review of Paid For part 2

In my previous post I began my review of Paid For by Rachel Moran, which is her account of her life in prostitution in Ireland. I commented mainly on the people whose quotations were used at the beginning of each chapter. It's interesting that so many of them were either nuns or the type of Radical Feminists who don't have sex with men as a policy.

You have to question their motives in trying to stop prostitution. Do they really want to help prostitutes or are they trying to stop men and women from having sex and especially promiscuous sex? Are they motivated by a disgust and fear of lust? Do they suppress their own sexual feelings and feel anger towards those who don't? Why are they not concerned about all forms of modern slavery? Why do they use false statistics to promote their cause?

I have now started reading part two of Moran's book and have come across something fascinating. She begins part two still working on the streets. She wrote that she had more control over who she would have sex with than when she worked in brothels/massage parlours or as an escort. She wrote that the 1993 Sexual Offences Act changed everything: she was forced to work indoors and for the first time have vaginal sex. Up till then she had been able to do only hand relief or oral sex.

The change is described as "traumatic" and caused "an inordinate level of suffering" for many women, not just her. "If you are working for yourself, you cannot adequately assess a man down the phone-line, and if you are working for someone else, you do not even have the chance to try." A woman working on her own is vulnerable, and a woman working in a brothel, massage parlour or for an agency is too.

However, what she doesn't mention is where two or more women work together for safety. That's illegal in Britain, Ireland and Sweden. It's not illegal in New Zealand though. The system they have in Soho where a young woman is looked after by an older more experienced woman also solves that problem. Even if you have already agreed over the phone for a man to come to the flat, you can look at him through the peephole and talk to him after you have opened the door before letting him in. If you don't like him tell him to go and if anything goes wrong there are two women there.

There is another good page about Ruhama, the organization connected to nuns who ran the Magdalene Laundries. Someone posted a comment on the page about the impact of the 1993 Sexual Offences Act in Ireland.

"The 1993 sexual offences criminalised soliciting (later reinforced by some aspects of the 1994 public order act) forcing independent sex workers STRAIGHT INTO THE ARMS of brothels and organised crime which had restructured itself to receive them for at least a year prior to the law being changed. This left sex workers who had formerly kept all their earning, or handed over 20% AT MOST with no choice but hand over 50% – 60% of their earning just to be able to go on earning a living at all and paying bills (at the time the law came into operation September, like most mothers, many of them were frantic to find the cash for school uniforms, books and quite often fees)."

This confirms what Moran has written about it. So obviously she is aware that new laws that try to control prostitution can have a different effect from what was intended. An effect that harms women. It is curious then that she supported the introduction of the Nordic model in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland.

Ex prostitutes are called 'survivors' by Radical Feminists (and now by the nuns of Ruhama). They are told that prostitution has been abolished in Sweden which is why no prostitutes have been killed since. The truth though is that we have no reason to believe there is less prostitution in Sweden today than before. No prostitute was killed in Sweden for many years before the new law was introduced, so it can't be said that it stopped women from being killed.

In Chapter 20 Moran writes "The Swedish inquiry reveals that prostitution in Sweden has plummeted in the years since the implementation of the 1999 ban and states that: 'Since the introduction of the ban on the purchase of sexual services, street prostitution in Sweden has been halved. This reduction may be considered to be a direct result of the criminalisation of sex purchases'."

The inquiry she refers to is the 2010 Skarhed report Prohibition of the purchase of sexual services and it says nothing about prostitution plummeting. Instead it says 'The overall picture we have obtained is that, while there has been an increase in prostitution in our neighbouring Nordic countries in the last decade, as far as we can see, prostitution has at least not increased in Sweden. There may be several explanations for this but, given the major similarities in all other respects between the Nordic countries, it is reasonable to assume that prostitution would also have increased in Sweden if we had not had a ban on the purchase of sexual services. Criminalisation has therefore helped to combat prostitution'.

