review of Radical Feminism by Finn Mackay

Finn Mackay has a lot to say about sex work in her book. Before we come on to that I want to tell you about her attitude to political lesbianism and celibacy. Radical Feminists often say that women should become lesbians: it doesn't mean having sex with women but it does mean definitely not having sex with men.

I've always suspected that this means that most of them don't have sex with anyone, they are celibate. They are trying to stop men and women from having sex together, and this is their main motivation in wanting to ban sex work. It's not that they are full of compassion for sex workers and wish to end their suffering.

Let us have a look at what is the clearest explanation of how political lesbianism usually means celibacy. Page 67.

"Contrary to much rumour since, the paper was not suggesting that women should simply pursue same-sex sexual activity. It was about the political choice to dedicate one's life to women. In fact, in the paper, the Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group clearly reassured heterosexuals that the lesbian bit is not compulsory, and that celibacy is always an option."

The idea of heterosexual lesbians is an interesting one. Particularly as they are always telling us about reality and fiction. It is a fiction that a man can become a woman, it is not reality, so they tell us. Considering that most people are heterosexual, then most political lesbians would be celibate. Like the nuns of Ruhama they want to stop men and women fornicating. Ruhama campaigned for the Nordic model in Ireland.

The paper she is referring to is 'Political Lesbianism' by the Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group which was led by Sheila Jeffreys. Jeffreys wrote "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." 

Mackay explains that there are in fact four different types of feminist. The Radicals and the Revolutionaries, who are similar. Then there are the Liberals and the Socialists. I don't think this includes Third Wave feminists, who she doesn't have much time for.

Mackay quotes the opinion of an activist about sex work: "It is a form of exploitation, slavery: and a very specific one. I don't like the red umbrellas one bit." Page 207. Slaves don't get paid, neither do they choose their work or how they work. Sex work is the opposite of that: they are paid more than most people, and they do what they do in preference to the alternatives, having a great deal of autonomy in how they do it. Of course, there is modern slavery within sex work just as there is modern slavery within other types of work.

Mackay writes that so many feminists oppose prostitution because "they are against the presumption of a male right to sexual access to women's bodies."  Page 208. I don't have a right to have sex with any sex worker, she can turn me down if I don't meet her criteria. Lots of sex work involves a masseur using her hands not just for massage but to bring her client to orgasm. Is that 'sexual access to women's bodies'? If not, then presumably she doesn't have a problem with it. Except of course she does because they always have a problem with sex between men and women, even in marriage.

She writes that under the Nordic model 'women are not criminalised'. She also writes that 'Any such legal move must go alongside a large and dedicated financial investment in both harm-minimisation and exit services ... ' (page 210). She doesn't know that women are arrested in Nordic model countries for brothel keeping just like in Britain. Women are evicted from their homes and deported. The promised exit services don't materialise and the authorities don't like anyone giving them condoms.

She doesn't distinguish between legalisation and decriminalisation. She writes that the ECP (English Collective of Prostitutes) and the IUSW (International Union of Sex Workers) advocate the New Zealand model. The ECP 'favour small owner-operated ventures over larger big business brothel chains.' Page 211. The big business chains are thriving in New Zealand though, she writes, and there was a planning application for a 15-storey brothel. Well, that's not true.

She writes that legalisation would result in a bigger demand and more women involved in prostitution. She also writes that there will be an illegal sector. Page 212. However, in New Zealand there was not an expansion of prostitution after decriminalisation.

There is no reason why exit services should not still exist under decriminalisation. If a factory worker wants to retrain to become an office worker they should be helped to do that. If a sex worker wants to retrain they should be helped too. They should be offered advice about debt, benefits and housing. For the minority who take drugs they should be offered rehab.

A sex worker is not a commodity. She is not like a bale of cotton that I can take home with me and later sell. She is offering a service, like millions of other people.

There is no reason why sex work needs to be more dangerous than other forms of work. It isn't true that 'the average age of entry into prostitution worldwide estimated at around only 14 years old.' Page 211. There is no credible evidence that the Nordic model reduces the amount of prostitution or the number of murders of prostitutes.

She goes on to write about 'markedly gendered' and 'structural inequalities' as if these phrases mean anything. They 'cannot be overlooked' she writes, without spelling out precisely what she means.

