which way for Britain?

I used to think that the Nordic Model might come to Britain. It already has in Northern Ireland. Recently though it seems that we are moving the other way. Julie Bindel is worried that this might be happening. She wrote an article in December subtitled 'Young Left-wing MPs ignore the exploitative reality'.

In this article she criticises a number of women politicians for speaking in favour of decriminalisation. Nadia Whittome, Dawn Butler, Charlotte Nichols and Zarah Sultana from Labour. Caroline Lucas and Natalie Bennett from the Green Party.

About Nadia Whittome: "She was delighted when feminists lost their fight to put a cap on lap dance clubs in Bristol, despite evidence that men outside the clubs sexually harass women on their way home".

Julie Bindel doesn't give a link to this 'evidence' although she gives links to other things. If you follow the links though they never seem to support the points she makes.

Caroline Lucas used to support the Nordic model but changed her mind after talking to Paris Lees. One link given in this paragraph doesn't have anything to do with Caroline's ideas about prostitution though. It is a link to a debate where Caroline was present but didn't speak.

Another link is intended to support her assertion that 'the psychological damage as a result of prostitution is well documented'. The link is to a study titled 'Posttraumatic stress disorder among female street-based sex workers in the greater Sydney area, Australia'. It is not about sex workers in general, it is only to do with women who are drug addicts and street-based sex workers. They are a minority of sex workers and their psychological damage is as much to do with drug addiction and homelessness as it is to do with street prostitution.

Julie Bindel states that in New Zealand HIV and rape are thought of as "industrial injury".She links to a document called 'A Guide to Occupational Health and Safety in the New Zealand Sex Industry'. The version she links to  is not a seachable version but I found one here. The word "industrial" is not found anywhere in the text. The document is meant to help women avoid harm, it doesn't say that sex workers have to accept harm as a necessary part of what they do.

There can be a sex industry where harm is minimised or a sex industry where harm is not minimised. What is not possible is to have a society without a sex industry. You can try to ban it but it will not work. It hasn't worked in any Nordic Model country.

She believes that legalisation increases trafficking and the sexual exploitation of children. She links to a study done by the London School of Economics. The study however has nothing to say about the exploitation of children. The study says that the more prostitution there is in a country the more trafficking there will be. It doesn't seem to distinguish between women who are coerced and women whose motivation is to make more money.

Some countries have more prostitutes and therefore more trafficking. The study establishes that the amount of prostitution and trafficking increased in Germany. It does not establish that the amount of prostitution and trafficking increased in Denmark or decreased in Sweden. Germany, Denmark and Sweden were the three countries studied in some detail. It says nothing about New Zealand, which is the only country to have had decriminalisation in place for a number of years, where we know there has been no increase in the amount of prostitution.

Denmark has more prostitution than Sweden, but there is no evidence that this is because of the difference in the laws. So that cannot be used to say that there is more prostitution and trafficking because of differences in law. It can even less be said that legalisation causes an increase in prostitution and trafficking ('legalisation of the sex trade increases both' in Bindel's words), and the study does not say that. We know that did happen in Germany, but we already know that what is happening in Germany is not the right way to go.

Bindel writes that "The commercial sexual exploitation of children is rife, for example, the buying and selling of Albanian refugee children in Kent". The article she links to does not say that though. It says that Albanian children have gone missing. It doesn't say anything about them being bought and sold, or even sexual exploitation.

"Tina sold sex from high-end London hotels for years and was forced to sleep in handcuffs every night." I don't know where this comes from. The Space International site she links to in this paragraph has nothing about Tina or handcuffs. It has testimony from 'women who have escaped' but I can't find a Tina. Rachel Moran doesn't mention anyone being forced to sleep in handcuffs every night in her book.

There are horror stories and they want us to believe that they are typical of the sex industry.*

Nadia Whittome gets another mention in an article that suggests there has been a big change in the attitudes of the police towards brothel keeping. The police closed many brothels in the 2010s.

"Commenting on the police officer's remarks, Nadia Whittome, Labour MP for Nottingham East, told The Independent: Right now, too many sex workers work alone for fear of prosecution, increasing the risks they face.

Changing the law on brothel keeping so that sex workers could work from the same premise would be an important step in the right direction."

Christine Jardine, a Scottish Liberal Democrat, agrees with Nadia Whittome. So it looks as if Julie Bindel will have to add Christine Jardine to her list of female MPs who she despises, along with Nadia Whittome, Dawn Butler, Charlotte Nichols, Zarah Sultana, Caroline Lucas and Natalie Bennett. She will have to add the Liberal Democratic party to the Labour and Green Party. That seems to leave just the Conservatives left for her.