That's a lot of assumptions. The report is not claiming that there has been a reduction in prostitution in Sweden, just that it hasn't increased as much as some other countries. There are other reports which people like Moran ignore because their findings 'do not suit their agenda'. The National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden did three reports. This is from their third (2007) report 'It is also difficult to discern any clear trend of development: has the extent of prostitution increased or decreased? We cannot give any unambiguous answer to that question. At most, we can discern that street prostitution is slowly returning, after swiftly disappearing in the wake of the law against purchasing sexual services. But as said, that refers to street prostitution, which is the most obvious manifestation. With regard to increases and decreases in other areas of prostitution – the “hidden prostitution” – we are even less able to make any statements.'

 It also states 'For instance, representatives of the Stockholm Prostitution Centre say that prostitution initially vanished from the streets when the law was passed, only to later return at about half the former extent. Now about two thirds of street prostitution is back, compared to the situation before the law against purchasing sexual services went into effect.'

So the only 'plummeting' going on was when women vanished from the streets for a time. Like women been thrown off a cliff. In 2007 in the capital two thirds of them were back.

Moran insists that these missing women couldn't have started working as prostitutes indoors. If that was the case then it would be as bad as the 1993 Irish law that created such 'disastrous personal consequences' for her and other women in her opinion. The 1999 Swedish law is different she wrote because its intended effect is 'eradicating prostitution'. As we have seen, we have no reason to believe that it has eradicated prostitution or even reduced it overall, or that it has had any effect except on street prostitutes.

The 2010 Skarhed report doesn't think that former street prostitutes have moved indoors and on the internet for sex work. They don't know though. There is no research that says this has not happened. The Skarhed report does say this though "For example, some people with experience of offering sexual services in the street environment now say that they only go out on the street "when the phone stops ringing". Some contacts that are made in street prostitution now only involve exchanging phone numbers for later use. The use of mobile phones has facilitated contacts between people in prostitution, but there are no data showing that this in itself has led to an increase in prostitution."

The figures for the number of street sex workers is given in detail in the Skarhed report but they are very patchy. There are no figures earlier than 1998 or later than 2008. There is a drop to begin with, then the numbers rise and fall. We cannot say what the situation is today, ten years after the report. Estimates of the relative numbers of street sex workers and indoor workers are varied. There does seem to have been an increase in internet contacts.

Moran said on radio that 127 prostitutes were murdered in the Netherlands since legalization there. This is false. Most were killed before legalization not after. Who told her this false statistic? I don't know, but it could have been religious bigot Jim Wells. I've detailed his 'sins' elsewhere so I won't repeat myself.

It seems that a lot of her problems were to do with being a prostitute in a sexually repressed society. She said she felt contaminated and socially excluded. She said that others must feel like her: bank robbers is one example she gives (I think sex workers would be offended to be compared to bank robbers, just as she seemed to be offended by sex workers being compared to factory workers). An intelligent bank robber will start his own legitimate business or something else. It's not just 'money laundering', it's what any intelligent person would do if they have cash. I hope in the future we will live in a society where sex workers don't feel unworthy but I don't think the nuns of Ruhama are helping.

Before she left the streets she smoked cannabis. Later she snorted cocaine with a client. I haven't got to the bit where she starts taking crack cocaine and heroin, if she does. Catherine A MacKinnon was wrong, this isn't the best book about prostitution ever. Read My Name is Angel by Rhea Coombs, written by a south London prostitute. That will tell you the depths that people can sink to - without all the bullshit propaganda.

review of Paid For

Review of Paid For by Rachel Moran part 1

This book is an odd mixture of the author's personal experiences of being a prostitute with Radical Feminist ideology. The oddest thing about it is the numerous quotations from women who are so extreme in their attitudes to sex that they don't have sex with men, under any circumstances. Each chapter of the book begins with a quotation. Five chapters begin with quotations from Ruhama.

Ruhama is an Irish organization that works with prostitutes. It is run partly by nuns from two orders, the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity and the Good Shepherd Sisters. Both of them ran Magdalene Laundries for decades. These were institutions where women and girls were imprisoned, because they were unmarried mothers or because they had sex outside of marriage.