Below I have quoted from her book and replied to what she has written:-

Page 217. "To put it bluntly, being a builder does not involve making one's body sexually available to one's employers; the same is true of journalists, academics, waiters etc."

She is trying here to say that sex work is different from any other type of work. The only thing that she can come up with is that sex work has distinguishing characteristics. All types of work have their own distinguishing characteristics though. Working in an undertakers is the only work where you have to handle dead bodies: that doesn't mean that in essence it is not work.

Page 217. "But the debate around prostitution cannot and should not be shut down by turning to the refrain that all work is like prostitution - because it patently is not; and the great majority of people understand this."

In what way is all work not like prostitution, or prostitution not like all work? People have customers, they negotiate a price for a service. They choose their form of work by looking at how much it pays, how long it takes to earn money, and what it is required for them to do. I can see how celibates will never be able to accept this.

Page 220. "No feminist I know is arguing for those in prostitution to be criminalised."

She obviously hasn't read the web site of Nordic Model Now! They say quite clearly that they do not want the repeal of the law that criminalises women for running a brothel. This is the main law used to arrest women in prostitution. That law always stays in place when a country adopts the Nordic model. There is in addition the law that gets sex workers evicted from their homes.

Page 220. "It would be nonsensical to suggest that all those people - women, young people, men - earning an income through prostitution are forced or coerced in the bluntest sense. However, the fact that there are probably some people successfully navigating the 'sex industry' without any negative experiences, for both the love and the money of it, should not negate the fact that research suggests this is far from the experience of the majority."

There is no evidence that most sex workers are coerced, either in Britain or around the world. Some sex workers have had a negative experience. That is the same as in other types of work. Sex workers can minimise these experiences by working together. Another way is to end up with a limited number of regular clients. Some sex workers only see men that they have seen before, they don't have to advertise and they can refuse to see a man they don't like. When police raid a flat they arrest women who work together and confiscate their phones thus disrupting safe activity. 

Page 221. "It is usually acceptable to say that one is against trafficking, although some sex-industry lobby groups do try to suggest that it is extremely rare and they prefer to talk about 'migration for sex work'. Indeed reliable statistics are hard to find when dealing with an illegal trade where people are hidden or hiding and I do not deny that some government attempts at statistics can never be anything else than guesses."

There is a reason why experts on the subject of trafficking say it is rare and instead talk about 'migration for sex work'. Before George W Bush became president the word 'trafficking' had to by definition mean coercion or deception. He put Evangelical Christians in positions of authority and they decided to change the definition. They didn't want to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary sex work.

The UK decided to do the same. The rest of the world didn't. So it's not surprising that experts don't use the US and UK definition and instead stick to the Geneva Protocol. Below I quote two paragraphs from a recent Daily Mail article by Julie Bindel:-

"A few years ago, I attended a conference in Vienna about prostitution. I was one of only four delegates out of 185 who sat on a panel declaring we were troubled by the vile trade at all. The others held the view that all aspects of the sex industry should be decriminalised."

"Progress on the issue has been slow in recent years, however — at least in part because the language around prostitution has been unhelpfully sanitised. The trade in women has been cleaned up as ‘sex work'. Pimps are often described as ‘managers' and, especially within academia, the trafficking of women into prostitution has been rewritten as ‘migration for sex work'."

We should listen to what the academics say, not Radical/Revolutionary Feminists such as Finn Mackay or Julie Bindel.

Page 222. "it is not surprising then that global research finds that around 90 per cent of those in it would leave if they had the economic freedom to do so (Farley et al 2003)."

The 'global research' she mentions is not lots of researchers around the world. It all comes from Melissa Farley who is a Radical Feminist. I have dealt with this particular piece of research here.

Page 223. "It is time to envision a society, and a world, without prostitution. This may sound idealistic, but the theory matters, the direction of travel matters, the aspiration matters, because if we can't envision such a society, then we cannot even begin to build it."

Page 224. "This is not natural, it is not inevitable, and it can be reduced, maybe ended; at the very least it can be challenged, rather than glamourised, normalised and condoned.

The real question about prostitution is the question of men's rights and, whether we as a society believe that men have the right to buy and sell women's bodies or whether they do not."

