Meghan Murphy, Rachel Moran and Rupert Everett

I had an interesting exchange with Meghan Murphy, a leading feminist in Canada. I commented on her site, called FeministCurrent. Her reaction to one of my comments was to reply "Oh gawd. You are full of shit. Stop lying. This is a waste of time if you are just going to be dishonest."

What was my comment that provoked such a reaction? She had written that her abolitionist movement was led by prostitution 'survivors' and that I (unlike them) didn't know what I was talking about. My reply was that Rachel Moran and Rebecca Mott - both 'survivors' - have said things that don't make sense to anyone who knows about the subject.

She accused me of 'saying things that aren't accurate' then of 'lying' and being dishonest.

I thought I had heard Rachel Moran on radio saying that prostitution can't be a job because anal penetration isn't part of a proper job. It wasn't on radio though, it was on a TV documentary with Rupert Everett called Love For Sale: Why People Sell Sex (episode 1). What she actually said is this:-

"You don't go into a factory and have the boss put his penis in your mouth, and the janitor put his penis up your anus. What we need to understand here is that unwanted sex  - even if you are paid for it - is damaging. And it's very flippant and I feel totally inappropriate to compare that to what goes on in a factory."

Which is interesting, because in her book she wrote that she never did anal sex. She wrote that she avoided vaginal penetration too for the first two years, by which I assume she only did oral sex. She also wrote that some fellow prostitutes disliked oral sex and refused to do it.

So it seems that I was accurate when I wrote that 'they don't have to do things they don't want to'. As a punter I know this from experience. Juno Mac and Molly Smith explain this in their book Revolting Prostitutes. Why is Rachel Moran telling people that prostitution is men abusing women in any way they want to, something that wouldn't be tolerated in a workplace, and therefore it can't be a real job? Is that not dishonest?

According to Juno Mac and Molly Smith, Rachel was 'hurt' by people not believing she had been a prostitute. "My truths do not suit them, so my truths must be silenced" she said to Meghan Murphy. Silenced? She's been on radio giving a false statistic (127 prostitutes murdered in the Netherlands after legalization) and on TV saying that prostitution can't be a real job because someone will 'put his penis up your anus'.

Which of your truths do you expect people to accept, Rachel? The TV truth or the autobiography truth? For the record, I do accept that you used to be a prostitute, but if you want people to believe you then you have to stop the false statistics and the contradictions.

When you were a prostitute, was that a real job because nobody put his penis up your anus, and they only put their penis in your mouth because you preferred that to vaginal penetration?

There are women who claim to have been prostitutes, write a book about it and change government policy (as you have done). We know for sure that at least one of them has fabricated it. In the Netherlands there was a woman called Valérie Lempereur who did just that.

Many jobs have unique features. They can still be compared to working in a factory, if you are pointing out that people do it because they need the money. You don't go into a factory and have to handle dead bodies the way an undertaker has to. You don't go into a factory and have to kill hundreds of animals the way a slaughterperson has to. People gravitate towards what they dislike least. Some people would hate handling dead bodies, and some people would hate someone putting his penis up their anus.

If you don't want a penis up your anus you can still be a sex worker, because most don't do anal sex. Can you imagine an undertaker saying he or she is only prepared to handle women's bodies, or a slaughterperson saying he or she is only willing to kill sheep but not pigs? In that sense it's not like a real job. In most jobs there's less choice, you do what you're told.

When Rupert Everett said to Rachel Moran in the documentary that factory workers too are forced into what they do by poverty, she replied that she was offended by what he said. Then she said 'You don't go into a factory and have the boss put his penis in your mouth ...'. I don't see why she was offended, he made a valid point. I am offended by her dishonesty, as we all should be.

Below I have put a transcript of my exchange with Meghan Murphy. When I first started commenting on her site I used my usual persona 'Pyramus', same as on this blog. More recently though I was on Facebook and instead of bothering to log in with Google and my usual persona, I used my Facebook persona which is 'Jennifer Shaw'. I have had this Facebook persona for years and it has been useful but I don't expect Ms Murphy will be happy when she knows Ms Shaw is really a man: she doesn't seem to like women who are really men, which is what she thinks trans women are.

This is the transcript:-

Meghan Murphy: The women leading the abolitionist fight are women who survived prostitution... Also transition house workers, grassroots activists, etc. You don't seem to have any idea who or what you are talking about. It is ridiculous to claim that either people who have lived this or women who are fighting male violence against women, for no other reason beside the fact that they care about women's lives and wellbeing, are 'seeing everything through ideological blinkers' or 'don't care about victims'. You should actually get out and talk to the people you claim to be critical of. You are the one who appears to exist in a bubble of your own making.

Me (Jennifer Shaw): How do you know that I'm not one of them? You know, when Rachel Moran comes on radio and says prostitution is not a job because what job is it when you get anally penetrated, that might sound plausible to anyone who doesn't know about the subject. But people who do know that most sex workers don't do anal, they don't have to do things they don't want to. When Rebecca Mott comes on TV and says men used to punch her unconscious to avoid paying, that might sound plausible to anyone who doesn't know about the subject. But people who know know that men always pay first, so what is she saying, that men have sex with her unconscious body? You should read some of the academics like Dr Nick Mai, Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon and Dr Brook Magnanti.

Meghan Murphy: Again, because you are saying things that aren't accurate. You don't understand the politics or activism of those you are attempting to criticize.

