some cases they haven’t a hope of meeting their curfews in homeless accommodation. Clients want them to leave their traditional areas and meet them elsewhere, so that the clients won’t be targeted by police; as a consequence sex workers are working in greater isolation with a significant threat to their personal safety.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

replies to comments

Before I proceed I want to quickly reply to 3 comments that have recently been made to the post that I did on January 29 this year titled Street-girls, escorts and cocaine.

The first comment seemed to be accusing me of trying to single out prostitutes as a group when there are other groups like health care professionals who may have just as much of an involvement in recreational drug use. I would have thought it would be people who are working in the media or the financial sector who are probably most likely to snort some cocaine on a Saturday night. One of the themes of my blog has been that prostitutes are not so different from other types of people, and different types of prostitute are not so different from each other.

I'm sure that most doctors would say that they don't ever take drugs and they don't know anyone who does. And they would be truthful. Most doctors probably would not snort cocaine at a party. But that is irrelevant to the truth that many doctors and other health care professionals do exactly that. I'm sure that there are many prostitutes who can honestly say that they do not take drugs and do not know any other prostitutes who do. That doesn't mean anything.

What I am saying is that people in the media, the financial sector or health care professionals often snort a bit of cocaine or something else once a week or once a month at a party. Especially if they are young. Escorts are no different from that, except that they are more likely to do it.

Who is more likely to take drugs, a doctor who has worked hard all his or her life dedicated to his or her career, or someone who sucks cocks for money? Obviously the latter. It is doctors whose money is 'earned the hard way'.

On different forums I have seen what escorts have written about their drug use. One woman, a regular contributor to the PunterNet forum, said that she liked crystal meth. You can easily get addicted to cocaine, as Daniella Westbrook and so many others have shown, but crystal meth is so much more dangerous. So maybe you should think about that before you hand over your money to an escort.

Saturday, January 5, 2013

guide to types of women in Soho walk ups

1. The Enthusiastic Amateur
If you go with this girl you will either have the best experience ever, or the worst. If she likes you, you may get the best service. If you are young, attractive and outgoing, and willing to spend more than the minimum amount, there's little that she won't do for you. You might get oral sex without a condom. If she doesn't like you, then she might not bother with you hardly at all. She might give a bad service, and have an attitude 'What are you going to do about it?'. She can be immature like a petulant teenager. She can also be a bit mad.
  • examples of this type in Soho today: AnnaAngela
  • examples of this type in the past: Jazmin (aka Kim)
2. The Time-server
This girl saves up her money to buy her house back home, and is willing to give a good service, but will only do the minimum for the money given. Anything different you might want to do costs extra. If you touch her on the bum she won't like it, especially if you haven't paid yet. She probably spends her hours fantasizing about her dream home back in Eastern Europe. She's usually quite passive, not at all raunchy. She can be sweet and innocent.
  • examples of this type in Soho today: Rebecca
  • examples of this type in the past: Nelly
3. The Totally-committed
This type knows that there's not much point in being there unless she maximizes her earning potential. She will go out of her way to please every customer. She will smile at him, she will flirt with him, and perform a range of activities sometimes at no extra cost. She wants those return customers, she wants those reviews and reports that will enhance her reputation.

She can take one look at a man and determine what type he is and what it is that he needs. To some men she will be foul-mouthed, to others she will be well spoken. She can give a Porn Star Experience (PSE) or a Girlfriend Experience (GFE) and usually you won't have to tell her what it is that you want.

Even towards the end of a 12 hour shift she is bright and perky. She is always professional, like a businesswoman. She might even have a business on the side or own property. Sometimes you don't know what she is thinking. She says she remembers you from last time, but does she really? She says she likes you, but does she really? She can seem a bit robotic sometimes.
  • examples of this type in Soho today: MeenaAlena
  • examples of this type in the past: Natalie

4. The Pleasure-seeker
This one enjoys her work. Not necessarily because she is a nymphomaniac. It could be she likes flattery or the buzz of meeting lots of people every day. She likes to talk about sex and she might like you to pleasure her. She is the most reliably raunchy type, although types 1, 3 and 6 can be raunchy too, but unlike type 1 she's professional enough and emotionally mature enough to give a good time to any man who comes through the door.
  • examples of this type in Soho today: EvaAngie, Yaya
  • examples of this type in the past: Paris