Page 224. "Imagine if every country stood up and said that this is not acceptable, as Sweden has done, stood up and said that every woman is worth more than what some man will pay for her and that we will criminalise rather than condone men who assume the right to buy the body of another human being."

There is no reason to believe that the Nordic model reduces the amount of prostitution. They have manipulated the statistics to make it appear so. The official report into the Northern Ireland law says that there has been an increase. The statistics from Sweden show an increase in the proportion of Swedish men who are active sex buyers and an increase in the proportion of Swedish women who have sold sex at some time in their life. They also show a decrease in the proportion of Swedish men who have bought sex at some time in their life, the widely reported drop from 13% to 8%, followed by an increase.

If it were possible to end prostitution, that would be one thing. But to burden sex workers and make their lives more difficult with no end in sight is not something we should contemplate.

I have never bought a woman's body. Trying to link it to slavery doesn't make any sense. I don't believe that women are only good for sex - only worth 'what some man will pay for her'. This explains more about why punters are hated - people are being told that we buy women and that we think that women have no value apart from sex. This kind of hatred can only come from a repressed sexuality.

If I go to see a doctor, and it turns out to be a female doctor, do you think that I would say 'I don't want to see you, you're a woman, you're only good for sex'? Of course not. I have respect for women, and I have respect for sex workers.

Page 225. "This is despite the changes in the Policing and Crime Act 2009 under the last Labour government, which were indeed a step forward, for the first time directing the eyes of the law onto those who fuel prostitution - punters. This victory was a result of the tireless campaigning by women's groups, led by the feminist, abolitionist 'Demand Change' campaign."

She must be referring to the law that can criminalise a man if he pays for sex with a woman who has been coerced or deceived, even if he didn't know. In some parts of the country no man has been convicted. The law was based on a false idea that most women in prostitution are coerced or deceived. It's not surprising that celibates like Finn Mackay believe that.

According to this study "section 14 had not been used by the majority (81%) of police forces across England and Wales". According to MP Fiona Mactaggart "In the first year of that being law there were 49 prosecutions—I was a bit disappointed because I did not think that was very many—with the men being found guilty in 43 cases. The following year there were 17 prosecutions, with 12 guilty verdicts, and the year after there were nine prosecutions, with six guilty verdicts".

So it's hardly some kind of great victory for the prohibitionists. They obviously thought that it was going to be their foot in the door. However, they are just wasting everybody's time. We would have to be mad to introduce the Nordic model in Britain.

my review of the year 2021

I have been going to the brothel in Liverpool called Angel Lodge. I saw Katy, Taylor, Alicia and Lucia once each, but I saw Megan 3 times. She is the sort of big blonde that I like and she lets me use my ultrathin condoms. I have only been to Christys once this year.

I went to Manchester once this year, but it's not as good as it was. Cosmopolitan is still good though.

In the summer I found myself near Queensferry in Wales. I remembered that there is a brothel there. I found the number through a Google search on my mobile. When I went there I was pleasantly surprised. It's a nice place (called Dollys) and the sex worker there was lovely. I thought I was onto a good thing.

Pippa is very talkative and seems to want to please. She is a big blonde like Megan and Jodie. She is prettier though, and I liked the way she has her hair up. The first time I saw her she said I can bring thin condoms next time. I saw her three Mondays in a row.

Although she seems to want to please, she didn't seem to want to do the one thing that I want. I like to get on top of a woman and shag her till I come. She let me shag her for a while but then wanted to do something else. So I didn't orgasm with Pippa.

The second two times I saw Pippa I went afterwards to another brothel in Wales. Temptations in Flint. These two brothels are not difficult to get to by bus from Chester. At Temptations I shagged Lola. She didn't talk much, didn't seem to want to please me, but was quite happy for me to get on top of her and shag her till I came. Even though I didn't ask to use my thin condoms with Lola, I came both times with her.

There is a strange brothel in Wallasey called Jays. If you go there on a Wednesday there are two women there. One of them is an old woman called Celia but also called Sharon. The other is Keira and I think she has a different name too. Keira looks middle aged but is probably elderly too: she looks as if she has had some cosmetic surgery. Celia and Keira work together. If you want both of them to suck your cock, at the same time, you can have that. Without a condom if you pay both of them an extra £10.