It's not that Whittome et al ignore the exploitative reality. Bindel and people like her have failed to convince them. Most prostitutes don't get PTSD. Decriminalisation doesn't increase the amount of prostitution, trafficking or the sexual exploitation of children. It's not surprising that people think that Julie Bindel and her Evangelical allies are pearl-clutchers.

What is Julie Bindel's real motivation? Does she really believe that women need to be freed from handcuffs? Or, as a political lesbian, does she think that women shouldn't be having sex with men anyway? Does she think that she can stop some women having sex with some men, which is some way towards her ideal society?

---

* The worst horror story that I know of - and a real one - is that of the the four Gonzalez Valenzuela sisters. It's quite interesting but not relevant - it comes from 1940s Mexico. They were the perpetrators, not the victims.

the victims of the Gonzalez Valenzuela sisters

the reality of trafficking

Recently I participated in an internet forum about prostitution (ukpunting.com) where a thread was entitled 'Trafficking'. The man who started the thread began with "Should we report suspected trafficking to the police? Is that a moral dilemma for punters? How do you define it?".

What surprised me was the level of ignorance of most of the other contributors. They really do seem to be confused about the issue. This confusion has led to a great deal of harm to women.

I tried to explain that you have to be very careful what you report to the police. It can result in arrest and deportation for the women concerned. There were two different responses to that. One was to say that they don't believe that women will be deported. If the police don't find evidence of abuse they will leave the women alone. The other was that if they are deported it will be because they shouldn't be in this country anyway. So what's the problem?

Both responses are ignorant, but the second is also callous. When the police find women from abroad they will deport them when they can. There is lots of evidence that this is happening. When Britain was part of the EU women from Romania (for example) were entitled to live in Britain. They were deported anyway. So it's not just people who shouldn't be in this country anyway.

I'm not sure what the situation is now that we have left the EU. What I expect is that women on tourist or student visas will be deported even if they haven't overstayed.

On page 80 of Revolting Prostitutes by Juno Mac and Molly Smith they say this:-

"Police Scotland put out a press release noting that they had refused entry at the border to more than a hundred people as part of their anti-trafficking work - offering as an example a Romanian woman who had 'previously worked as a prostitute in Glasgow'. The BBC reports, 'She was refused admission at Glasgow in May 2017, then again at Liverpool in July 2017 and was encountered recently at Belfast docks attempting to get to Scotland. She was removed to Romania."

They go on to write about another Romanian woman whose sex worker colleague was murdered in her presence. The police 'deported her while claiming a humanitarian anti-trafficking mantle'.

This also happens in Nordic Model countries where they (wrongly) say that women have been decriminalised. On the Nordic Model Now! site Luba Fein writes in the Has the Nordic Model worked? What does the research say? page about Nordic Model countries:-

"While there is no clear evidence that the police are violent towards those engaged in prostitution, they do tend to target undocumented migrants and report them to the immigration authorities for potential deportation. Clearly this is unacceptable and states need to provide better support and assistance to foreign nationals who have been used and abused in the sex trade within their territory."

Most people who support the Nordic Model seem to think that prostitution should be eliminated by any means necessary. They don't care about the women who are harmed. However, Luba Fein believes that it is clearly unacceptable to deport prostitutes.

So even she - a Nordic Model supporter - has compassion for deported women. It surprised me when so many people on the forum didn't have this compassion. It is also a contradictory attitude to have. You want to report a brothel to the police because you think that coercion might have occurred - presumably out of compassion for the women there. Yet if the result of your actions is for women to be deported then you say it doesn't really matter.

You have to question people's true motives. Someone says he wants to free women yet if he knew that the women had not been coerced or deceived but had been deported he says he doesn't care. It sounds like the real motivation is dislike of immigrants.

If you ask what proportion of Brazilian or Chinese nationals working as prostitutes in Britain are trafficked, the answer has to be nearly all of them. They are trafficked because someone will have organised their flight, organised their accommodation, and organized their customers. It's very unlikely that someone who doesn't speak good English will be able to organize themselves.

If you ask what proportion of Brazilian or Chinese nationals working as prostitutes in Britain are coerced or deceived, the answer has to be hardly any. There are many reasons why we know this. You can read what investigative journalist Nick Davies has written in his article Inquiry Fails to Find Single Trafficker Who Forced Anybody Into Prostitution. Read what Emily Kenway has written in her book The Truth About Modern Slavery.