5. The Girl Next Door
She's not really happy being there. She'll go through the motions, although if she's in a bad mood she can be no fun. She likes to make people happy, and tries to do so, but can't always succeed. She might try doing something else for a while, but often she comes back to it because she doesn't have the determination to succeed at anything else.
  • examples of this type in Soho today: Sandy
  • examples of this type in the past: Andra

6. The Real Woman
This type likes to make people happy. She doesn't just lie back and expect you to get on with it. She encourages you with smiles, maybe opening her legs wide and moving her pelvis in a very seductive manner. When you're on top of her she might whisper things in your ear to encourage you. If you lack confidence then she might talk to you about it and say you shouldn't worry so much.
  • examples of this type in Soho today: Monica
  • examples of this type in the past: Mimi (Polish Mimi)

Monday, December 21, 2009

day out in Soho

Would you pay £100 to have sex with a woman like this?


Or would you prefer to pay £20 to have sex with a woman like this?

I was walking along the road that I live in and I saw a telephone box with a hand-written card inside. The message said that if I wanted Polish girls I should phone the number. I had never seen such a message before in my part of London, only in central London, so I was intrigued.

I phoned the number and a woman said that if I texted her my email address then she would send me photographs and details of the women available. I got the email today but I'm not going to pay a minimum of £100 to see an ordinary-looking middle-aged woman when I can see women in Soho like the one in the second photograph.

The woman in the second photo is Meena. She looks like Alesha Dixon but ten years younger. She is Indian, but she looks as if she could be mixed race. I think she looks a bit middle-eastern too. Meena charges £20 per 10 minutes in Soho, but she charges considerably more doing escort work. She advertises on adultwork.com, where she is known an Anisha. What fantastic legs.

I have had two sessions with classy escort types recently. Last week I decided to go and see Angie again. I had seen Angie twice before but it must be a couple of years between each visit. Angie works from the same flat at 4 Old Compton Street as Paris on different days.

I got another photo of Paris.


I was prompted to go and see Angie because men rave about her on the Soho thread on the punternet.com forum. Someone said she was giving up prostitution so we had till Christmas to see her. Someone said that he liked her partly because she allows deep fingering. I had tried to see her a couple of weeks before but there was a notice on the door saying busy come back later. She gets a lot of bookings. I did go back later, and phoned the flat, but didn't get to see her that day.

She was wearing a sexy Christmassy red dress with white furry bits. There was a Christmas tree in the room. I lay on the bed and she knelt beside me. I asked her to give me a hand-job. She was naked and I put my hands beetween her legs. Gradually I got my finger deeper and deeper into her pussy until I had one finger all the way into her vagina. I didn't try for two fingers, she seemed too nice a girl for that.

She got me erect, but I didn't come. Ten minutes is not usually enough time for me to come, but I could tell that even if I had had more time it wouldn't have worked for me. There are more beautiful women in Soho than Angie and more raunchy ones.

Angie isn't giving it up completely, she will still be working Mondays. She will be mostly seeing her regulars by appointment. The maid told that Angie would give me a card, but she didn't. I would imagine she doesn't want to encourage men who pay the minimum amount and then want to finger her.

Since Angie I have been to see Oriana in Greek Street. She looked stunning in a short blue dress. A tall beautiful girl. Younger and prettier than Angie. I also saw Ritzy. She is very raunchy and let me put two fingers into her pussy.

The other escort type I have seen this year is Meena. I saw her a couple of months ago and it was very pleasurable. She is beautiful and friendly. I mentioned to her that she reminded me of a woman that I know who is half Maltese. Meena asked me about her, asked what would I like to do to her. I said I wanted her to put her arms around my neck and her legs around my waist. I was standing naked and Meena was naked with her arms around my neck and her legs around my waist. I sat on the edge of the bed with her on my lap. It felt good. My ten minutes was up but I decided to see Meena again, only this time pay more money.