A 2014 UN report stated: “Girls placed in the institutions were forced to work in slavery-like conditions and were often subject to inhuman, cruel and degrading treatment as well as to physical and sexual abuse. They were deprived of their identity, of education and often of food … imposed with an obligation of silence and prohibited from having any contact with the outside world … unmarried girls who gave birth before entering or while incarcerated in the laundries had their babies forcibly removed from them.”

According to this site, on their website, the Good Shepherd Sisters and the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity boasted of “a long history of involvement with marginalised women, including those involved with prostitution”. They are quick to ignore that this 'long history' is a deeply troubled one – one that women all around Ireland try their best to forget and during which women and children were buried in unmarked graves.

Ruhama uses the language of Radical Feminists to campaign for the Swedish model, where men are criminalized for paying for sex. In 2015 the Criminal Law Bill did just that in Ireland.

We know that nuns don't have sex with men, but what about the other women whose quotations were used? Chapter 11 begins with a quotation from Sheila Jeffreys. According to an article by Julie Bindel in The Guardian, Jeffreys was the main author of Love Your Enemy which states "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."

I thought that a 'woman who does not fuck men' is called a nun. Sheila Jeffreys doesn't have sex with men and neither does Julie Bindel. They might not have sex with women either: their definition of lesbianism is a bit different from most people's.

Two of the chapters (10 and 19) begin with quotations from Andrea Dworkin. At the front of the book is an endorsement by Catharine A MacKinnon who states "THE BEST WORK BY ANYONE ON PROSTITUTION EVER". Dworkin and MacKinnon worked together on the theory of objectification. They took the philosopher Immanuel Kant's theory of objectification, changed it, and brought it into feminism.

Kant's theory was an attempt to find a secular reason why sex outside of marriage is unacceptable. Dworkin and MacKinnon however said that any sex between men and women objectifies women. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says "For MacKinnon and Dworkin, all women's consent to be sexually used by men cannot be true consent under the existing conditions of gender inequality." and "For Dworkin and MacKinnon, however, Kant's suggested solution is inappropriate. Objectification, according to these feminists, is present within all heterosexual relationships in our society and harms women's humanity. Marriage, or any other heterosexual relationship for that matter, is clearly not regarded as an exception by them."

The nuns of Ruhama, Sheila Jeffreys, Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon don't have sex with men for religious or ideological reasons. Are they really the best people to ask about issues such as prostitution? Is it not probable that they are motivated not by concern for the welfare of prostitutes but by a desire to stop men from having sex with women? Or stop promiscuity between men and women? They can't stop ordinary men and women from having sex with each other on a Friday or Saturday night or on holiday, but they can stop men paying for sex. Or they think they can.

Dworkin's quotations in the book include “... we are talking about the use of the mouth, the vagina, and the rectum" (chapter 10) and "It is the use of a woman's body for sex by a man, he pays money, he does what he wants" (chapter 19). From this you will get the impression that a man can do anything he wants to a prostitute, including anal sex. Dworkin goes on "It is the mouth, the vagina, the rectum, penetrated usually by a penis, sometimes hands, sometimes objects ...".

My experience is that a man can't do anything he wants. Anal sex is rarely available. Even rarer is penetration by hands: it is weird that she should write that. What's more, in Moran's book she states quite clearly that prostitutes decide what they will and won't do.

"Some men will cite examples to back up their certainties. Usually these will refer to the fact that most prostitutes try to impose physical boundaries on the sexual act. It is true that they do. I avoided vaginal intercourse for the first two years of my prostitution life and anal intercourse for all of it. That is very unusual. I met many women who would never perform anal sex; that was not at all unusual. One particular young woman I met in my first months on the streets would not perform oral sex, ever. She just could not stand to do it and she could not understand how I was of the opposite mindset. I clearly remember her wrinkling her nose up in disgust and shuddering when I told her that all of my jobs were either hand-relief or oral."