I saw them twice this year. The second time was very odd. Celia was her usual helpful self but Keira was preoccupied. She stood in the same room as us but looked out the window, commenting about a man who would be returning soon. I think there is a pimp here who is in the room above and watches through the mirrors on the ceiling. I asked them to turn a light on, they told me they were unable to comply, but later the light came on by itself. I'm not going to go there again.

Talking about old women, I saw Diane and Jackie in Chester. Diane has a flat near the racecourse and Jackie uses a friend's house in Bache near the hospital. I won't be going to see either of them again either. All of the women that I have mentioned so far in this post have been English, or possibly Welsh. I say this because some people believe that the majority of women in brothels are Romanian. "Leicestershire police reported that 86% of the women in brothels they visited were Romanian". Not near me.

I will be going to Rock Ferry Thai Massage again though. I saw a lovely woman called Jasmine in January. I saw a delightful young woman called Joy twice recently. I would have seen her a third time but I was told she'd gone. To Manchester. They are there for a couple of weeks then they go to work somewhere else. Then they come back again.

There is another Thai woman who works nearby. Her name is Yaya. She doesn't move to different places. She is pretty and speaks English very well and seems educated. She shares the flat with another Thai girl who only does massage with hand relief. Her name is Maeya.

Maeya only does hand relief. Yaya does full sex but doesn't move to different parts of the country. Joy and the other women at Rock Ferry Thai Massage do full sex and move around. That will be through their own choices, how much money they wish to make and what they are prepared to do for it.

Usually at Thai massage places you don't get full sex. At Rock Ferry Thai Massage you do though. Another place I have been to is Sakura in Liverpool. You don't get full sex there (not usually) but you do get more than just a massage with hand relief. With some of the women at Sakura. I've been there four times this year, but I don't think I will return. Another Chinese place is the newly opened Pink Peony.

So I won't be seeing any old women again. You may wonder why I ever did but some of them are attractive. I don't think I will be going to Wales again, why bother when I can get what I want closer to home? I don't even need to go into Liverpool. My favourite two women this year have been Jasmine and Joy from Rock Ferry Thai Massage. I hope to see both of them again.

my porn experiment

In my last post I wrote that Sara Pascoe is very fair on the subject of pornography but not so much on the subject of prostitution. The Oxford Professor Amia Srinivasan is the opposite though. She has written that internet porn sites control what people see, 'bringing their sexual tastes into conformity'.

"As Shira Tarrant, author of The Pornography Industry, observes: 'If you are interested in something like double oral, and you put that into a browser, you're going to get two women giving one guy a blowjob ... you're not likely to get two men or two people giving a woman oral sex' She adds: 'Online-porn users don't necessarily realize that their porn-use patterns are largely moulded by a corporation.'"

People who are anti porn will just believe this, as Amia seems to have done. I though decided to see for myself, and the results were quite interesting. I typed 'double oral' into Google and was presented with twenty images. I chose to look at images rather than videos because my wifi doesn't allow me to look at PornHub or the main video sites. I could have seen a tiny picture of each video in Google search but in my experience it's not so easy to assess the content of the videos from just a tiny pic or even from the title.

By the way, I have managed to circumvent this censorship. I have found a site which not only can I look at with my wifi but I can download videos from. It is called porntrex.com. You can't download from PornHub now, as I reported a few posts back. I have downloaded lots of videos featuring beautiful Japanese women. I don't have a thing for East Asian women, I have a thing for beautiful women: for some reason the most beautiful women appear in Japanese porn. I would love to interview Kotomi Asakura and ask her about her life.

Getting back to my porn experiment, eight out of the twenty pictures that I saw when I Googled 'double oral' were of two women and one man. Seven showed two men with one woman. Two of them were indistinct. One of them showed two gay men. One of them showed two men and a 'shemale'. One of them was two women giving oral sex to another woman.

And if you don't believe me, try it for yourself. You probably won't get exactly the same results but you can see that what porn critic Shira Tarrant wrote is nonsense. It isn't true that it's all the same. There is enormous diversity. Men's sexual desires aren't being 'moulded by a corporation'. What is presented has been moulded by people's desires. Heterosexual, homosexual, trans, cis.