The next week I went to see Meena again. I wanted to spend twenty minutes with her this time, so I was expecting to pay £40, double the amount of last time. I didn't realise that it is common practice in Soho to charge more than double the amount for double the time. This is not the case at my favourite place, 8 Greek Street. So I was a bit confused, it didn't seem to make sense. But I didn't want to spoil the mood and she's worth £50 so I handed her the money.

There was also some confusion because you also pay for what service you want. I said that I wanted a hand-job, because I know this is the most likely way for me to come to orgasm. She said that will be just £20 then. When I said I wanted to spend 20 minutes with her she said I could have her 20 minute special which includes oral, for £50.

She spent some time trying on different costumes, a school-girl one and an Indian one. Then she put a condom on and gave me some oral. She was reclining next to me with her head away from me and she open her legs. I stroked the inside of her thigh and then moved my hand towards her pussy. When I felt her pussy it was very wet. I though either she's horny or she's put some kind of lubricant in there.

I played with her clitoris and she seemed to really like that. After a few minutes she seemed to be having an orgasm. At one point I put my finger into her pussy. She took my cock out of her mouth, put my finger back on her clit and said "That's how I like it."

Now I like fantasy as much as anyone, and Meena is great for that. But when I don't know what is fantasy and what is reality then it makes me uneasy. I know prostitutes pretend to get turned on and have orgasms, but I'm not used to that. To most men what she did would have been big turn-on, but to me it was a bit of a turn-off.

That same afternoon I went to see Oriana. I hadn't seen her before so I was taking a bit of a chance. But when she walked into the room I thought my luck is in. She was wearing what looked a bit like a belly-dancer's costume. I gave her my £20, and she started wanking me. To my surprise I could feel that it was starting to work. When I started to orgasm I opened my eyes and looked up at Oriana kneeling on the bed beside me. She had a look on her face of mild displeasure, as if she was thinking "This is where it gets a bit icky".

I was very happy. The only other place that I'd had an orgasm in Soho was further up Greek Street with my favourite woman Ivy. And then only after about twenty minutes. Oriana doesn't pretend anything and neither does Ivy.

Oriana works one day a week in Soho. The sign said Iranian the first time I went there. Then they changed it to Persian, only they spelled it wrongly as 'Pursian'. She doesn't look Iranian, with her light hair and skin.

I guess she earns more money in Soho in one day than she would earn in a whole week in a factory. It's a strange little place where she works. Usually you go up some stairs but here you go down. It's a small room with a bed and a big black sofa. It shares its entrance with a clothes shop.

Oriana said she would dance for me for £30. So I can shag her for £20, but if I want her to dance for me it will cost £30. Can't see the logic in that. Like charging £50 for 20 minutes but only £20 for 10 minutes.

I don't usually think of Paris as being an escort type, but I suppose she is. Like Meena she is on adultwork.com and does escort work, and is at The Bunny Lounge (where she is known as Bambi). Meena and Angie seem more sophisticated, as well as a bit older. They have always seemed well spoken to me, but I think Meena can be as foul-mouthed and raunchy as anyone.

So I won't be seeing Angie again, I might see Meena again if I can think of a nice enough fantasy. I think I will see Oriana and Ritzy again, but most of all I want to see Ivy. I hope she comes back soon. (Lily turned out to be not so good). I want to see her lovely soft brown oriental eyes and skin.

Let's have another look at Meena's lovely legs. Imagine those around your waist. Click on the picture to see a bigger picture.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Are the prohibitionists in retreat?

Many people who would like to see prostitution banned seem to have changed tack recently. Instead of saying that the majority of women involved in prostitution are coerced in one way or another, with large numbers of women trafficked, they are now saying that it doesn't matter how many women are trafficked. They are not admitting that their statistics are false but as these statistics are discredited they are starting to say they are unimportant.

However, it seems to me that their entire argument is based on their false statistics, which is why they have always stated them so frequently.

The MP Denis MacShane had said that 25,000 women had been trafficked into Britain. After a poor performance on Newsnight where he was heavily criticised, he is now talking about 'a futile war of statistics'.

