Belgium grants labour rights to sex workers

I had heard that Belgium has decriminalised sex work a while ago but I couldn't find out much about it. Now there is a new law there that entitles sex workers to employment contracts, health insurance, maternity leave and sick days.

My first thought was that it's a good thing but one of the attractions of sex work for many women is that usually they don't have to work fixed hours. Most sex workers don't want to work 40 hours every week. They might want to work 20 hours one week and none the next.

Sex workers who choose to work in brothels don't have that flexibility and can benefit from these new laws. How many women will choose employment contracts is another matter. They say that in Germany women can have employment contracts but few have chosen to do this. Germany certainly isn't the way forward in these matters: I have read so many bad things about what happens in Germany.

A great benefit to brothel workers is that they will have the right to refuse clients, choose their practices and stop an act at any moment. This is something that independent sex workers have always been able to do and is very important. If a sex worker dislikes old men she should be able to refuse them. If a sex worker doesn't want to provide oral sex without a condom she should be able to say no.

I was listening to The Global Story on BBC World Service. One issue discussed was the issue of panic buttons. The new law states that employers must provide them. A critic said "In what other job would you need a panic button?". However, in many professions women especially need to be protected.

 There are many ways that estate agents protect themselves from attack. First on this list is Screen Clients Prior To Meeting  (it also says that half carry self-defense weapons). Third on this list is Have a “Panic Button” in Your Pocket.

In the programme someone from Canada called Andrea said that she used to be a sex worker. She decided to set up her own brothel and run it on ethical lines. Having tried this, she stopped doing it because she realised that it is impossible to avoid harm. She apologised to the women.

I wanted to find out more about Andrea from Canada. She is Andrea Heinz and she has numerous writings on the Nordic Model Now! site and the FeministCurrent site. They are too numerous for me to go through but I read one of them. In it she wrote that she sold her brothel to somebody else. So she was a pimp and she sold her brothel. Nothing about apologising to the women.

The example that Andrea gave in her writing of harm is 'I saw a girl come out of a room crying because her client was in his 70s and had been “touching her like an incestual grandpa.”' This is odd because if this 'girl' disliked old men why didn't she decide not to accept this client? Why did Andrea not tell the 'girl' that she didn't have to accept any client she disliked? If she was being so ethical.

Why did Andrea not understand that in Belgium women now have the right to refuse clients? Why is Andrea telling everyone that the new Belgian laws won't protect women? She's on YouTube too, being interviewed by Christian bigot Benjamin Nolot - who doesn't believe in abortion rights or gay marriage.

In the book Paid For by Rachel Moran she says that a 'madam' she worked for told her she didn't have to do anything she didn't want to. Rachel didn't have anal sex when she was a sex worker. So I'm not inclined to believe Andrea Heinz when she writes she was 'violently sodomised' with 'my genitals and anus were left torn and bleeding'. She also wrote that she has been raped numerous times without condoms.

It could be that prostitution in Canada is different from prostitution in Ireland (especially before 1993). Maybe Canada is like America in terms of violence whereas Ireland is like Europe. If that is the case why are we asking a Canadian ex pimp what she thinks of new laws in Belgium?

There is a contradiction in this piece. She wrote that she specialized in domination because she would not need to have intercourse as often. Yet later in the same piece she wrote "The day I received my first legitimate paycheck I broke down sobbing because it was the first bit of money I’d earned in the previous seven years where I didn’t have to lay on my back and spread my legs". Not only had she previously earned money as a dominatrix, she had also earned money as a pimp.

She wrote that she earned (in seven years) over $1.2 million. That's interesting, because the abolitionists are always keen to tell us that the women see very little of the money handed over. While she was a sex worker she 'pursued post-secondary education and was on owner of a comfortable starter home (as a single woman under 30)'.

'I now had a large mortgage, tuition costs, and vehicle replacements.' This is what 'trapped' her in prostitution. Apparently being violently sodomised on a regular basis isn't enough of an incentive to forgo the house, cars etc. Or maybe she had moved on by this point to letting other females be violently sodomised for her money. Or maybe this is just some kind of sick fantasy dreamed up by an Evangelical based on what they think happens in prostitution.

I think that the Evangelicals like Benjamin Nolot (founder of Exodus Cry) and Radical Feminists like Meghan Murphy (founder of Feminist Current) would have preferred it if she hadn't mentioned the $1.2 million, or the house, college and cars. Also, 'what I earned in two weeks could have been earned in four hours through prostitution'. I'm assuming she means being a sex worker and not being a pimp, but it can be difficult to work out what she really means.