Me (Jennifer Shaw): So why is it that you don't seem to have any concern for the victims of other types of modern slavery? Why is it that you use false statistics? Why do you want the Nordic model when you know damn well that it doesn't work?

Meghan Murphy: Oh gawd. You are full of shit. Stop lying. This is a waste of time if you are just going to be dishonest.

There was another revealing discussion I had with Meghan Murphy on the same web page. The page is about feminists and right-wing social conservatives coming together in campaigns. What I said was that these two groups often have a hidden agenda. They say that they want to help women involved in prostitution, but really they just don't like men and women having sex - especially if it's outside a long-term relationship.

She said that I should 'engage with people's arguments with integrity, fairly and in good faith' and not accuse people of having a hidden agenda. My reply was that she had called Amnesty International as 'pro-prostitution' and having 'trafficker allies'. I then went on to say that radical feminists such as Julie Bindel, Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin believe that women are objectified if they have sex with men - even if they are married - and espouse lesbianism.

She didn't believe that she had said that about Amnesty and challenged me to say where the quote came from. She didn't believe that Bindel etc had said women shouldn't have sex with men. She wrote 'What on earth are you talking about? No one has said this. Not Bindel. Not Dworkin. You really need to try reading and listening before attempting to form arguments. You just sound dumb.'

So I gave a Bindel quote from a Guardian newspaper article and a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy about MacKinnon and Dworkin. Her rather pathetic reply was that I just didn't understand their theories.

She didn't know about their theories. When I told Murphy about them she didn't believed me. When I gave quotes that proved I am right she said I didn't understand their theories! Years ago I wrote a page about the various theories of objectification from Kant, through MacKinnon and Dworkin, to Nussbaum. And she says it is me who sounds dumb!

And she says her site is "Canada’s leading feminist website"!

I have put on my blog a page with a previous conversation with Meghan Murphy. I gave lots of evidence that the Nordic model isn't working and harms women. I also have a page where I criticize what Rachel Moran has said.

book review: Revolting Prostitutes

I have been reading a new book about prostitution called "Revolting Prostitutes: The fight for sex worker's rights" by Juno Mac and Molly Smith, who are both sex workers. They come to roughly the same conclusion as I do: decriminalisation is the best way forward. The Nordic model is shown to be no improvement for sex workers, they still get arrested and there have been no extra funds from the state to help them. Legalisation is shown not to be a good model either.

I have quoted two paragraphs below, chapter 4 page 114, about arrests of sex workers.

In the aftermath of the arrests in Swindon, sex workers organised to stop the deportations of the Romanian women. Most anti-prostitution feminists made no comment, but one speculated that maybe the Romanian women were pimps after all. The idea that a workplace might have three managers and no workers, and moreover that the 'managers' would all be migrant women in their twenties advertising their own sexual services online is patently absurd. Its absurdity speaks, as gender studies academic Alison Phipps has noted, to just 'how far people will go to avoid extending solidarity to those they disapprove of'. 

Almost everybody with any flavour of feminist politics proclaims not to want those who sell sex to be arrested. However, that sex workers patently are arrested as a result of brothel-keeping laws is, for most anti-prostitution feminists, unmentionable - because the legal model they are pushing for retains and even strengthens these exact same laws (see chapter 6). The fundamental awkwardness of this truth - one that ultimately reveals dedication to something other than sex working women's welfare - creates a frustrating culture of unseeing and unknowing among the feminist left. They stick their fingers into their ears while sex workers try, with increasing frustration, to make the impact of criminalisation clear to them.

Sex workers often like to work together for safety, but that doesn't mean that sex work is inherently violent. As the authors write "After the presumed murder of estate agent Suzy Lamplugh in 1986, estate agents were advised to work in pairs where possible or have a 'buddy' keep track of their whereabouts". The same with nurses and social workers. Sex workers are prevented from keeping themselves safe, unlike estate agents, nurses and social workers. The Nordic model doesn't change that, it makes it worse.

Some people believe that when a man pays for sex he can 'do what he likes with her body in the time he has purchased it'. I've never purchased a woman or a woman's body but I have paid for sex many times and I know that sex workers will tell you what they will do and will not do. In my experience anal sex is rarely available. Oral sex usually is but with a condom. Sometimes a sex worker might be willing to do oral sex without a condom but it costs more money. Even then it's probably not going to be 'cum in mouth'.

The authors explain this, and it's quite important because it is relevant to issues of consent, boundaries, and whether sex work can be considered to be work.

Some people believe that sex should be reserved for relationships, and dislike prostitution for that reason. People who feel this way are entitled to their opinion and can live their lives how they choose. The authors explain "Yet for many people, sex can indeed be recreational, casual, or in some way 'meaningless'. The meaning and purpose of sex varies wildly for different people in different contexts or at different times in their lives".

The authors state repeatedly that prostitution is a survival strategy. However, they give examples of women who have used domestic servitude, laundry work and cleaning jobs for survival then used prostitution when they wanted something more than survival. Prostitution may be survival for drug addicts and undocumented migrants but in countries like Britain they are a minority.

It's curious that this book is available in ordinary bookshops, whereas Julie Bindel's recent book on the same subject isn't. Yet if you go into the left-wing bookshop in Bold Street in Liverpool, Bindel's book is there but Mac and Smith's book isn't, despite the fact that Mac and Smith are very left-wing. They wan't to see an end to capitalism and borders - and an end to prostitution. So you would think that Revolting Prostitutes would be on their shelves. Could it be that the people who run the bookshop don't want people to know that not all left-wing feminists believe in the Nordic model?