A new Association of Chief Police Officers report shows that the number of women trafficked is less than thought. Last year Dr Nick Mai produced research that showed some migrants prefer to work as sex workers because they earn more money and work fewer hours. It has recently been revealed that no men have been convicted and only 3 men cautioned since the introduction of the new law in Britain banning men from paying for sex with a coerced woman. The recent Pentameter 2 police operation failed to convict anyone of trafficking.

In October last year Nick Davies wrote two articles in The Guardian Inquiry fails to find single trafficker who forced anybody into prostitution (about Pentameter 2) and Prostitution and trafficking – the anatomy of a moral panic that seem to have caused quite a stir in the anti-trafficking world. The second one shows how the statistics on trafficking have been grossly inflated by some feminist and religious groups. Politicians such as Harriet Harman and Jaqui Smith who have used these false statistics to support bad legislation have now been removed from power.

Amid all the bad news for the prohibitionists was something that at first sight might seem a boost. In July of this year Julie Bindel wrote an article in The Guardian Legalising prostitution is not the answer that says a new report on the effectiveness of Swedish anti-prostitution laws shows that banning men from paying for sex is a good thing. The report said that the number of women involved in street prostitution in Sweden has halved whereas the number of women involved in street prostitution in Denmark and Norway have seen a 'sharp rise'. However, Norway has very similar laws to Sweden, so how can such laws be regarded as a success?

Now it turns out that the figures for Denmark are false. There has not been a sharp rise in street prostitution in Denmark.

The fact is that if we introduce a law to criminalize men who pay for sex in this country it could result in a sharp rise in street prostitution as it has in Norway. The best that could be hoped for is that half of street prostitutes will abandon their traditional red light districts. That is the message of the report on Swedish law.

Also, I would expect the number of women involved in street prostitution to have decreased by a lot more than just a half before the law could be judged a success. Just because street prostitutes aren't seen in their traditional red light districts doesn't mean they aren't still working. I have written more about this on my 'the issues' page on this blog.

Julie Bindel doesn't mention that Norway has similar laws to Sweden. She seems triumphant, but I think she is trying to bluff it out. She says there is no evidence that prostitution has been forced underground in Sweden, but it seems obvious that the lives of Swedish prostitutes has become more unpleasant and dangerous.

Looks like the 'academic consensus' of opinion on the subject that Bindel writes about in her article was correct after all.

To take the emotion out of the issue, it would be good to compare sex slavery to domestic slavery.

If it was true that most women who work as child minders or cleaners were trafficked into the country and coerced into doing this type of work, then it would make sense to ban people from having having child minders or cleaners. The people who use them could be criticised for encouraging a trade that causes misery. We know that there are some trafficked women in domestic slavery and yet it would seem absurd to want to ban people from having domestic help.

Much better to regulate it. This would be the best way to avoid abuse. To want to continue to criminalize many aspects of prostitution to help a tiny minority is wrong for two reasons; not only does it stop lots of women from being able to feed their families but it doesn't help coerced women. In fact it harms the coerced women. The prohibitionists are harming women. So to say that we need to continue to crack down on prostitution to help a tiny minority is wrong.

If you did believe that most women involved in prostitution are coerced, then it would be the traffickers and the pimps who make the profit from the sex industry. Cracking down on prostitution would harm their profits and make Britain less attractive for traffickers. Trafficking would decrease, and in time possibly stop.

If you believe that it is the women themselves who are making the money then cracking down on prostitution means they have to work harder for the money they need; working longer hours, having sex with more men, doing things they wouldn't usually do and don't want to do - such as oral sex without a condom.

That is why it does matter how many women are trafficked. It does matter what proportion of prostitutes are working for much the same reason as most of us are working or coerced into doing it. If you get it wrong, you harm some of the most vulnerable people in society and increase their problems, making worse the things you say you want to cure.

If you are opposed to prostitution, in the past it was possible to say only that you are opposed to trafficking. Who could have a problem with someone being opposed to trafficking? No one likes to think of sex slaves being raped 30 times a day (prostitutes don't have sex with 30 men a day - brothels just don't get that many customers). If prostitution=trafficking then you will get a lot of public support. They know that most people don't want prostitution banned. That is why their false statistics have always been so important to them.