Section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 says that a man who pays for sex with a woman who has been coerced or deceived is committing a crime, even if he didn't know that. 81% of police forces in England and Wales have never used it. The remaining ones seem to be using it for something other than for what it was intended.

It is clear that trafficking and coercion are two different things. Most non-European prostitutes will have been trafficked, and few will have been coerced. People don't seem to be able to distinguish between these two things. They say they will report their suspicions to the police, and if later there are prosecutions for trafficking they feel vindicated.

If a man decides to make money by recruiting women from Brazil for prostitution, he may feel that because they don't have bruises and don't look miserable then nobody can accuse him of trafficking. He will be prosecuted though, and they will be deported.

I was asked on the thread what I would do. I wrote that there should be welfare officers independent of the police. People could give information to them, and the welfare officers could pass on to the police information if they thought that it was in the interests of the women.

I was then told that there are already people like this. There are Dedicated Liaison Officers or Sex Work Liaison Officers. These however are not independent of the police. It doesn't seem that they can be can be contacted by members of the public. That's not what they are for.

I wrote that instead of the police deporting any woman that they can, it would be better if the police or a welfare officer interviewed them. First to find out if they have been coerced or deceived. If, as is usually the case, they haven't then each woman should be asked why she came to Britain. If she says that she wants to stay 3 months, earn £20,000, then go back to China to start her own small business then she should be told she won't be deported if she's out of the country in 3 months time.

She should be told that if she's not out of the country by then she will be found and deported. She will have a black mark against her name because the Chinese government keeps tabs on all its citizens. She may find it difficult to get a job or the sort of job that she would like, and may have problems with custody of her children. That's why I would hesitate to report a brothel to the police, I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

I tried to tell them about the Palermo Protocol but they weren't interested. The Palermo Protocol defines trafficking and was adopted by the UN in 2000. It says that trafficking has to include coercion or deception if the person is over 18. If there is no coercion or deception then it isn't trafficking. That definition was changed in the US and UK. Under UK law now it doesn't have to include coercion or deception. This is where the confusion comes in.

As Nick Davies wrote a while ago in The Guardian:-

"And, from the outset, that word was a problem. On a strict definition, eventually expressed in international law by the 2000 Palermo protocol, sex trafficking involves the use of force, fraud or coercion to transport an unwilling victim into sexual exploitation. This image of sex slavery soon provoked real public anxiety.

But a much looser definition, subsequently adopted by the UK's 2003 Sexual Offences Act, uses the word to describe the movement of all sex workers, including willing professionals who are simply travelling in search of a better income. This wider meaning has injected public debate with confusion and disproportionate anxiety."

I was accused of trying to confuse people. People like me try to confuse people about trafficking. I replied that there are people who want to confuse, people whose interests are served by confusing the issue. I said who these people are. Christian Evangelicals and Radical Feminists in the UK and US. They didn't believe that.

Instead I was told that it is 'UK pro-decriminalisation advocates' who are trying to confuse people. Someone suggested that I am a pimp. That could be the only reason in his mind why I would be reluctant to help the police to raid brothels. I told him that pimps aren't going to support decriminalisation if they understand the issue because in New Zealand pimps have gone out of business. There are far fewer pimps in New Zealand now than before decriminalisation.

It is true that New Zealand has its problems with migrants. I have explained this in a recent post. It's because of section 19 of the PRA which those who campaigned for decriminalisation never wanted and are trying to remove.

Then I was accused of being political even though it wasn't me who raised the issue of decriminalisation. Now I have been banned. That doesn't bother me because there's no point in having a forum if people don't understand how to have a discussion.

my review of the year 2022

It has been a good year for me. I set out to limit myself to one paid-for sexual encounter each month. I have had more than twelve though. Until today I had had twelve paid-for sexual encounters resulting in orgasm and today I had another one. That's better than last year, better than any year (yes I do keep records). As you will know if you have been reading this blog, I don't always have an orgasm.

In January and February I went to my nearest brothel, Rock Ferry Thai Massage. I had sex and orgasms with Emma and Maya. So far so good. I had another orgasm with Maya in April. In April and May I had sex and orgasms with Pepsi at the same place. Pepsi is much more attractive that either Emma and Maya. The second time with Pepsi she let me snog her while I was on top of her, which made it even more enjoyable.