Moran's personal experience contradicts what Dworkin wants us to believe. It also contradicts what Moran said herself on television: "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". Moran writes that prostitutes will do what is least sickening to them, but that it is still sickening, so they don't have a choice. Choice is a myth.

What is sickening about hand-relief? I can't see how it is any more sickening that working as a bikini waxer or a dentist. As for oral sex, there's a big difference between oral sex with a condom, oral sex without a condom, and a man ejaculating into a woman's mouth. Some women do it for fun. She's missed the point though, the point is that what Dworkin and others have stated or implied is false. Men can't do anything they want to prostitutes. It's a myth.

Chapters 12 and 17 begin with quotes from Melissa Farley, who is the nearest thing that the Radical Feminist have to an academic. Farley thinks that men see prostitutes because they like control. We've addressed the issue of what men can and can't do. If you see someone and you have to pay cash up front, you know you can't get your money back, and they are getting an hourly rate higher than anything you have ever earned, how does that give you a sense of control?

I realise this post is getting very long, so I will come back to it with part 2 in another post.

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.

3 more

In my last post I told you that I had been to Angel Lodge in Liverpool for the first time and had a nice time with Megan. What I didn't tell you is that at one point I was sitting on her chest with my erection between her boobs, trying to wank on her face. She was really up for it and lifted her head off the pillow a couple of times to get my cock in her mouth. This was without a condom.

Most sex workers wouldn't do that, but Megan seems to like the kinky stuff. Megan told me that she also works at Sheridans of Salford. Like Angel Lodge, I had heard of it but never been there. I decided to look at their webpage. There were two things I noticed that most brothels don't have.

One of them is a glory hole. A glory hole is where a man puts his cock though a hole in a wall or a door and a woman in the next room sucks it. I had tried it somewhere in London and thought it might be fun to try it again.

The entrance to Sheridans is behind a row of shops. I went in and noticed a nice-looking woman in the corridor. The receptionist said she wouldn't have anyone available for a while and asked me to sit on one of the sofas in the reception area. Soon a young man came in and was told the same thing. Charlotte and Tara would be available.

He said that he wanted Charlotte. I thought the receptionist would say something like "This gentleman was here before you, he gets to choose first, after he's seen the two girls". She didn't, though. It seems it was more important for her to keep a regular customer happy than someone she hadn't seen before. I asked if Charlotte was the one I had seen in the corridor and she said no. That one would be busy.

He went into a room with Charlotte and I was directed into a small room to await Tara. I said I would have to look at Tara before deciding. I sat on a corner of the bed until Tara came. She looked about 70 and was not attractive. Tara went out and the receptionist came back in, asking me if Tara was OK. I said no and I left. I didn't want an old woman in a tiny room.

I got the bus back into Manchester town centre and went to Cherrys. There were two girls there, one of them was Honey who I have seen once or twice before. She is a big black woman with enormous breasts. She comes from the West Indian community. She is talkative and fun loving.

She gave me some oral sex without a condom. When she asked me what I'd been up to I told her about the old woman. I got on top of Honey and shagged her, with a condom. I hadn't come with Honey though so I thought I would try Cosmopolitan. They only had one girl there. She wasn't attractive and she didn't smile at me. I thought maybe she doesn't want to do it with someone as old as me which is fair enough.

I could have gone to see Sonya at Piccadilly Club. I have seen her many times before. However, the last time I had seen her she had changed her appearance. Her hair colour was lighter and she was wearing black lipstick. She used to be a natural Mediterranean beauty but no more.

I had discovered another natural Mediterranean beauty in November, at Manchester Angels. She is Mimi. I went up the stairs one evening, four women came into reception one at a time and exited through a different door. A drunk young man had come up the stairs soon after me. He had missed the first girl. He said he wanted the second one, the first that he had seen. So he was led off by the slut, and got number 1, Mimi.

In the room she told me that she was from Romania. I don't normally go for Eastern Europeans, but she was lovely. The fact that she is Romanian, looks very young but not very happy means that I wouldn't choose her again. I don't know if she is being exploited.