Some people have an ideological opposition to prostitution, even if it occurs between consenting adults. Some feminists and some religious people. Ideological opposition is usually an attempt to justify a visceral hatred. Some feminists and some religious people have a visceral hatred of paid for sex just as some religious people have a visceral hatred of homosexual sex. I think that feminists should think very carefully about who they ally themselves with.

There was a very amusing article in my local free paper this month. Another local paper had had a front page article with a headline something like 'Sinister Brothel Uncovered'. There is an organization called CCAT - Croydon Community Against Trafficking - that pointed out that the paper had been advertising this brothel. This to me shows that concern can be manufactured by the media and politicians to get publicity and support for themselves.

The paper advertises lots of brothels and independent sex workers. CCAT, described as 'an anti-sex trafficking charity' have campaigned against 'adult advertisements'. They are an alliance of feminists and 'church groups'. They call for a boycott of this paper, saying that it is 'making a profit from the exploitation of women'.

I don't know what they are hoping to achieve, men will just look on the internet to find women. I'm sure that CCAT would call for the internet to be censored. Harriet Harman has already called for the PunterNet site to be closed down. That's how dangerous these people are. They want to censor the media and deny freedom of speech. No doubt they would love to be able to censor any attempt to expose their deceptiveness.

They don't care about truth, all they care about is getting their own way, by fair means or foul. All they care about is their weird obsessions yet they pretend they care about the vulnerable. In many countries of the world these types have the upper hand, now they seem to be on the run. That makes me happy.

Saturday, December 19, 2020

a whole new world

I have a laptop but I don't have wifi at home. It's rare for me to use my laptop for the internet. When I do I like to look in the cache to see what it has downloaded. If you're not familiar with the cache it is folders where files are stored that you haven't chosen to download but will be related to searches you have done or sites you have been looking at.

I only found out about it by chance when I came across a pornographic photo I didn't know was on my laptop. I found folders full of pornographic pictures. It's best to clear browsing data/delete browsing history to get rid of them. I thought I had done that recently so I was surprised when I found hundreds of pictures. I remember that I had done a seach on webcams. This is where someone performs sexually in front of a camera.

It's possible to interact with them by sending them a message which they can read and then may do what you say. You have to pay for this. I have never looked at live webcams but I have seen recordings of some of the best sessions. It seems that 28 pictures from each of a large number of webcam performers were in my cache. Most of them were of women, some were gay men, and a couple were trans women (they had penises and were masturbating).

They were an odd assortment of people. Some were nice to look at and some quite ugly. Some seemed to enjoy what they doing but many looked bored, often looking at their mobile phones. Some looked like student girls. Some looked like they were in poor countries. Some of them showed a lot. Some were having sex with other people, heterosexual or homosexual. One young blonde woman called shycinderella just sat/lay with her legs apart showing her pussy, looking bored. A pretty latina woman called Patricia Lopez (yourlittlepervert) showed mostly closeups of her face.

Another latina-looking woman called missniley was attractive with enormous breasts and a tiny bikini top. She took it off in a couple of pictures. A young brunette girl called pavlovacolluci cavorted around naked in a room full of sparkly balloons. A classy brunette woman called eve_evans lay on a bed in stockings with a fucking machine up her bum (it's a machine that moves a dildo up and down, in and out of a pussy or bum). Apparently the viewer can control the speed of the machine, make it go faster by paying more money.

cathleenprecious danced around naked covered in baby oil. bunnylia was a pretty blonde but her body was very thin. Lots of them were very thin. The best one was Pamela Shinee (pamelashineebb) who was very pretty, doing different things including masturbating and seeming to enjoy herself.

nice girl
Pamela Shinee
nice girl
bunnylia
nice girl
pavlovacolluci
nice girl
Patricia Lopez
nice woman
missniley
None of them held any great attraction to me. I think what I would like to see are five women sitting around a private swimming pool. Sometimes they would swim naked underwater and there would be an underwater camera.