They say that porn is ubiquitous in modern society. In one way it is, although I can't access PornHub. In another way it isn't, because it seems that so many people haven't looked at it. If they had, they wouldn't say the stupidest things about it. They are convinced that it is all violent. Society has become sexualized, so they say.

I wish I could show you all of the pictures but I don't want this blog to show pornographic images. I will show you the one where the two women give oral sex to another woman. You can't see anyone's genitals or breasts. You can see pubic hair though, some people believe that it's never seen in porn - people who have never seen it. Some people will be disgusted and horrified but I think it's quite sweet.

There's a film, Cinema Paradiso, where at the end a compilation of censored bits of films are shown. They are of people kissing and so on. It shows life, it shows joy, it shows passion.

sex work and the transgender issue

I've been reading a lot about trans issues recently. What got me started was I realized that there is a chapter in Shon Faye's book about prostitution. She is a trans woman and her book is The Transgender Issue. She is in favour of the decriminalization of prostitution, as am I.

This blog is about sex work so I'm not going to write much about the trans issue, except in how it relates to prostitution. I can see both sides of the debate. I have also read Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier and Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality by Helen Joyce. Both of these are authors oppose trans 'ideology'. The second of them is a Radical Feminist.

What annoys me about the Radical Feminists is how they want to reinvent themselves as the guardians of free speech. On the final page of her book Joyce writes "It will take a renewed commitment to two interests shared by everyone in a secular, liberal democracy: freedom of belief and freedom of speech".

They're only saying this now because they have been on the receiving end of treatment that they have been handing out for decades. Consider this, from Amia Srinivasan's book The Right to Sex.

"In 1993 a group of anti-porn feminists wrote a letter to the vice chancellor of the Australian National University demanding that an invitation to US pro-sex feminists, including Gayle Rubin and Carol Vance, be rescinded. One of the signatories was Sheila Jeffreys, a central figure on the 'revolutionary feminist' wing of the British women's liberation movement, which insisted - contrary to the then dominant socialist feminist position - that male sexual violence, rather than capitalism, was the foundation of women's oppression. In recent years Jeffreys has decried the 'vilification' and 'censoring' of feminists who, like her, are trans-exclusionary. Jeffreys apparently does not recognise the irony in objecting to the same tactics that she and other anti-porn feminists pioneered forty years ago." 

What goes around comes around. I suspect that in the future this will happen to them again. They might think that their scheming with the religious right has paid them dividends, but the mums who don't want a trans girl in their daughters' school toilets can just as easily say they don't want a lesbian girl there. Someone who says that a man can't become a woman, it's only politeness that has stopped us from saying it before, can just as easily say that homosexuality is a perversion and a mental illness.

Sheila Jeffreys is a lesbian, she thinks women should be lesbians. Do think that ordinary people can distinguish between a trans person and the sort of radical feminist lesbian who has short hair, no makeup and wears men's clothes? If the transgender movement is an ideology then Radical Feminism is one too: two rival ideologies fighting it out for the hearts and minds of people - and especially teenage girls.

In Chapter 7 of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, Joyce writes this:

"But from the 1990s or so, liberal or 'third wave' feminism de-emphasised such structural and communal issues, instead centering choice and agency - for example arguing that some women might want to work in pornography or prostitution, and that this could be empowering. Second-wave feminists, who mostly regarded these as harmful for all women and almost always coerced, were dismissed as 'sex-negative' - or simply prudes."

I think someone who chooses to believe that women who work in pornography or prostitution are 'almost always coerced' without any evidence for that are indeed prudes. They don't like it, so they think up a reason why they should oppose it, harming women in the process. They don't like it for the same reason their religious right allies don't like it - a fear and disgust of basic human sexuality. If you choose to believe something without evidence, that is not reality it is ideology.

If you believe that prostitutes are almost always coerced then you want them to be rescued. But 'rescue' means women abducted by police and kept against their will. That is harming women.