The funny thing about the Andrea Heinz story is that it isn't going to discourage women from entering prostitution. They would quite like the $1.2 million, the house, the cars and the college fees. They know that under certain circumstances they won't be violently sodomised. They can turn away clients, choose what they want and don't want to do, and stop a sex act. They can have security.

Andrea Heinz doesn't want them to have labour rights. She might say that panic buttons and security guards won't stop them from being raped anally. Yet Rachel Moran never had anal sex once. If you don't want it you can not do it. Unless someone tries to stop you having rights. Maybe someone who doesn't want you to have the right to a same-sex marriage or an abortion.

I can understand that some people will say it would be better to eliminate prostitution. That's not going to happen. If anyone says that it has happened in Sweden, they are not telling you the truth.

review of Eve Was Shamed by Helena Kennedy

I am reading 'Eve Was Shamed' by Helena Kennedy QC. She is one of Britain's most distinguished lawyers and public figures. In chapter 5 (The Whore) she has some interesting things to say about sex work.

page 162 "Off-street sex workers usually operate from massage parlours or saunas or in accommodation where there are other women, or a 'maid' who keeps an eye out for oddballs and acts as a doorkeeper. Many 'maids' are women who were themselves at one time 'toms', as the police call prostitutes. Off-street sex is much less risky but unfortunately the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 criminalised the role of maid, making life for sex workers far less safe; it is also increasingly the venue for paid sex because arrangements are made on the Internet."

"The jury is still out on whether it [criminalising the purchase of sex] works or whether it simply drives the sale of sex underground with consequent higher risks for women. Unless there is better evidence from the places where this change has operated for a number of years, I remain very sceptical about the criminalisation of the male purchasers."

This is interesting because so many people believe that prostitution cannot be driven underground. In a debate in parliament the former MP Gavin Shuker said that if a punter can find a sex worker then so can the police. That's like saying that if a drug addict can find a drug dealer then so can the police.

As for evidence that the 'Swedish experiment' actually works, I have a lot of information on this blog including here.

page 163 "The laws against brothel-keeping still prevent two or three women sharing a flat for their work, which would reduce the risks of assault and provide companionship."

page 165 "I come at it as a feminist lawyer and would want to see evidence from a reliable source about the Swedish experiment and those in other jurisdictions to see if criminalising the purchase of sex actually works.

We must always look carefully at how law can be misused. The government's antisocial behaviour orders are now being used to bar women from certain streets or from associating with each other, although the original public rationale for the orders was about protecting the public from gangs of boys or bad neighbours creating a nuisance. Breach of an order can attract a maximum sentence of five years which means the reintroduction of imprisonment for prostitutes which had been removed in the Criminal Justice Act 1982. So while the rhetoric is all about helping women, England and Wales are fast becoming the most punitive countries in Europe for prostitutes."

page 169 After writing briefly about sex workers expecting poor treatment in courts particularly concerning the welfare of their children and the fact that mothers can find prostitution a convenient way to make a living she goes on to write about how the law affects their family life.

"Charges of living off immoral earnings were introduced to reach the pimps who exploited women and forced them into sexual misery. However, many women complain that in fact they make their own choices about how they earn a living, and the law is frequently used against boyfriends and husbands or family members who exercise no control over them at all. The effect is to prevent these women having any semblance of a home life. Taxi drivers, particularly minicab drivers, are sometimes charged with living off immoral earnings if they provide a regular service for prostitutes and facilitate their work. The same is true for landlords and massage-parlour and sauna owners if the police take against them."

Later in the chapter she writes about the Sexual Offenses Act 2003, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Police and Crime Act 2009. She doesn't mention that the Police and Crime Act 2009 was intended  to amend the definition of a brothel so that two or three individuals may work together (whatever happened to that?). She also mentions the National Referral Mechanism.

She finds persuasive a book called Illegal and Illicit: Sex Regulation and Social Control by Joanna Phoenix and Sarah Oerton. They show that the law operates to the detriment of some women who choose prostitution voluntarily.

On page 163 she writes about the case of Margaret MacDonald who was sentenced to four years imprisonment. 'These are women who would rather be sex workers than cleaners or care workers, as they earn much more money doing it, and until women's work is better paid, they want to carry on without interference.'

On page 177 she looks favourably on reforms in the Australian state of Victoria and in Holland.

There are a couple of things I am unhappy about though with her book. On page 161 she writes 'Three-quarters of those involved in prostitution in Britain entered street prostitution before their 18th birthday'. She doesn't give a reference but it seems to come from a 1995 study 'Street prostitution: Ten facts in search of a policy' by Benson and Matthews. This is clearly about street prostitution and not prostitution in general but even so I don't believe it.