If Pamela Shinee has found a suitable way to finance her way through uni instead of waitressing then good for her. She can earn the same amount in a much shorter time. So more time for studying and more time for fun. If missniley has a baby and prefers to spend time with her baby instead of working eight hours a day with her baby in a creche then good for her. She's not working in a minimum wage job and spending most of her earnings on creche fees. Also they are safe, in the way that sex workers aren't anywhere in the world apart from New Zealand. Apparently there's a relatively new site called onlyfans.com that makes it easier for them to do it.

Here are a few more blonde studenty types.

aspiring actress
lalli_milla
ashlyeroberts1
agnetta_love
The last one looks as if she has received an improper suggestion and she's thinking "You want me to do what? ... I'm not going to do that." I think Pamela would have done it. She looks as though she might.

Saturday, September 25, 2021

review of Sex Power Money by Sara Pascoe

The popular comedian has a lot to say about pornography and prostitution. There is no index for this book, I would have liked to look up 'Nordic model' and 'decriminalisation' to see what her position is. You have to read the whole book but even then you're not sure what she believes.

She doesn't mention the Nordic model, where men are criminalised for paying for sex. She mentions decriminalisation once, on page 310 of the hardback edition.

"I am listening to the people who want to sell sex - I think the law should respect their wishes and they should be decriminalised and supported. I think all human beings should be free to use their body how they want ... unless that involves buying access to another person. Then I think they should have a wank and shut up."

That sounds as if she believes in decriminalisation as in New Zealand instead of the Nordic model as in Sweden. However, people who believe in the Nordic model usually think that it is about decrimalising sex workers as well as criminalising their clients. That is not the reality though, as I have detailed elsewhere on this blog.

Her position is unclear. That could be because she doesn't understand what she is talking about. Or it could be deliberate. By coming down on one side or the other she risks alienating a lot of people.

On page 2 she wrote this.

"I went on PunterNet when I got home. It was mostly men discussing the parking restrictions around sex workers' houses. These men are breaking the law by paying for sex, but they're only worried about traffic wardens."

That is false. Men who pay for sex are not breaking the law in Britain. How could she make such a basic error? When I read that I felt that she doesn't know what she is talking about, but I persevered. What she is writing other people will be thinking. Whatever she writes will influence many young people.

Is it possible that she is not calling for men who pay for sex to be criminalised because she thinks they already are?

You might think that she is the sort of person who tells it like it is. However, finding out what she believes and why can take a long time. The most irritating example of this is where at the end of a chapter and section she writes.

"I also can't simply sign off on 'sex work is work', even if for some people it is. It is not so simple as sex for money, because of the imbalance of power."

I have heard this phrase many times before, 'imbalance of power' or 'power imbalance'. I have never heard it explained. Sara does explain it, but you have to wait till the end of the next three chapters. She takes three whole chapters to make a convoluted argument that no prostitute has a choice to do what they do. They hate it but they have no other option to get money to live or to eat.

Punters are delusional, thinking that sex workers have a choice, or that they enjoy it.

"And it's the 'choice' that means real-life Stewart and all the other real-life Johns can defend their behaviour because the people they pay for sex are doing so of their own volition. 'If they didn't want to do it they wouldn't,' they rationalise. 'No one is making them.'"

This suggests that prostitutes are poor, uneducated and have limited employment opportunities. Considering that in the rest of the book she quotes academic studies frequently to support her arguments, it is interesting that she offers no evidence for what she says.

Has she looked for academic studies that throw light on this belief? She wouldn't have to go far to find one. In the further reading section at the end of the book she suggests Brooke Magnanti's book Sex, Lies and Statistics. Her other non-fiction book is The Sex Myth, which covers a lot of the same ground.

In The Sex Myth Dr Magnanti quotes a 2009 study called Beyond Gender: An examination of exploitation in sex work by Suzanne Jenkins of Keele University. It comes from detailed interviews with 440 sex workers of many different types. This is what Dr Magnanti writes.