Third wave or pro-sex feminists are termed liberal, and it is said they have no interest in 'structural and communal issues'. It was Jeffreys though who was the first to take feminism in a direction away from its socialist and anti-capitalist roots. As Amia Srinivasan wrote in her book:

"At the ninth Women's Liberation Movement Conference, this time held in London, Sheila Jeffreys gave a paper titled 'The Need for Revolutionary Feminism', in which she took socialist feminists to task for not recognising that male violence rather than capitalist exploitation lay at the foundation of women's oppression, and for making 'reformist' demands like socialised childcare."

Amia is anti-capitalist. Sheila Jeffreys doesn't represent the original feminism, from which third wave feminism departed. Feminism didn't originally have the obsession with pornography and prostitution that people like Jeffreys, MacKinnon and Dworkin introduced.

Third wave feminists have not argued that 'some women might want to work in pornography or prostitution'. They argue that large numbers of women do. How can we help them? As far as I know they have never used the word 'empowering'. Money is empowering. Sex work is well paid. So from that point of view it is empowering, although maybe the Radical Feminists mean something different by that word. Being a politician or a CEO is empowering in a different way. Sex work doesn't give you that but then neither does most work.

Harmful for all women? Joyce doesn't say why she thinks that, but it brings us back to the false research that I wrote about a couple of posts ago. They think that there is more rape when there is more pornography and prostitution. Which brings us back to Sara Pascoe's book that I reviewed even more posts ago. Pascoe states that the evidence that she has looked at does not show that pornography increases rape (page 198) or sexism (page 200); or that most porn is violent (pages 204, 224 and 226). She also says it isn't true that women in porn don't have pubic hair (ignore what Jenni Murray says). Pascoe is very fair on the subject of pornography. Not so much on the subject of prostitution.

I've just listened to Jon Ronson's radio programme about trans issues, part of a series called Things Fell Apart about the culture wars. He talked about the Michfest music festival in America for women that started in the 1970s. What he said about it is completely different from what Helen Joyce has written about it in Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality (chapter 8). Joyce makes no attempt to show both sides of the debate, for example not saying that transwomen were eventually welcomed into the festival by the other women: Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality seems to me a work of propaganda.

review of Harlots, Whores & Hackabouts by Kate Lister

This is a large book full of illustrations. It is a history of sex for sale. The first chapter is Sex in the Ancient World. There is much about ancient Babylon. I learned much from chapter four, The Honest Courtesans - Selling Sex in Renaissance Europe.

Both St Augustine of Hippo and St Thomas Aquinas taught that although prostitution is immoral, it is the lesser of two evils. Without it much worse things would happen - adultery and sodomy. It doesn't seem that they thought masturbation was much of a problem.

In Renaissance Italy sex workers were called 'meretrice' or 'cortigiane'.

"Cities, like Venice, forbade men from managing the brothels, instead installing older women known as matrons to do the job. A good matron not only looked after her girls, but knew how to keep the customers happy as well. In fact, the iconic Italian dish tiramisu is said to have been invented in the brothels to revive flagging energy levels. Whereas puttanesca, a flavourful sauce served with pasta, literally translates to 'cooked in the whorish fashion' and is said to have been eaten in the brothels when women were between clients. For all the moralizing around sex work, it did allow women to earn their own money, run their own business, and in a few cases, become internationally celebrated celebrities."

Kate goes on to write about Imperia Cognati, known as Queen of Courtesans. I was aware that the puttanesca pasta sauce is associated with Italian brothels, but I didn't know that the dessert tiramisu is too. Kate isn't saying that they were invented during the Renaissance though: they are of much more recent origin. I can imagine Italian sex workers having a hearty appetite, I can only speculate on which pasta shape they prefer. Perhaps farfalle, which means butterfly but is also a slang name in some parts of Italy for vulva: the labia minora resemble the wings of a butterfly.

The attitude of Christians is revealed in this chapter. The real problem came with the Protestants.

"Attitudes to sex work began to change dramatically across Europe following the rise of Protestantism. Protestants utterly rejected Augustinian notions that prostitution could curtail far worse sexual sins. Martin Luther called sex workers 'murderers' and suggested they be 'broken on the wheel'. Protestant preachers utterly condemned any toleration and called for state-run brothels to be closed and for prostitution to be abolished. Catholic attitudes to prostitution were soon viewed as evidence of wider moral corruption. The Vatican responded by ushering in a new era of sexual repression."