On page 162 she gives more statistics including '68% met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder' (whatever that means). Helena Kennedy should realise that the 'research' of Melissa Farley is flawed. Overall though, I think it is a good book. She makes a lot of sense.

On page 170 she writes about women getting deported after police raids and mentions other forms of trafficking such as trafficking for cheap labour or domestic servitude 'doing back-breaking agricultural jobs or cockle picking or poultry cleaning and packing, living in inhumane conditions and being paid well below the minimum wage'. This is important because these issues tend to be ignored by people who support police crackdowns on prostitution.

On page 178 she also writes 'Saving women from prostitution must also mean removing sexual and economic inequalities, providing job opportunities, training and equal pay - in other words by recognising the economic realities which drive most women to the streets'.

I wasn't aware of the cases of Vishal Chaudhary and Tatiana Shmyrova, two traffickers who exploited their victims terribly. It just goes to show that some trafficking is heinous. She doesn't seem to be aware though that some people are convicted of trafficking who have never coerced anyone. In the case of Mark Viner for example there is no suggestion that he coerced the women involved.

Instead the police say that women were raped or robbed, although it is not clear whether this happened in somewhere set up by Mark Viner: "That is the very dark world traffickers like Mark Viner are bringing women into and it's why it's so important we continue to break the cycle".  Also, the present law is part of the problem: "They do this because they know we will not call the police because they know we work in brothels which is not legal".

You might wonder why I am sticking up for a trafficker, but we need to create a system where women don't get raped or robbed. Women come to Britain on tourist visas to get money for things like university fees, get deported (not rescued), then try to get back to Britain to continue as sex workers. This is all in the television series about Viner.

The law has to be able to distinguish between someone who has not coerced anyone and who protects them from rape and robbery, and someone like Vishal Chaudhary. I'm not saying that Mark Viner should have been allowed to get away with what he did. The law needs to be able to distinguish between a pimp who makes money from sex workers, and two or three sex workers working together for safety. Trafficking and brothel keeping-keeping are not always what they seem to the public.

election results in central Bristol

It just goes to show how little the Nordic model is important to the British public. We've just had a general election and it wasn't an issue at all as far as I can see. Even though an active supporter of the Nordic model has been displaced by someone who (possibly) believes in decriminalization. So I'm not worried that the Nordic model might come to Britain as it has in Ireland.

Thangam Debbonaire is not only a supporter of the Nordic model she has called on Bristol City Council to stop issuing licences to strip clubs in the city. She was Labour MP for Bristol Central and has been replaced by Carla Denyer of the Green party. Carla Denyer opposed the strip club ban. I don't know what her views on the decriminalization of sex work. I do know that leading  members of the Green party believe in it eg Natalie Bennett, and Caroline Lucas too.

Thangam Debbonaire was vice-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group 'Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade'. They all believe in the Nordic model there.

Curiously, I have just been looking at some research in Inner-city Bristol. I read in one study that in the UK up to 46% of female sex workers report anxiety or depression. This study gives as reference another study, of sex workers in Inner-city Bristol. However, I can't find this 46% figure here, not about anxiety or depression. All I can find is 'When asked the reasons for going to a GP, the commonest reason was depression or anxiety, given by 34% (24/71)'. So the figure is 34%, not 46%. They were a small group (71) of drug-addicted street-based sex workers ('Those sex workers who work on the street, rather than in premises such as massage parlours, appear to be the most at risk.'). They are not representative of sex workers in Britain.

I can't understand how this mistake has happened. It might be because 46% had been screened for sexually transmitted infection in the previous year (somehow this number got used instead of the correct 34%). It might be because 46% is a figure used for the general population. "A Eurobarometer survey conducted in June 2023 revealed that almost 1 in 2 people (46% of the EU population) had experienced emotional or psychosocial problems, such as feeling depressed or anxious, in the previous 12 months."

So sex workers have less anxiety or depression as the general population? No, of course not. It just goes to show that there's a lot of misinformation out there.

That doesn't mean that the first of the two studies was rubbish. I shall quote the important conclusions below. It is saying that the Nordic model harms women.

"How effective are different international approaches at addressing any harms associated with buying and selling sex?

As mentioned above, studies highlighted that in Sweden and Canada, criminalisation of clients did not improve access to services nor reduce sex workers’ experiences of violence. Evidence included in our qualitative synthesis clearly shows that criminalisation of clients does not facilitate access to services, nor reduce violence against sex workers. This is supported by the epidemiological evidence from Vancouver that showed that the introduction of more severe laws against the purchase of sex alongside fewer sanctions for sex workers (modelled on the Swedish Law) did not result in reduced violence from clients.