"Sex work is frequently assumed to be a choice suitable only for the uneducated. But 35.3 per cent of the men and 32.9 per cent of the women had degrees, and over 18 per cent of the total held post-graduate qualifications. Only 6.5 per cent had no formal educational qualifications."

Even the examples that Sara uses in the three chapters don't back up what she writes. In the film Indecent Proposal the alternative to being paid for sex is driving a cab and waiting tables. That's what millions of people in America do. Not the worse thing that can happen to anyone. Not something that must be avoided at all costs. She speculates that the men who are paid for sex by her friend Stewart might be facing eviction, but she doesn't know that.

In the three boring chapters she gives a number of scenarios. Someone eats in a restaurant but can't pay. The manager could force her to wash dishes or he could force her to have sex.

"I think it is reasonable to consider a forced sex act as something that will hurt and harm someone, while washing dishes or stacking shelves for a few hours will not. Is that fair?"

There is another scenario, one that she doesn't present us with. One that is more in accordance with reality. Imagine a group of women who eat in a restaurant but can't pay. They are all told by the manager that they have to wash dishes or stack shelves. One of the women says "Can't I just give you a blow job instead?". She is the one who knows she will not be hurt or harmed by it because her attitude to sex is different from the others. Nobody is telling any of them they have to have sex.

Some women don't want to work for a minimum wage and just get by. They could do that, or they could train to be a professional, which brings its own problems, like burnout. Or she could do sex work. Or she could do the kind of work she likes even though it doesn't pay much and top up her income through sex work. That way she could get her National Insurance contributions paid which is always a good idea for the future. Or she could do sex work while she trains to be a professional, instead of something like waitressing or bar work. More time for study and more time for fun. Or maybe she just responds to having clients which is always more demanding and to some people more rewarding than working in a factory.

That's for her to decide. She can decide if she will be hurt or harmed by it. Don't say they don't have options when it is you who is taking away their options.

So Sara says that they have no choice, but then she contradicts herself. On page 318 she writes about a disabled sex worker called Jane.

"She performs as a dominatrix, which gives her the power to refuse things she doesn't want to do, and is adamant that she enjoys her job sometimes."

All sex workers have the power to refuse things they don't want to do. They don't have to do anal sex, for example. Yes, some of them do enjoy it some of the time. Sara told Jane about a exit strategy scheme.

"When I excitedly told her about an exit strategy scheme I've heard of, where sex workers in northern Europe are given jobs in old people's homes and they're 'really good at it because they are not grossed out by the human body', Jane replies, 'I find that very patronising.' She says, 'I can earn £200 an hour - I don't want to earn minimum wage in an old people's home.'

When I started writing this book I assumed that anyone in sex work or prostitution would want to get out of it at any cost. And that is not true. There are people who have options and choices, who opt and choose to sell sex. It is possible to be well-meaning and wrong. This is where feminism has not supported sex workers properly. When some of them have told us, 'This is my choice - please help me to earn my money safely,' our own feelings get in the way - 'I don't want you to do that'; 'you will always be a victim to me.' Kind feelings can create more problems.
"

Very sensible, but it won't earn you many brownie points with the Julie Bindels of the world. It's as if this book is written by two different people. Perhaps her reason and emotions are saying different things. She needs to realise that not everyone has the same emotions as she does, especially the hate.

So does she still believe that punters are 'psychopaths'? This is what she writes at the beginning of the book. They are delusional, thinking that sex workers enjoy having sex with them. Or the opposite. 'Pain, discomfort or unwillingness turns them on. It makes them feel more powerful.'

Perhaps there are a few punters who are delusional and a few who want to inflict discomfort. Most punters though will realise that sex work is like other jobs. Sometimes good, sometimes bad but mostly neutral. A cab driver loves the occasional trip out into the country and hates being stuck in traffic. When bored he or she may think about what they are going to have for dinner tonight, but it doesn't make sense to call that dissociation.

Some people would refuse to drive a cab even if it meant having to live on benefits. The ones who do it and stick at it are glad that option is available to them. Legally and safely. You can say that they don't want to drive you somewhere, the fact that you have to pay them means they don't want to do it. But of course they do want it - they want your custom. And they don't have to take you south of the river if they really don't want to.