I had been to Sheridans, Cherrys and Cosmopolitan. I had seen Honey at Cherrys which was nice. Tropical Palms is just round the corner from Cosmo. I had been to Tropical Palms before, but never stayed. It looks a bit sleazy, you have to go along a back street and it didn't help that there is scaffolding up.

I had a bit of luck though. There was only one woman there, but someone I had seen twice before at a different place. Bianca is delightful. She says she is Italian but has a Russian accent. She is blonde, quite attractive, and looks as if she's in her 30s. I think what I like about her is that she's got a sexy smile and is happy to please.

I thought that the rooms at Tropical Palms would be unpleasant, but I was surprised to find the one I was in was nice. It had a shower in it. Bianca told me that Passions was closed for redecoration, which is why she was here. She put a condom on me, gave me some oral sex, and then I got on top of her. After a while I orgasmed inside her.

So that was my trip to Manchester and Salford last month. It ended well thanks to Bianca.

Last month, I also went to the brothel in Ellesmere Port. They call it 'The Office' and it is near to the railway station. I had tried it before, but there was an old woman who said I would have to pay £10 just to take a look at the girl. So I didn't stay. I have paid for sex at all the other brothels in that area; Jays of Wallasey, Rock Ferry Thai Massage, The Penthouse in Bebington and Overpool Angels.

This time though a middle-aged woman showed me a younger woman. Lucy looks as if she's in her 30s. She has dark hair and is plump. I spent half an hour with her for £40. It was enjoyable but I didn't come. I was using a condom and I hadn't taken a viagra so I wasn't expecting too much. I mentioned my trips to Manchester for condomless sex, and she told me there is a woman called Andrea who was willing to do it without a condom. Lucy said she's a 'leggy blonde' and she's here on Fridays.

So, one Friday last month, I went. Lucy was there but busy with a client in the bedroom. So I sat with the other woman, who looked about 70. She was watching old episodes of Eastenders. She was very friendly and chatty. She was old, and not conventionally attractive, but I quite fancied her.

She told me she is Andrea, and she does do sex without a condom for extra money. I think it's an extra £30. I said I wanted to choose her. We had a kiss. I asked if I could try using one of my extra thin condoms first, and then if I couldn't come I would give her the extra money for sex without condom.

Andrea said that Lucy had nearly finished with her client. She knew that because Lucy starts giggling at the end. Andrea pulled a curtain across so that Lucy's client and I wouldn't see each other when he left. It's good they do that, I don't want to see other clients. Sheridans and Manchester Angels didn't.

Andrea asked Lucy if it was OK if I had her rather than Lucy. I don't think that Andrea gets many clients. I think she's mainly a receptionist for Lucy. I gave Andrea £40 before I went in the room with her, and another £10 in the room for oral sex without a condom. Same as I had with Lucy.
When I got on top of her we kissed a bit on the mouth. She had put one of my extra thin condoms on me. Most sex workers don't like snogging and will only use their own safer condoms. I shagged her and after a while I came inside her.

So last month was a good month for me. I came inside Bianca and Andrea even though I was using a condom. I hadn't taken viagra with Andrea either. I realized that I don't need condomless sex or viagra to orgasm when shagging. I had paid for sex for the first time at Tropical Palms and The Office. I had visited Sheridans in Salford which was an interesting experience even though I didn't pay for sex.

I also learned that an old woman can be enjoyable. If I can find an old woman attractive, then a sex worker shouldn't turn her nose up at a man of my age. I don't recall any old women in Manchester, just Tara in Salford. In Chester there are two old women who are sex workers. Diane works in her expensive private flat in a block of flats overlooking the river. She's got her own website. She only does oral sex. Without a condom if you want it. The other old woman works in her social housing flat in a block of flats near the canal. So obviously there is a demand for them. I won't be seeking them out though.

2 brothels in Merseyside

In 2103 and 2015 I posted about prostitution in Liverpool. There are a couple of places that I've kind of known about for years but not been to. Sometimes it's not easy to find out about a place. Last week I went to Angel Lodge and today I went to Christys (also called 69). Angel Lodge was nice but Christys wasn't.