Despite the fact the Swedish Law was motivated by a desire to end the demand for sex work, findings from our qualitative synthesis suggest that these enforcement strategies that seek to reduce the numbers of sex workers or clients are unlikely to achieve these effects, since the economic needs of sex workers remain unchanged, resulting in sex workers having to work longer hours, accept greater risks, and deprioritise health. There is no reliable evidence from Sweden that the numbers of sex workers have decreased since the law changed in 1999.

In New Zealand, following decriminalisation, sex workers reported being better able to refuse clients and insist on condom use, amid improved relationships with police and managers. However, migrants continue to be excluded from this system. Studies in Guatemala, Mexico, Turkey and Nevada, US showed how regulatory models exacerbate disparities within sex worker communities. They enabled access to safer conditions for some, but excluded the majority (including the most marginalised).  Under these models non-compliance with regulatory systems including working in tolerance zones, regulator venues and/or mandatory registration at a health care facility and mandatory HIV/STI testing results in criminalisation.  

In conclusion, the public health evidence supports decriminalisation, when coupled with inclusive policies to protect the safety and health of sex workers, including the funding and scale-up of specialist and sex-worker-led services that help address the multiple and diverse health and social care needs of people who sell sex."

I think I spoke too soon. Jess Phillips is now Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office. She is a supporter of the Nordic model and has been a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group 'Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade'. Diana Johnson is another one to look out for.

This Guardian article makes so many mistakes it is difficult to know where to start. It is about prostitution and the murder of women. Curiously, there is a link at the side of this page to a page about murdered women. I say curiously, because none of them seem to have been murdered by a pimp or a punter. Fifty women killed by men this year so far and not one was a sex worker. As far as I can tell, I haven't bothered to read it through.

Soho is a hotbed of prostitution yet no sex worker has been murdered there since the 1940s. That's probably because each sex worker has a 'maid' which means they are never alone in a flat with a man. So if you really want to reduce murder of women then change the law so that women can work together.

I've just been looking at the Jess Phillips new book. I looked in the index for 'prostitution', 'sex work' and 'Nordic model' and it seems there is nothing in there about any of them.

review of Feminism by Deborah Cameron

This is an introduction to feminist theory and shows both sides of the debate. There is one chapter, Sex, that is of interest to me. She confirms that many of the earliest feminists had negative attitudes towards sexual desire.

“Historians of the first wave generally agree that feminist discussions of sex in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were dominated by the impulse to protect women from sexual danger and to reform ‘the beast in man’ (though there were some feminists who contested this, campaigning for women’s access to birth control, abortion, sex education and the freedom to have sex outside marriage).”

The second wave was more positive about sexuality. There were though feminist ‘sex wars’ in the 1980s.

Pornography is said to influence women to behave in ways that they don’t truly enjoy. For example, a woman posting anonymously on Twitter stated that male sexual partners had criticised her for refusing to participate in group sex.

This seems very odd to me. I have never participated in group sex, neither would I want to. I know that group sex is common in pornography but that hasn’t made me feel that it is common in reality. Very few people have done it or would want to do it. I would estimate that less than 1% of the population have tried it. So why would anyone get the idea that only a prude would not want to participate in it? It seems to me that she should have chosen her sexual partners more carefully, either choosing men who are more intelligent or less selfish.

Sex work and the Nordic model are discussed. According to Cameron there are two reasons why some people want the Nordic model. One reason is that ‘the existence of a market where men can buy sexual consent both reflects and reinforces the inequality between the sexes’.

This argument has never made much sense to me. For it to make sense you would have to show that sex is different from other pleasures in life. I haven’t seen a convincing argument for that. For many people it is different. If you have a fear and disgust of basic human sexuality you will feel that, especially if you have chosen celibacy. Most people don’t feel that way though. We all buy other people’s consent every day.

The other reason is that ‘sex should be an exchange based on mutual desire’. I don’t believe that’s the real reason. I rarely hear that argument. It doesn’t make much sense anyway. If I go on a minibus trip to the Lake District I would enjoy it as would the other passengers. The driver might not. As long as he or she is not exploited and has chosen this way of making money I am happy with that.

If I pay for sex, I will enjoy the sex and she will enjoy the money. As long as we both get what we want then we will both be happy.

The more usual stated reason for wanting the Nordic model is that the welfare of women will be improved. We all want the welfare of women to be improved but only some of us are willing to look at the facts of the matter. Does the Nordic model decrease demand? Do women continue to be arrested? Are they helped to leave if they choose? It’s not so difficult to find the facts if you really want them and you are not gullible.

The real reason why some people want the Nordic model is because they hate men like me. I am the type of man that some women think they have a right to hate. They think that the Nordic model will make life more difficult for men like me, and they don’t care how many women are harmed in the process.