I have put more about her book on this page.


Monday, August 8, 2022

more than two types of sex work

In my last post and the one before I pointed out the prohibitionist argument heavily dependent on the idea that there is a minority of sex workers who make a good living and a majority who are drug addicts and pimped. The idea is that escorts etc are unrepresentative - 'tourists' - and therefore their views can be ignored.

It isn't true though that there are only two groups of sex workers and that drug addicts are in the majority. There are many different types. I think that there are 5 main forms of sex work in Britain. It could be that each of them has about 20% of the total number of sex workers.

1. escorts
They work for an agency. Customers phone the agency and the sex worker travels to where he is. This could be a hotel room or his flat or house. Escorts are also called call-girls. Some of them specialize in domination. Some of them specialize in 'sugar daddies' - older men.

2. working from a flat
Some of them will be independent but not all. Customers find their details on web sites such as Vivastreet. He must phone and make an appointment. Ethnic groups involved in this tend to be Eastern Europeans and Brazilians.

3. working in a brothel
Brothels are often called saunas. Phoning to make an appointment might be encouraged but usually a man just turns up. There could be several women working there and he can choose which one he wants. There may be a pimp or madam involved or the sex workers could be working for themselves. Brothels are illegal even when there is no pimp or madam. Ethnic groups involved in this tend to be British and Eastern European.

4. massage establishments
The word 'massage' like the word 'sauna' can be used in the name of a brothel. The massage establishments I am thinking of though provide massage and usually 'extras'. The main extra is 'hand relief' (HR) also called a 'happy ending'. The masseur, after providing a standard massage, will use her hands to bring her customer to orgasm. Another extra is 'body-to-body'. This is where the woman will remove her clothes and rub herself against her customer. She may cover herself with oil and get on top of him. Oral sex and full sex will rarely be on offer. Ethnic groups involved in this tend to be Thai, Chinese and British.

5. street-based drug addicts
Not all street-based sex workers are drug addicts and not all drug addicts are street-based. They don't usually give their money to a pimp, they give their money to a drug dealer. It won't always be the same drug dealer but even so drug dealers, pimps and boyfriends often merge into one. The most common drugs are crack cocaine and heroin. Often they also get money from shoplifting. Homelessness is common.

When I tell people that drug addicts are a small minority they reply that even if that was so we can't ignore them. We have to criminalise men who pay for sex even if it only benefits the drug addicted minority, so they say. However, the Nordic model doesn't help any type of sex worker. It doesn't get rid of prostitution. It doesn't even reduce it. I have written about this many times on this blog.

Not only does it not reduce demand, it also does not help women to exit prostitution. The funds for this never seem to be forthcoming. Also, women continue to be arrested.

The way to help drug addicts is not to give them ASBOs or to scare away most of their clients. It is through rehab, and helping them with benefits and housing. Sometimes prescribing opiods helps.

So it is clear that no sex worker can be representative of sex workers as a whole. I haven't included Soho walk ups because they are restricted to Soho and Mayfair/Shepherd Market. There is one sex worker in each walk up but two women there (the sex worker and her 'maid'). That makes it safer, working alone in a flat makes rape or robbery more likely. Men just turn up and a popular sex worker has many clients a day, more than any other type of sex work.

I haven't included webcam workers because they don't usually have sex with someone on camera although some of them do. Porn stars have sex on camera of course so this is a form of sex work but there can't be that many of them.

Stripping, erotic dancing and burlesque aren't included because they are not providing a sexual service. They might be included in the sex industry though. There are many minor forms of sex work. I have read a web site that includes women going aboard ships.

In many northern cities teenage British girls have been raped by older men. This isn't prostitution. You may say that many women in prostitution are coerced by violence or threats of violence but this is rare. Addiction is a form of coercion and we know the best way to help them. Destitution could be said to be another but I have never met a destitute woman except for addicts.

We have a benefits system. Jobs are available even if they are minimum wage or zero hours contracts. People take them to avoid destitution. Then when they are fed up scrimping and saving some of them turn to sex work. Most women don't.