In June I made two daytrips to Sheffield. On the second one Alec at Diplomat let me use one of my thin condoms, which is probably why I had an orgasm with her but no one else. In July I had a daytrip to London, I went to Soho and visited a couple of walk ups.

In June I started going to a flat that I found out about in Southport. Some of the women who go to Rock Ferry Thai Massage also go here. In July saw the lovely Joy again here. When I didn't orgasm she said it was because I had taken viagra. She said next time don't take viagra, she will be able to give me an erection without it.

In September I went to Angel Lodge in Liverpool looking for Megan. Instead I found the very attractive Olivia. I shagged her until I came. In October I decided to go to the brothel in Manchester which is run by the old Thai woman who also runs Rock Ferry Thai Massage. I was lucky to find Pepsi there so I gave her a good shagging.

This month I shagged Joy again at Rock Ferry Thai Massage and this time I orgasmed. It wasn't because I didn't take a viagra, I had taken one. I don't know what difference it makes but sometimes I think that when it is starting to wear off then I get both a good erection and resulting in an orgasm. I've seen Pepsi three times this year and orgasmed twice, Joy two times and orgasmed once. Quite good going for someone of my age.

In my last blog I told you about the new Chinese brothel down by the docks in Liverpool. I have been there six times since October. The first time I saw Yaya. I shagged her without a condom. I recently had an HIV test: you have to wait 7 weeks before you can have the blood test that will tell you if you have the HIV infection. You can have a test kit sent to your home, I did that but couldn't get enough blood from my fingers so I arranged to go back to the GUM clinic where they took my blood. They test for other STIs too. I will get the results soon but I'm not worried, it will probably be negative.

The second girl I saw here was slightly more attactive than Yaya and wanted to use a condom so we did. The third girl was called Ee-purr. I've no idea how she spells it but that's what it sounds like. She was very pretty and young, smiley and chatty. The fourth girl didn't look happy at all. I started thinking this brothel must be a bad place. First a woman who didn't seem to know about condoms and now a girl who looks unhappy.

On the internet someone said it should be closed down. He said that the man who seems to be security there is to stop them escaping. I don't believe that. There was a documentary about trafficking I have written about. A Brazilian woman was deported, she tried to return to Britain, saying that she needed money for uni. A police officer said that the women aren't coerced but they don't know what they are letting themselves in for. They face rape and robbery and therefore it all needs to be stopped.

However, it is the system that makes them vulnerable to rape and robbery. Police activity means they often work alone. At this Chinese brothel in Liverpool they are not going to be raped or robbed with that security guard there. I don't know what the answer is.

A few days ago I went there again. This time it was the most beautiful woman. I like Japanese pornography, one reason is that often they have very beautiful women in it. This woman was as beautiful as any. I asked her name. I thought she said Bingo, I thought what strange names they choose for themselves. I felt a sense of unreality because she was like a dream woman to me.

I went to see her again today. Like the last time I got on top of her and fucked her. This time though I had an orgasm. Both times she had let me use one of my thin condoms. She is very engaging, smiling and laughing, talking and looking at me in the eyes.

I said she should take my phone number so that when she comes back to Liverpool she can text me and I will come to see her again. To my surprise she said yes. She said her name isn't Bingo, it is Bingu. That's her real name. I thought they might not have a bathroom there to keep themselves clean. Turns out they've got a really nice one, I've been in it.

In my last post I said that one thing I like about Meena is that she stays with me for the full half hour after I have orgasmed, massaging me and talking to me. When I saw Joy for the second time this year it was the same: perhaps they are different with regular clients. It was the same with Bingu today.

Sometimes I think what would 'cure' me of my desire to visit sex workers. It wouldn't be a series of bad experiences. It could be a series of wonderful experiences, such as I have had this year. If someone had a perfect holiday, might they consider that they don't need to go on holiday again? They have found what they were looking for. They found the perfect holiday. No need to search any more.

I won't be visiting a sex worker for a while. It might be different when it comes to the summer. If I get a text message from Bingu I shall see her. If I make a daytrip to Blackpool and Pepsi is at this brothel I told you about then I shall see her. I'm tempted to make another day trip to London now that I know Sabrina is still in Greek Street and Poppy is still in Greens Court. I missed out on seeing them on this year's daytrip. I would have to plan it better if I wanted to see both of them on the same day.