They can’t even get that right. Any sane sober man can avoid detection in Nordic model countries. They will only ever get a fine anyway, unlike the young women who are sent to prison for ‘brothel-keeping’. Not all punters are the same. Some are happy to negotiate with a pimp. Others, like me, prefer to negotiate with the sex worker herself. A woman should not be told ‘If you work here you have to do oral sex without a condom’. She should be able to decide for herself, and I have always been happy to comply with her choices.

Cameron states that the Nordic model decriminalises women. It doesn’t. She writes that it is intended to decrease demand. It doesn’t. Neither is much money spent to help women exit.

We should all agree that sex workers should not be arrested and resources should be allocated to help women and men to exit if they so choose. So why can’t we just do that? Evangelicals like Jim Wells, nuns like the ones who founded Ruhama and Radical Feminists like Julie Bindel would never agree. They would say that we can’t have these unless we also criminalise men who pay for sex. Not only does that not make sense, they are insincere. They don’t care about the women.

Cameron states the advantages of decriminalisation.

“They could set up small businesses or co-operatives with other women, instead of depending on the pimps and organised criminals who are powerful players in the illegal trade.”

On the other side of the argument, women risk being assaulted or killed. No sex workers have been killed in Soho since the 1940s, they are never alone in the flat with a customer.

Germany is not a good place for sex workers, the Netherlands is OK, and things are good in New Zealand. Sex workers can be arrested in Germany and the Netherlands but not in New Zealand. In New Zealand workers reap the financial rewards, not ‘wealthy investors and entrepreneurs’.

The last part of this chapter is all to do with heterosexual sex being ‘inherently problematic’ even when it has nothing to do with prostitution. Some feminists choose celibacy. They don’t think women should be having sex with men. So obviously they think women shouldn’t be having sex with me, whether I pay them or not.

Other feminists choose lesbianism. I was aware of the views of Catharine A MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. Also more recent authors such as Sheila Jeffreys and Julie Bindel. Deborah Cameron mentions two other authors who espoused lesbianism, Monique Wittig and Adrienne Rich.

my trip to London

A couple of years ago I had a day trip to London. I wrote about that. On Monday I went to London again only this time I had booked a hotel. So I had three days and two nights in London. I saw a few women in Soho and I will tell you about five of them.

Tamara of 52 Greek Street

I had done my research and I knew that Tamara seems to be the most popular girl in Soho at the moment. Obviously I wanted to see her. She is Indian and I found her incredibly attractive. She told me she is twenty five years old. She is superfriendly and it was one of my best experiences. She has dark skin and black hair. Medium height. I had taken a viagra and was able to shag her. I didn't manage to orgasm but then I wasn't expecting to. I had only paid £30 which is the minimum and gets you only ten minutes.

Sabrina of 8 Greek Street

Sabrina is completely different from Tamara. A lot older for a start and bigger. I've had a fascination with Sabrina for years. There's something very earthy about Sabrina. Many years ago I was in the room below hers and I heard her bedsprings going. Someone was giving her a good seeing to. I wanted to do that too. So on Monday I did. I used to think that Sabrina was plain. In the room though I realised she is attractive. She is friendly too.

Sonia of 4 Lisle Street

I've had photos of Sonia for years and I thought she's very nice looking. I sat with the maid for a while then this beautiful young woman walked in. It took me a while because she looks older in the photos then I said to her "I've seen your photo. On the internet". She was surprised and wanted to know where. Her maid said other men have said they've seen photos of her.

Her face reminds me of Kelly Brook and maybe Lucy Montgomery. She's that pretty, with bright eyes. There was something about her that put me off though. Unlike with Tamara and Sabrina I found it difficult to get an erection. Someone on the internet said that if she likes you, you will have a nice time with her. If she doesn't like you, you won't.

Sonia

my own photo - you can see it is the same room by the mirror tiles

Adele of Greens Court

I saw an ordinary Romanian girl called Adele. She's pretty enough and friendly. Not only was I able to get an erection and shag her but I ejaculated too. So ended my first day in London.

The next day I tried to see Tamara again. I went back to the walk down several times but each time there were two men waiting for her. The last time there was a man on the stairs too. The maid came up the stairs and said that the same man keeps rebooking her. I said can I come back 11 am tomorrow. She said it won't be Tamara then, it will be Adele. I asked if this is the Romanian girl and she said yes.

When I went back to Greek Street the next morning I could see Sabrina and another woman sitting outside the cafe opposite number 8. It got past 11 am but the door to 52 remained closed.