Pope Pius ordered them out of Rome and the Papal States, but the citizens of Rome petitioned him, and he repealed his edict.

So it seems that it is the Protestants and especially the Puritans, who came later, who despised sex work. Catholicism in Ireland seems to be heavily influenced by English (and Scottish) Puritanism. Southern European Catholics aren't quite so uptight about sexual matters.

In chapter 11 there are photographs named 'Interior of a brothel in Naples, c.1945'. One American surgeon reported that 'prostitutes from Naples descended upon our encampment by the hundreds, outflanking guards'. Let's hope they brought some tiramisu with them.

more student sex workers

There's something very odd about the Melissa Farley study that I wrote about in my previous post. It stated that men who pay for sex are 8 times more likely to report that they would rape a woman if they could get away with it and if no one knew about it. Also they are 3 times more likely to report that they have engaged in 'sexually aggressive behavior'.

You wonder why they didn't just ask outright in the survey 'Have you ever raped a woman?'. Well, the answer to that question is it looks as if they were asked that. So why aren't we told what these men reported? It can only be because they did not report that they had raped a women more than the non sex buyer group of men.

In the Melissa Farley study (Comparing Sex Buyers With Men Who Do Not Buy Sex: New Data on Prostitution and Trafficking) men were asked a number of sets of questions. One set of questions was the Sexual Experiences Survey (Perpetration Version). In this survey they were asked ten questions. The last three I have shown below.

8. Have you engaged in sexual intercourse when she didn’t want to because you gave her alcohol or drugs?
9. Have you engaged in sexual intercourse when she didn’t want to because you threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting her arm‚ holding her down‚ etc.) to make her?
10. Did you answer “Yes” to any of the questions 1-10?

It goes on to say that 'Men are classified as perpetrators of rape if they answered “yes” to items 8‚ 9‚ or 10.' This is a bit strange because questions 1 to 7 are not rape. Question 1 is 'Have you engaged in sex play (fondling‚ kissing‚ or petting‚ but not intercourse) when she didn’t want to because you overwhelmed her with continual arguments and pressure?'

Anyway, men were asked if they had used alcohol, drugs or physical force to get sex in questions 8 and 9. So it would be a simple matter to work out how many men in each group have raped a woman. Yet we are not told this, instead we are told about what men say they would do under specific circumstances, and a calculation of sexual aggressive behaviour in general. The sex buyer group had 'a mean of 1.59 types of sexually aggressive behavior'. Never mind about the mean, what answers did they give to questions 8 and 9?

The Nordic Model Now! site use the Farley study to show that 'buying sex makes men more prone to violence against women'. Punters are 'nearly 8 times more likely to rape than other men'. Then people like Libby Purves try to say that the existence of sex work affects society in general and women in particular in negative ways.

Telling young people to just say no doesn't work. Whether it is about drugs or sex work. You can invite them to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each, to themselves and society, but don't try to feed them false statistics because they are too intelligent to be taken in by that. Some will want to continue after consideration and some won't. Then if they proceed you should do what you can to help them avoid the dangers.

I don't want young people to die of drug overdose and I don't want young people to die because they were forced to work alone. Let them have drugs of consistent strength and purity, and let them work together for safety. I would send my daughter to a university that helps them to stay alive. Except that she would make up her own mind which university she wants to go to and how she wants to fund herself.

student sex workers

Some of you may have read the article by Libby Purves in The Times on Monday (15/11/21) called 'Shame on universities that legitimise 'sex work''. Durham University's Student Union (DSU) is providing a course for students and staff to 'explore the challenges that student sex workers can face'.

This is what Libby Purves wrote in her article:-

"Men who buy it, whether online or physically are significantly more likely than other men to rape or commit other violence against women."

She does not give a reference for this statement. Looking around on the internet to try to find research that says that the presence of prostitution causes increased levels of rape I came to the Nordic Model Now! site. They have a page 'FACT: Buying sex makes men more prone to violence against women'.

"Studies of men who buy sex (punters) show that they are significantly more likely than other men to rape and engage in all forms of violence against women. A US study found that punters were nearly eight times more likely to rape than other men."