I will tell you all about it if I do. In the meantime I will keep myself informed about the legal aspects of sex work and pass on anything important.

down by the docks

I told you that there is only one brothel in Liverpool now. I have found another, down by the docks. I don't think you would want to go there though.

Since my day trip to London in July I have been to Angel Lodge, the brothel in Liverpool that I have told you about before. I was hoping to see Megan, who I have seen several times before. Instead there was Olivia. Olivia is taller, thinner and younger than Megan. She has tightly-curled blonde hair, a light tan and very white teeth. She is also very friendly. I told Olivia that Megan let me use my ultra-thin condoms, if they were in an unopened pack.

Olivia didn't tell me that I could do the same. We had sex with one of her normal condoms but I still had an orgasm. I went to see her a second time. I told her that I had seen a model in a clothes catalogue who looked just like her. So much so that I thought it might be her. The same hair, light tan and white teeth. So, if you want to know what Olivia looks like, go to the Joe Brown's site. Perhaps that look is becoming fashionable.

I have also been back to the Thai brothel in Rock Ferry. I have seen Meena twice. Meena is older and not so attractive but I like her. She lets me use ultra-thin condoms. One of the things I like about her is that after I have had my orgasm she stays with me for the full half hour that I have paid for. She gives me a massage and we talk. I pay £60 to see Meena but only £50 to see Olivia (or £60 if I also want oral sex without a condom).

I told you before that I have been finding out about where the women go when they are not working in Rock Ferry. I know that Joy sometimes works for a couple of weeks from a flat in Southport. I went to see her there. It makes a nice day out. I thought Pepsi works there too, but it turns out another woman I have seen in Rock Ferry calls herself Pepsi when in Southport. I knew her as Emma and I don't like her. She is older like Meena but not friendly.

The old woman who owns and runs the Rock Ferry brothel also owns a brothel in Manchester and another one in Blackpool. I went to the one in Manchester (6 Park Place) for the first time. The old woman opened the door and recognised me. I was in luck because Pepsi (the real Pepsi) was there. I had half an hour with her. I didn't know about this place until recently even though it was in the next street to a favourite brothel that has closed permanently (Salon 24).

The Blackpool brothel is at 23 Cookson Street. I have not been there but I would like to go. Next time I feel like a day out in Blackpool. I have told you about my days out in Blackpool in 2019. I can phone to find out who is there. I can find Pepsi and avoid Emma. Cookson Street is an odd little red light district in Blackpool I have told you about.

When I saw the advert for the new Liverpool brothel I thought it was going to be like the brothel in Rock Ferry but it is very different. I have not been to a place like that except once many years ago in Croydon. You phone the number and a woman answers. She will tell you the street (alley) to go to. It's near the Baltic Fleet pub. When she has seen you then she will tell you the number of the flat.

The door is opened by a Chinese man. He knows little English but gestures for you to sit and wait. He sits in the same room as you. It smells of Chinese food. When the previous customer has finished he will come down the stairs and walk past you to the door. You go up the stairs to a small room.

The woman I saw the first time was young and attractive. She told me her name is Yaya. She speaks next to no English and I realised that the woman I spoke to on the phone is not the same woman. I also wondered if she has washed since the previous customer or changed anything on the bed.

We did some kissing and touching and then I indicated I wanted to get on top of her. I was expecting her to reach over for a condom but instead I got a slightly puzzled look. It took me a couple of seconds for me to realise that I could fuck her without a condom. Foolishly I did. I really enjoyed it.

I had some ultra-thin condoms in my bag but I didn't think to use them. Afterwards she continued to be friendly, helping me on with my clothes. She looked me in the eyes and asked me if I am English. I have an unusual eye colour and she wanted to know which ethnic group has eyes like mine.

Later I thought that if I had known this would happen I would have used one of my ultra-thin condoms. Then I could have gone to a GUM clinic and got PrEP. I have been on it before and if you take it before unprotected sex you won't get HIV. Then I could have gone to the brothel again, fully prepared for any eventuality.

I searched for information about it and realised there is also something called PEP. You can take PEP after unprotected sex. I went to Boots and they said go to the GUM clinic in Liverpool. I went there and they said go to A&E. I went there and they said go to the walk-in GPs surgery in the same hospital. I went there and they said I would have to go back to A&E: they haven't got any PEP.

Two weeks later I went back to the Chinese brothel. A different girl was there. She was prettier, taller and thinner than Yaya. She wanted to use a condom so we did. She hardly spoke any English. I asked her name. I can't remember it because it sounded Chinese but I think it begins with an N. I asked her about Yaya. I think what she said was that Yaya is in London and wouldn't be coming back: there are only 3 girls who return there again and again.