Carole of 8 Greek Street

She was a big plain Brazilian woman. About 40. Just what I needed though and within the ten minutes I ejaculated while on top of her. When I left it was just before midday but the door of number 52 was still closed.

doorbells at 8 Greek Street

statistics from Sweden

I have found more statistics that show that the Nordic model in Sweden is failing. I have put all the relevant information from surveys in Sweden on this page. I hadn't realised that there was a survey in 2017. I knew about the surveys in 1996, 2008, 2011 and 2014.

In 1999 Sweden introduced a law (the 'Nordic model') that criminalises men who pay for sex. We have statistics from before and after the law about the proportion of Swedish men who pay and the proportion of Swedish women who are paid for sex. There were many more women who stated in the 2017 survey that they had been paid for sex than in any of the other surveys. In 2017 it was 1.5%. In 1996 it was 0.3%.

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.

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.

Janice Turner in the Times

Janice Turner wrote an article in the Times about prostitution published on Saturday. She gave a statistic, if you can call it a statistic, that is false.

"But research shows men who buy sex are more likely to rape: trading money for consent reduces empathy, makes a man believe only his pleasure counts and increases his likelihood of partner abuse."

She doesn't give a reference for this research. She seems to have copied what Libby Purves wrote last year also in the Times. You would think that Janice could have asked Libby about this research and checked it before repeating it. You would think that the Times would have made sure that the statistic is correct. It seems though that they don't care that they publish false statistics.

I think I know the research that they are talking about. It is Comparing Sex Buyers With Men Who Do Not Buy Sex: New Data on Prostitution and Trafficking by Melissa Farley. I have already written what I think of this research in my posts student sex workers and more student sex workers.

Briefly, I wrote that Farley seems to be withholding information about this study. She doesn't seem to want to tell us whether men who buy sex report that they have raped more often than other men. Even though they were asked this direct question.

What I didn't know at the time I wrote this is that Melissa Farley is known for this. Consider this from Ronald Weizer's article The Mythology of Prostitution: Advocacy Research and Public Policy.

"In trying to make the case that indoor prostitution victimizes women to the same extent as street prostitution, Farley (2006) reported that a British study by Church et al. (2001) found that workers in indoor venues (private residences, saunas) reported more attempted rapes than street workers. In fact, the Church study reported the opposite: that 28% of street workers said they had ever experienced an attempted rape, compared with 17% of indoor workers. Moreover, Farley failed to mention that street prostitutes were 11 times more likely to have actually been raped: According to Church et al., 22% of the street sample compared with only 2% of the indoor sample had ever been raped while at work. This example is a clear case of both inverting and ignoring findings that contradict one's arguments."

In the article Janice also wrote "It is time that the Nordic model, which decriminalises sex work but makes buying it a crime and has been adopted in France, Ireland and Sweden, is debated in parliament."

What she doesn't seem to know is that it has already been debated in parliament. On 04 July 2018 there was the debate Commercial Sexual Exploitation. You can read what I wrote about it in my page Commercial Sexual Exploitation. All my pages are displayed on the right of this screen.

She wrote "The vast majority of prostitutes are not swinging Belle de Jours but were abused as children, lured in by pimp-boyfriends and muffle their pain with drugs or alcohol". This is just complete rubbish, there is no evidence for this. This isn't even true of drug-addicted street based sex workers. They are a small minority of sex workers anyway.

She ends by stating "No man should have impunity when buying a woman’s body, whether out on a stag night or serving his country". I have never bought a woman's body, I have bought a service.

2 new films about sex work

There are two new films that are about sex work. Both are positive about it. The first is Good Luck to You, Leo Grande starring Emma Thompson. The second is How to Please a Woman starring Sally Phillips. Both are well-known comedians.

I found out about the second of these on Woman's Hour this morning. The presenter had no criticism of this film. Someone contacted the show and said how hypocritical they are in saying that men objectify women through prostitution and yet they accept the objectification of men. In both films the sex worker is male. I don't mean trans women, who the Radical Feminists regard as male.

I can see how the Radical Feminists are going to be critical of both of these films. Objectification means different things to different people. It meant one thing to Radical Feminist authors such as Catharine A MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. It means something different to the majority of Radical or Revolutionary Feminists. It means something different again to ordinary people.

To ordinary people it seems to mean having a sexual attraction to someone outside of the context of a relationship. The idea is that a man is incapable of appreciating a woman's personality if he is lusting after her. This is an idea that goes back thousands of years.

If I have casual sex with a woman, let's say on holiday, am I objectifying her more than if I play a game of tennis with her or a game of chess? Why would sex have that special attribute, different from other activities? If I pay for sex with a woman, am I objectifying her more than if I pay for a taxi driver or a waiter? You can say that sex is different from playing the usual sort of game or working the usual sort of job. That's not answering the question though.