In the past couple of years I've been going to Manchester to visit the brothels there. Just recently I told you about the African lady who I had sex with without a condom. I went back to see her, and this time I paid for one hour. She recognised me and we had great sex without a condom again. I gave her a £50 tip, making it £120 in all. I don't think I have ever paid for a full hour with a woman before; it was worth the money with her.

I had taken viagra and I came inside her after about 15 minutes. I got another erection and continued. Unfortunately, she doesn't work there anymore. I wanted to see her for a third time but I've been told she's not coming back. It's a pity, but perhaps it's just as well. I was exposing myself to the possibility of infection.

So I thought I would try somewhere nearer home. Angel Lodge is not easy to get to. I got the train to Kirkby and walked from there. It was a nice sunny day so I was happy to do that but it's quite far. It's on an industrial estate, at 13 Newstet Road. It would be difficult to find were it not for their site which has pictures of the outside. Their number is 0151 546 3264.

There was only one sex worker there. January is not a busy time for them so they don't want to have their usual two. Megan is of average attractiveness but she is lovely. She was very friendly and we had a lot of fun. I paid £40 with another £10 on top for oral sex without a condom. I think that was for half an hour. She likes kissing and she likes having her pussy licked. I didn't want to do either of these to her just because of hygiene, thinking about what men put in her mouth and pussy. I did enjoy fingering her though.

Once you get inside the flat it's quite nice. It was warm. This is the bedroom we were in.

Today I went to Christys. It's at 69 Ormskirk Road. You go up metal stairs to the top of Gable Scaffolding.

That odd semi-circular window above the sign is part of the flat. When I rang the bell, the door was opened by the sex worker. She said that the receptionist had popped out and I could either come in and wait or I could come back later. I said I would come back later. It's not that she was unattractive, she just wasn't my type. She was the sort that footballers would go for, someone you might see in a club, a woman with pouty lips.

I was still in the area a couple of hours later so I thought I would go back. The door was opened by a different woman who looked as if she was drunk or on drugs. Not friendly. She showed me into the bedroom. What put me off was the floor. There was no carpet. I don't know what the floor was, it could have been concrete, and it looked dirty. When she told me the price was £30 for 15 minutes I told her I wanted to leave.

She got aggressive and accused me of only going there to look at the girl. Back on the street I looked up at the semi-circular window and she was gesticulating at me.

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?

Doing Money

On the 5th of November there was a drama shown on BBC Two which told the story of a woman involved in prostitution. It was called 'Doing Money'. The drama is based on a book that claims to be a true story, called 'Slave' by Anna (not her real name).

This is what is printed on the back of the book:-

"This is the heart-breaking true story of one of the UK's most shocking modern-day slavery cases.
Anna was an innocent student living in London when she was kidnapped, beaten and forced into the sex slave industry. Threatened and tormented by her pimps, she was made to have sex with thousands of men."

This book has nothing to say about the sex industry in Britain. She was taken from London to Ireland, and put to work in Dublin, Galway and Belfast. Some women were also taken to Sweden.

This is curious, because there are many brothels in London. Why were women taken to Ireland and Sweden? Could it be that gangsters like Ionut and Schwarz thrive in areas where prostitution is underground?

Swedish authorities say that Sweden is less of an attraction to traffickers now because of the law they have had since 1999 which criminalises men who pay for sex. That can only be guesswork though, and this book seems to be saying that Sweden is more of an attraction than than London or Manchester.

If this is true then having the same law in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland will be counter-productive. Anna helped to bring this law about in Northern Ireland.

If you want to learn about one aspect of prostitution in Ireland and Sweden then you can watch Doing Money. If you want to learn about prostitution in Britain then A Very British Brothel and First Time Call Girl. They are both documentaries and they are consistent with my experience of prostitution.

