two sex workers in their 20s jailed

Adrina P (25) and Ana T (20) were raided in November last year. They were jailed for nine months last week. I haven't given their full names even though they are in the media because this kind of exposure is harmful to sex workers.

This is the reality of the Nordic model, which has been in place in Ireland since 2017. You might say that prostitutes have always been jailed for 'brothel keeping', but the penalties were doubled when the new law came in. This is how the Nordic model was meant to work, they pretend that prostitutes are decriminalized. The welfare of women is a low priority; nothing must get in the way of their futile war against prostitution by any means necessary.

Sex workers say Kildare ‘brothel’ arrests prove law is not fit for purpose Belfast Telegraph June 10 2019 The two women, one of whom is pregnant, were jailed for nine months at Naas District Court last week.

Jailing of sex workers keeping brothel shows law ‘not fit for purpose’ Irish Times June 10 2019 ‘Nordic model’ legislation does not protect those selling sex, says alliance

Feminists, if you support the ‘Nordic’ approach to sex work, you’re co-signing the imprisonment of women The Independent

A change in Irish law was meant to help sex workers. So why are they being jailed? The Guardian June 12 2019

This article is even more recent.

Police question dozens in prostitution crackdown Independent.ie 14 June 14 2019 Kate McGrew, director of Sex Workers Alliance Ireland, said more women had been prosecuted for “so-called” brothel keeping, what she termed working together in safety.

Here are articles which show the introduction of the Nordic model in Ireland has been a disaster.

‘It’s clearly a brothel, yet nothing can be done’ Irish Times 29 July 2017 The vast majority of those targeted for brothel keeping are eastern European women; only three Irish people have been prosecuted in the past three years. The usual penalty is a fine, and about 35 per cent have received jail terms.

Does the Nordic model work? What happened when Ireland criminalised buying sex New Statesman March 26 2018 Another effect of the legislation was to double the punishment for brothel-keeping in an attempt to crack down on pimping. Irish law defines a brothel as a place where two or more people work, meaning women working in pairs for safety reasons can be charged for pimping each other.

Buying sex has been illegal in Ireland for one year but 'very little' has changed thejournal.ie February 23 2018

How the Irish State is Failing Sex Workers Rebel September 13 2018

FactCheck: Would a new government bill really decriminalise sex workers? thejournal.ie 18 September 2016

Man, 65, is the first convicted of buying sex Irish Examiner 22 January 2019 €200 fine

Finally, a couple of good news stories.

Nurses vote to back decriminalisation of prostitution Royal College of Nurses to lobby UK government in move to protect sex workers’ health The Guardian 1 June 2019

Mexico City will decriminalize sex work in move against trafficking The Guardian 20 May 2019

You might think that I am only criticizing the Nordic model because it would stop me from paying for sex. I know enough about it to know that it doesn't stop men from paying for sex. I have read the reports: there is just as much prostitution in Sweden today as there was 20 years ago.

Over the years I have met many women in prostitution and usually they are good people. I don't like the idea that they could be jailed for nine months. People who demonize men like me aren't going to believe that I care more about the welfare of women than they do.

These two young women have had their lives ruined. When they leave prison they will probably be deported. They may never be able to work. Any time anyone Googles their names it will come up 'prostitute'. It would not be surprising if they end up walking the streets at night in a red light district in Bucharest and die of an overdose or are murdered.

You may say they brought it upon themselves by coming to Ireland, selling sex, and trying to keep themselves safe by working together. They won't be doing that again. They brought it upon themselves. They were told though that Ireland had decriminalised prostitutes, that they were regarded as victims. You don't put victims in jail.

It will be Rachel Moran and Frances Fitzgerald who will be responsible for whatever happens to these two women. They are the ones who brought this vicious and hypocritical system to Ireland. Ireland has always had a problem with its 'fallen women' and that continues today. Fitzgerald is the former Minister for Justice and Equality. Where is the justice? Where is the equality?

I will be Googling the names of the jailed women in the years to come because I want to know what happens to them. I won't forget them the way that everyone forgot the three women who were arrested alongside the first punter to be arrested when the Nordic model came to Northern Ireland. If I could find out their names I would Google them too.

We need to record the arrests in Nordic model countries. We need to record if they are male or female, and their ages. How many of the arrests are of women in their 20s? Deportations and evictions should be recorded too.

Moran writes in her book about the decriminalisation of prostitutes in the Nordic model. That's the only time she uses the word. No mention of decriminalisation in the context of New Zealand. There is no proper discussion of the issues in her book.

So you might think that I don't accept the Nordic model. If the Nordic model was applied as it is supposed to be applied I wouldn't have a problem. I could accept the risk of a 200 euro fine. There has only been one punter convicted in Ireland, and he was given a €200 fine. Not much chance of detection then. Even if you are convicted, it just means you've spent more than you anticipated. I'm not bothered if anyone knows what I've been up to either. I wouldn't be deterred.

