I have been looking at Clayton Littlewood's Soho blog in more detail (mentioned in a previous post) and was especially interested when he mentioned Meard Street. I have been familiar with this street for decades but I didn't know about the two notorious clubs that used to be there.
The Mandrake and The Gargoyle were clubs where famous figures such as Jean-Paul Sartre, Tallulah Bankhead and Francis Bacon went. One web site says that opium smoking went on there.
In the 1980s there was a doorway in Meard Street where women would solicit men passing by. If the man was tempted he would be asked to hand over money and then told he had to meet the woman somewhere else. She would not turn up. This form of stealing is called clipping.
I read in a newspaper that there was a man who was saving up for a sex change operation. He would go to Meard Street as a woman and take money from men this way. I was walking along Meard Street one day and there were two people soliciting, not in the doorway but walking up and down the street. I could see that one of them looked like a man dressed as a woman. His shoulders were just a bit too broad and his hips were just a bit too narrow.
The other one solicited me. I said to her "Is this the sex-change person?" looking at him. She laughed and said "Do you want a sex-change person?". I walked away briskly but she must have told him what I had said because he followed me along the street and around the corner saying repeatedly "How did you know that I'm a sex change person?". I kept walking and didn't reply but he was persistent.
I didn't know what to say to him. I stopped and turned to him and said "It's obvious". I didn't know what else to say. He looked confused for a few seconds and then said sadly "That's all I wanted to know" and walked away.
The doorway is no longer open, and the brothel that was next to it has closed. I don't know if clipping still goes on. Sometimes women in the street ask me if I'm looking for a girl but I don't respond to them.
61 Dean Street seems to be functioning as normal now. I don't know why the door was closed on the first of April. There have been police raids since the introduction of the new law but Soho seems to be continuing as before.
I have read the blog that I mentioned in my last post in more detail. It gives a comprehensive and detailed criticism of the Policing and Crime Bill 2009. It shows clearly that women are being increasingly criminalised by the change in the law.
There is a link to an Evening Standard article that talks about the campaign to keep 61 Dean Street open. It also mentions Lizzie Valad, the prostitute whose flat was closed and was murdered when she worked on the streets.
Clayton's blog gives an amusing account of his involvement in the court case to keep 61 Dean Street open. I can't find any mention on his blog of the masked parade that the sex workers had in Soho last year to celebrate winning the case. I did not know about it or I would have gone. I have looked at photos of it though on different web sites. I tried to see if I could identify any of the women but I could not. The most interesting site is this one, you can see that one of the masked women dancing isn't wearing any knickers!
The OBJECT feminist organisation claim that they want men involved in prostitution to be criminalised and women to be decriminalised. The law criminalises women yet they have web pages called "Victory as Peers vote for women, not pimps and punters!.htm" and "Double Victory as Bill is passed on lap dancing and prostitution!.htm".
There's something irritating about those exclamation marks. Why are they supporting a law which criminalises women and is harming them? There is no indication on their site that women are being criminalised by the new law they celebrate. Either they are ignorant or they are deceptive.
In the first of these web pages mentioned they say " ... the Bill puts the rights of exploited women over those of punters and pimps by focusing the gaze of the criminal law on the men who perpetuate commercial sexual exploitation by choosing to buy women, children and men for sex." Can't they see that the bill harms women?
They have a page on prostitution which doesn't say much except "Prostitution is the ultimate form of objectification and for OBJECT, tackling the demand for prostitution is a crucial part of challenging this objectification." This theory of objectification is something they repeat time and time again like a mantra to justify their beliefs but doesn't make sense.
On this page they have links to other pages such as Facts (all proved to be wrong) and testimonies. The first of their 'facts' is "75% of women involved in prostitution started as children". One of their testimonies, from Rebecca, says "I am so p*ssed off with the ‘choice’ argument being used to dismiss so many women and girls. I, for one, would never deny there are some women who may choose to be in prostitution. But they are very privileged and a very tiny minority, maybe around 2-4% of prostituted women." I think that Rebecca has got things the wrong way round, the vast majority of prostitutes are not coerced with possibly 2-4% who are.
Rebecca has her own blog, which I intend to read. I had a quick look at it and it was saying something about men spitting on her frequently, as if this was something commonplace in prostitution. I have read a number of testimonies on the web. I'm not saying that they are all wrong, but they don't show what prostitution is really like.
I have a wide experience of prostitution at the cheaper end. This includes suburban brothels, Soho walk ups and street girls. I have never once seen a prostitute who was drunk, crying or in pain. I have once seen a woman who looked very unhappy, and I wrote about her in earlier postings.
On their prostitution page OBJECT also have a link to their Demand Change campaign. This campaign is in opposition to the Safety First Coalition supported by Women Against Rape, the Green Party, the English Collective of Prostitutes and informed feminists.
No comments:
Post a Comment