We use people all the time. We meet people briefly, do something with them, and don't want to get to know them further. Casual sex or paid-for sex could be seen as harmful to women, but that is at the very least an overgeneralisation of women. Not all women are the same. Treating all people in a group as if they are all the same is one aspect of objectification, according to philosopher Martha Nussbaum.

The weird thing is that Emma Thompson has had a lot to say about prostitution over the years. She has signed up to Princess Eugenie's organisation to fight trafficking. We all want to fight trafficking, if by that we mean coercion. However, most prostitution does not involve coercion. Some other forms of work also sometimes involve coercion.

Other organisations that have associated with Princess Eugenie's crusade are the International Justice Mission, who say they want to release the captives. However, their hidden agenda is to try to stamp out prostitution anywhere in the world, no matter how many women they harm. They are an American Evangelical Christian organisation.

In the past they have called for and participated in brothel raids in countries such as Cambodia and Thailand. Women are arrested and kept against their will. Most of these women have not been coerced, and so their first experience of imprisonment is in a so-called rescue centre.

my day trip to London

Encouraged by my pleasurable day trips to Sheffield I decided to make a day trip to London. Sheffield is two hours on the train from Liverpool and London just a bit longer. I wanted to revisit Soho and any erotic encounters with women would be an added pleasure.

I could see 8 Greek Street was closed but 2 Greens Court was still open. I went up the stairs but before I even rang the bell I could hear a woman's voice shouting that there's nobody here, come back later. When I went back later the door at street level was closed. I think probably the girl hadn't turned up so the maid had closed the door.

The girl's name wasn't outside the door. In the past their names were always outside. If you had a favourite then you could tell if she was there without knocking on the door. I didn't see any names anywhere. I think that the police have decided they shouldn't do it. I don't know why. I would have liked to see Poppy's name outside, she was the best.

I went up the stairs at 4 Greens Court. There was a young woman there who seemed Eastern European. Quite pretty but short. She gave me a nice smile and showed me the list of services. The cheapest one was £30. In the past it was nearly always £20. I'm glad they have increased the prices, they deserve more. She mentioned the £2 tip for the maid. I had forgotten all about that. I told her that I didn't have any change (which was true) and that I would come back later (which I knew I probably wouldn't).

One of the places I used to go was Little Newport Street so I made my way through Chinatown and went up the stairs. There was a nice Thai lady there and I decided to stay. I had sex with her, with all the noise of the street outside. The sounds from the street didn't put me off, in fact I quite liked them, the idea that there were people outside who had no idea what was happening a few feet away. The idea that you can step off the street and within minutes be looking at a naked woman who opens her legs for you.

Later I wanted to see another woman. In Peter Street was a lovely young blonde woman. I could have said girl because she looked about 20 but later she said she was 30. She is from Bulgaria. She has a very nice figure and a nice face. This is I feel what most men would go for. Young, slender and blonde. I got on top of her and shagged her.

It was a similar experience to the Thai lady. No name on the door, the same £30 for ten minutes, the same friendly smiles and conversation. There was something else that was the same too. When I was putting on my clothes both of them had sat on the bidet and washed their genitals. Both naked apart from their stockings. I found it very sexy. I realise that most men won't. That's a little kink of mine. I would have liked to photograph them on the bidet. Their faces wouldn't be seen.

Before I saw the blonde girl I had to wait. She was with another customer. The maid let me sit with her and her friend. She wanted the money from me before I saw the girl but assured me that she was beautiful. When I said I wanted the basic £30 service she said "Are you sure you wouldn't like a blowjob?". I could have asked them anything but all I could think to ask was if 8 Greek Street has closed permanently. She told me it had closed a long time ago, before the pandemic.

I would say about half of the walk ups have closed. I could have done more research before I went - finding the best girls and places - but I've never been good at planning in advance. There was a third woman in Lisle Street but the less said about her the better. Then it was time to go home.

I spent the same amount of money in Soho as I had in Sheffield. £90. Each sexual encounter in Sheffield cost £45, but it was for half an hour, not ten minutes. So Soho is not good value for money, even if you are able to orgasm within ten minutes using a normal thick condom. I expect most men spend more than the minimum £30.

UPDATE: I have since found out that 8 Greek Street has not closed. I was told something that was not true.

Some of you may be wondering if I found any culinary delights in Soho. Yes I did. I found a new chain that do salt beef. It is Tongue & Brisket in Wardour Street. When I lived in London I would sometimes have salt beef in Brick Lane or Selfridges Foodhall.

the Scottish government and the Nordic model

I found out recently that the Scottish government refuses to fund any women's sector organisation unless they accept that prostitution is a form of violence. Organisations have to sign up to the Equally Safe strategy or they won't get any money. The Scottish government also refuse to use the term 'sex work'.