It's the reality of the Nordic model that I can never accept. I can never accept the jailing of prostitutes, or any of the extra-judicial punishments that they face eg eviction. Theory and practice are two different things, and the system can only spread through deceit.

Make no mistake, the punishment of women under the Nordic model is essential to that system. It's not a hangover from a previous system. It's not an unintended consequence that will be corrected by Moran campaigning for an adjustment and Fitzgerald taking notice. Moran isn't happy with the way the model has turned out in Ireland but she is goading the police into even more repressive measures.

There are political parties in Nordic model countries who want to get rid of the system. One way to do that would be to say "We don't want to get rid of the Nordic model, we want to implement the REAL Nordic model, one where women is their 20s don't get arrested". They would gain a lot of support, but of course people like Julie Bindel wouldn't be happy about that.

Radical Feminists like Bindel wouldn't be happy, but just as many feminists are third-wave sex positive feminists. Why should they be ignored? I'd like to see what answer Bindel could come up with if progressive parties in northern and southern Ireland campaigned for the true decriminalisation of prostitutes.

Frances Fitzgerald has said not prosecuting women would be a 'legal loophole'. That doesn't make any sense: under no circumstances should women in their 20s be arrested. Whatever scenario you're thinking of, they should not be arrested. They might be independent, pretending to be independent but pimped, or pimped: in none of these cases should they be arrested. "Women would come under pressure to claim they were working independently" she says. That shouldn't make any difference.

She wants to try to stamp out prostitution by any means necessary and for her the end justifies the means. The end will never be realised though, and so repressive measures will continue for decades to come as has happened in Sweden.

The 'Nordic Model Now!' site state this:-

"Legalising small groups of prostituted women operating from the same premises would serve to legitimise prostitution and put the “right” of men to buy sexual access and the “right” of prostituted women to operate in groups above the rights of all women and girls to not be commercially sexually exploited, and to be free from sexual violence, and of communities to dignity and safety for their most vulnerable members."

So they know about the issue but don't believe that women have a right to work together. So they don't believe in decriminalisation for prostitutes. They believe they should be jailed because of 'dignity and safety'! I've got a better idea. Instead of jailing them, just re-open the old Magdalene Laundries. They can wash their sins away the Ruhama way.

down by the river

Yesterday I went to Chester on the train. I wasn't intending to see a sex worker but I wondered what would happen if I went onto the internet and looked for escorts in Chester. I wasn't expecting much because I have tried to find sex workers using AdultWork years ago and gave up because of poor results. My phone is not a smartphone and I can't access AdultWork but I found some adverts on vivastreet.

It looked as if I would be able to send a text message easily. I chose one at random and asked if she would be available that afternoon. She replied and I made an appointment to see her at 3 pm. She didn't give me her full address but it was in an appartment block in Saddlery Way. That sounded familiar and later I realized that I'd been to Saddlery Way to see a sex worker before.

There are some lovely private apartment blocks between the racecourse and the river. The only two sex workers that I knew of in Chester are two 'mature ladies'. I know of them because they advertized in local papers. One of them works from a flat in one of those apartment blocks.

At 2.50 pm I was sitting next to the river and I texted the Thai woman to tell her I was next to the apartments so she could give me the number to go to. There was no reply so at 3 pm I phoned her. It went to voicemail. I wasn't bothered because I thought she would probably be older and less attractive than her advert made her out to be.

I thought as I am here now I might as well give the mature lady a call. She said she was busy till 4 pm but I could come then if I wanted. So I told her that's what I'll do. Minutes later the Thai woman texted. She asked me to give her five minutes then come to her flat. Another text message gave me her flat number and said come straight away.

When she opened the door to me I was very surprised. She was tall, slender, young and pretty. She had a lovely brown skin and long dark hair. I don't think I have ever been with a girl as attractive as her. Her English is very good and she seems to be an educated young lady. She is also fun loving.

I paid £70 for my half hour with Sara and I spent most of the time on top of her shagging her. Towards the end she put one of my fingers in her pussy. She moved her hand and pelvis so that I got a nice feel of the inside of her vagina. Her phone number is +447393482377 and I can recommend her.

As she was showing me to the door she had put her glasses on which made her look even more sexy. She looked like a student.

I still had my 4 pm appointment with the mature lady. I decided to keep it. I told her about Sara. The mature lady doesn't do vaginal or anal penetration, she only does oral sex or hand relief. She does oral sex without a condom. I spent 20 minutes with her and she only charged me £20. She told me that there's a brothel near to Chester station, I don't know about that one.

I might go to see both of them next Tuesday. Sara won't be there much longer. I think she said she will be there to the 15th of this month.

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.