I think the reason these women do this is because they can make a hell of a lot more money than in a garment factory in Shanghai. They aren't looked after properly though. They should all be told about condoms. They should be able to shower between customers. I might go back once more but it will never become somewhere I want to go again and again like the one in Rock Ferry.

I'm not sure I should even call it a brothel because it seems there is only one sex worker there at a time. There is the woman on the phone and the security man. I suppose it might be like many of the 'independent' sex workers in Liverpool. There are some truly independent sex workers in Liverpool. The best system is the one only found in New Zealand: women working together for safety and companionship making the rules themselves and keeping the profits for themselves.

New Zealand decriminalisation model

I have just been reading a blog written by a sex worker in New Zealand. I think that what she has to say is so important I want to repeat it here. This comes from the post What the NZ model cheer squad get wrong on the Dollar Girl Diaries blog.

If what she is saying is true then it seems that the decriminalisation of sex work has succeeded even better than expected. Sex workers are turning away from pimps because they don't need them. I have always said that sex workers don't need pimps, they can work for themselves.

"So, what happened when we introduced decriminalisation? Something totally unexpected. The paradigm shifted and it shifted radically. The brothels and agencies got wiped out, they were forced out of business. Nobody predicted it. But why did it happen? Despite decriminalisation, the casual independent contractor model for brothel work stayed. The owners had no reason to change it, there was a lot of very good employment case law from around the world saying this was legal and changing would both increase their costs and reduce power over the workers. So they didn’t change it. Decriminalisation however meant you could work outside the brothel system without fear of arrest of police harassment. Suddenly independent work was every bit as safe from arrest as the brothel work. The PRA also includes a provision allowing up to four sex workers to work out of a single location and share the costs equally without a license. Only restriction is all have to control their income independently, you can’t pool the takings and share them out. Gives the safety benefits of a brothel without the exploitation of a manager. Of course this means you’re self employed, with all the issues that brings, but without half your income going into somebody else’s pocket, you can put aside for those things.

Now for the first time, brothel workers had a choice. They no longer needed the brothels and agencies to be safe from arrest. They could stay on in the brothels as self employed independent contractors, with the owners taking around half of what they earned and imposing shift fees, late penalties, controlling their shifts to keep them from complaining, pressuring them to take clients they didn’t want etc. Or they could cut out on their own as an independent worker, maybe get together with a couple of other workers and form one of those new fangled small worker collective brothels. Of course that meant facing the perils of self employment, but they were being treated as self employed in the brothel system anyway. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority elected to cut out on their own. The old brothel system very simply collapsed as the workers found they no longer needed it’s protection. The entire industry paradigm changed. The sex industry in New Zealand is now dominated by independent workers and small worker collectives. Before 2003 there were over 400 hundred brothels and agencies in New Zealand, there are 45 left."

This shows that the proponents of the Nordic model have got it wrong when criticising the New Zealand model. Finn Mackay in her book Radical Feminism on page 211 writing about the English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP) and the International Union of Sex Workers (IUSW). "Both groups commend the approach taken in New Zealand, where brothels of varying sizes from small owner-operated ventures to larger chains are allowed to operate legally, though the ECP favour small owner-operated ventures over larger big business brothel chains. The latter are thriving however under this regime."

Mackay also writes that there had been plans for a 15-storey brothel in Auckland that didn't go ahead. Three brothels in Queensland closed complaining about unfair competition. That doesn't sound as if big business is thriving.

People who believe in decriminalisation are not the pimp lobby. The last thing that pimps want is the decriminalisation of sex work just like the last thing that drug dealers want is the decriminalisation of drugs.

There are some people who will tell you that the amount of prostitution increased in New Zealand after decriminalisation. Mellissa Farley has said this, and so has Samantha Berg. They are both wrong, and I shall show why below. In the case of Samantha Berg, she doesn't seem to understand how statistics work. Just as with her examination of the statistics to do with Norway, she doesn't understand you have to compare like with like. If you have two statistics related to different time periods then they are not comparable. Christchurch had 100 street prostitutes in 2006 and 121 street prostitutes in 2007. However, we're talking about different time periods and different times of year.

more than two types of sex work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

review of The Case Against the Sexual Revolution by Louise Perry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have written more about this book here.

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

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

It was reported in this newspaper article.