The US study is 'Comparing Sex Buyers With Men Who Do Not Buy Sex: New Data on Prostitution and Trafficking' by Melissa Farley and four other people that I have never heard of. Melissa Farley is known to be biased. See her Wikipedia page. Or go here.

It is illegal in America to buy sex. So the men that do are criminals. They cannot be compared to men in Britain. America is a violent society, with extremes of wealth and poverty. It has an enormous prison population where people are treated inhumanely. Mental illness is not given the attention it is in European countries. Religious fundamentalism and other reactionary attitudes are common.

Even so, the study did not show that American men who buy sex committed eight times as many rapes. Instead it says, under the heading 'Self-Reported Likelihood to Rape', that 15% of sex buyers reported 'that they would force a woman to have sex or rape a woman if they could get away with it and if no one knew about it' compared to 2% of non sex buyers.

To be a non sex buyer in this study a man had to have 'not been to a strip club more than once in the past year; had not exchanged something of value for a sex act; and had not used pornography more than once in the past week' as well as to have not bought sex. No phone sex or lap dancing either. Buying sex includes hand relief. I don't think this is most people's definition of a non sex buyer.

What the headline should have been is 'American men who don't use pornography regularly or pay for anything sexual - not even erotic dancing - are 7.5% times less likely to say that they would rape a woman under particular circumstances. Not 7.5% times less likely to rape, 7.5% less likely to say they would'.

Maybe they should have checked their testosterone levels while they were at it. Then the headline might have been 'Men with low testosterone levels less likely to use pornography, pay for sex or rape'. What they should have done is to have three groups: men who pay for sex, men who don't but like erotic dancing and pornography, and men who don't do any of these things. Otherwise how can you tell what corelates with rape? Pornography or prostitution?

None of this gives us any indication that eliminating prostitution would change men's attitudes and/or make them less likely to rape. It isn't possible to eliminate it or even reduce it anyway. You can try to eliminate it but that's not going to help.

It isn't the existence of prostitution that causes certain men's attitudes. There isn't a correlation between prostitution and rape. And even if there was a correlation, correlation is not the same as causation. Prostitution does not cause rape, not even some rape.

The second research study used on the Nordic Model Now! page is a UN study, 'Why Do Some Men Use Violence Against Women And How Can We Prevent It?' It was done in Asian and Pacific countries so isn't relevant to Britain. It says that the strongest association with rape is 'having more sexual partners'. That seems to mean more than 2 'lifetime sexual partners'. Whatever that means. Are you a man, and have you had more than 2 lifetime sexual partners? Then you are more likely to be a rapist than a man who has 'had transactional sex or sex with a sex worker'.

Consider these two statements. 1 Men who have more sexual partners are more likely to rape. 2 Men who have sex with sex workers are more likely to rape. The first invalidates the second. When a man visits a sex worker he increases the number of his lifetime sexual partners by one. It seems that it is the increasing of the number of partners that is the thing: the fact that the additional partner is a sex worker is of no importance. It could even be that the fact it's a sex worker and not a woman he met in the office or at a bar is a good thing.

The third research study used on the Nordic Model Now! page is 'Factors Influencing Attitudes to Violence Against Women'. It says nothing about prostitution. It does have something to say about pornography though: "Correlational studies of pornography use in everyday life find that men who use hardcore, violent, or rape pornography, and men who are high-frequency users of pornography, are significantly more likely than others to report that they would rape or sexually harass a woman if they knew they could get away with it." So the author has a different agenda than Nordic Model Now!. He wants to put the blame on pornography not prostitution.

Would it be surprising if a rapist is more likely to sometimes pay for sex? Or use pornography? I don't think so. That would be your correlation, but they have failed to establish a correlation, let alone causation. If you interviewed rapists I'm sure you could find lots of things that they do more frequently. Going to betting shops, for example. That doesn't mean that betting causes rapes.

Young women at university will make up their own minds about sex work. They will not be scared off by people like Libby Purves. They can see through their propaganda. I hope that on the course for students and staff, the one that Libby Purves wants to stop, they can examine the evidence. The existence of sex work does not cause problems for women. Also they can consider why sex workers get assaulted: top of my list of reasons is people in the older generation (like Libby Purves) stopping grants and not allowing them to work together for safety.