Since I have read Rachel Moran's book Paid For I am struck by the differences between the two books. They can't both be 'the reality' of prostitution. Perhaps prostitution in Ireland in the 1990s was different to what happens now. Moran's book, together with three studies of Dublin sex workers, paint a picture of Ireland where things got more violent after the 1993 law. It seems that after the 2017 law things are getting even more violent. Yet this book helped to bring in the 2017 law.

These are the three studies of Dublin sex workers

• The Health Needs of Women working in prostitution in the Republic of Ireland 1994 O'Connor 
• Women Working in Prostitution: towards a healthier future 1996 O'Connor O'Neill Foran 
• Drug using women working in prostitution 1999 O'Connor O'Neill

Neither Moran's book nor these three studies say anything about women being kidnapped from the streets by violent pimps and raped. What one of the studies says is this

 "Three (17%) of the women felt very strongly that the new law is leading to the emergence of pimps (male protectors) and therefore, an increase in violence and intimidation on the streets. One said "anyone with enough money to rent an apartment and a mobile phone can go into business as a pimp. These men are offering protection and a "safe house" to women who are working. "They leech (latch) onto the women providing protection and paying bail, that's when the violence comes in"." O'Connor, A.M. (1994)

 It was the 1993 law which created the world that Anna experienced. Well-meaning but counter-productive laws create the problem and don't solve it. The 2017 law in Ireland as far as we can tell is like the 1993 law in that it will and has created more problems than it solved.

 Now we have an up to date study of prostitution in Northern Ireland. It is A Review of the Criminalisation of Paying for Sexual Services in Northern Ireland 2019 by Ellison, Ní Dhónaill and Early. It doesn't confirm what Anna, Rachel Moran and Lord Maurice Morrow have said about prostitution in Northern Ireland. If you want to know the reality of prostitution in Northern Ireland I suggest you read this report.

I have been following the case of Karl Ring and Ivett Szuda. Ring was sentenced to four years imprisonment with Szuda sent down for six and a half years. They were found guilty of human trafficking, controlling prostitution for gain, and 'money laundering'. They were not violent, and the most coercive thing they did was to take away some women's passports. This is not acceptable, but happens with migrant workers in different industries.

They rented flats in Chelsea Cloisters in London to women who wanted to work as prostitutes. They organized air travel between Eastern Europe and London. This is probably the reality of traffickers, at least in London. What happens in Ireland and Sweden could be different.

Below is one woman's experience, you couldn't get further from Anna's:-

"She showed me around the flat and she offered me two rooms. The smaller room was £60 per day and the bigger one for £80 per day." She explained that Szuda gave her a key to the flat at Chelsea Cloisters, which operated like a hotel. "The hotel had a reception and it worked like a hotel system but the rooms had kitchens and bathrooms,' she said. "They were basically hotel apartments. There was another girl when I arrived and she was doing sex work and there was another one who was just doing massage only. Everyone had their own rooms." But she said business was so bad for her that she went back to Hungary after six days. Another woman working for the couple went on holidays with Szuda and other prostitutes to the Bahamas and Miami as "team building exercises".

One woman said "On a good day I would see three to four clients a day, I earned £60 from each." So she earned £240 per day for what sounds like four hours work. She could stop anytime she wanted - like the woman who went back to Hungary after 6 days. She didn't have to do anything she didn't want - like the woman who was just doing massage only. Does this sound anything like the situation that Anna was in?

I think that the prohibitionists should think very carefully about what they want. Britain might become like Ireland and Sweden where the criminals reign. Just like in prohibition America where the do-gooders thought they were getting rid of a problem - alcohol - and they were just making it worse. Much, much, worse. Be careful what you wish for.

Novelist Liz Jensen said that men who use prostitutes should watch the drama and end up "squirming and feeling deeply regretful". I haven't watched the drama but I have read the book, and Rachel Moran's book. I have read the three reports on prostitution in Ireland in the 1990s. I have also kept up to date about trafficking through recent research and news reports. My conclusion is that it is abolitionists who have created this problem not people like me. Caring about people means looking at all the evidence and thinking about it deeply. It doesn't mean getting caught up in a drama. Don't think you can watch a drama and then you're an expert.