The theory that prostitution is a form of violence against women and girls comes from Radical Feminist ideology. They say that a woman can't truly consent to sex with a man in a patriarchal society. If you accept this ideology then prostitution is not only violence it is also rape but all forms of heterosexual sex are rape too. You can't just apply the theory to prostitution.

The Scottish government think that they are using an accepted intellectual theory but there is no intellectual justification for it. They don't explain where this theory comes from, people are just expected to accept it, even though it's not the genuine theory. That's quite disturbing. Also, I can't find out who in the government brought in this policy: I would like to know if they are Radical Feminists or Evangelical Christians.

The Scottish government are copying what socially conservative Americans have done. President Bush reinstated the Mexico City Policy, also known as the 2001 Global Gag Rule. It banned NGOs from receiving funding if they are pro choice about abortion. Then in 2003 USAID stopped funding any group perceived to be encouraging sex work, including HIV outreach groups. A literacy class for Thai sex workers was denied funding.

In 2003 the Bush administration passed a Global AIDS bill that prohibits international agencies from receiving funds unless they explicitly sign an oath that they do not support or condone prostitution and that no funds will be going toward harm prevention among sex workers. See Running from the Rescuers: New U.S. Crusades Against Sex Trafficking and the Rhetoric of Abolition by Gretchen Soderlund.

It seems that the Scottish government is preparing itself to introduce the Nordic model into Scotland. That would be foolish because the official report into the effectiveness of the Nordic model in Northern Ireland shows that it has not reduced demand. There have been three reports into the effectiveness of the Nordic model in the Irish republic and none of them say there has been a reduction in demand.

I have been looking at books about women and violence. I looked at Enough: The Violence Against Women And How To End It by Harriet Johnson. As far as I can tell it has nothing to say about prostitution. It doesn't have an index but none of the chapter headings are about prostitution. It seems Harriet Johnson doesn't think prostitution is violence if it doesn't even get a mention.

I looked at Equal Power by Jo Swinson. She was the leader of the Liberal Democratic party. In Jo Swinson's book she writes about Sreypov Chan, who was 'sold into slavery in Cambodia as a seven-year-old girl'. "When she refused her first client, the pimp crushed up hot chilli peppers and pushed them into her vagina, then thrust a hot metal poker inside her." As an adult Srepoy Chan worked as an advocacy officer for the Somaly Mam Foundation.

Somaly Mam claimed to have been a sex slave and got others to make the same false claims. Long Pross and Meas Ratha were two of the girls who we know made false claims, and Sreypov Chan is another. Thomas Steinfatt has been looking into prostitution in Cambodia for a long time and has said that he has never encountered genuine instances of torture. Steinfatt has conducted research that shows coercion is not common.

So that's the fictional violence. What about the real violence against women in Cambodia? Sex workers are arrested by the police then held against their will in 'rescue' centres for months. Kept in poor conditions, there a near-total lack of psychological care for traumatized girls, an absence of meaningful job-training programs, and a blatant disregard for the young women’s privacy. One former worker said it was “like there was a revolving door for tourists and camera crews. It was like a zoo.”

American Evangelical organisations such as the International Justice Mission have conducted brothel raids in countries including Cambodia. The women they capture try to run away. IJM is funded by the American government. It would be good if the Biden administration stopped all funding to these organisations. It would help women more than the Scottish government refusing to fund good organisations such as Scot-Pep.

Jo Swinson learned about trafficking from Marie Claire magazine. Perhaps that is where Princess Eugenie learned about it too. She and one of her chums (Julia de Boinville) have teamed up to fight trafficking. It is clear that they support organisations such as the International Justice Mission and people like Nicholas Kristof. They are not doing good work helping women around the world, they are harming them. Instead of interviewing people like Kristof and the guy who made the Taken television series, they should interview people like Emily Kenway. At least they should read academics like Shelley Cavalieri and Gretchen Soderlund, who I have quoted below.

Below I have quoted from Between Victim and Agent: A Third-Way Feminist Account of Trafficking for Sex Work by Shelley Cavalieri.

In May 2003, law enforcement officers raided a brothel in Chiang Mai, the capital of the northern region of Thailand and the regional center for the many indigenous peoples or hill tribes that populate the surrounding mountains. They conducted this raid at the behest of a coalition of Thai non-governmental organizations and an American evangelical Christian organization [International Justice Mission]. The American organization, with funding from the U.S. government and in conjunction with the Thai non-governmental organizations, was dedicated to investigating and reporting brothels with children inside to the authorities, and tried to persuade the police to shut down such locales. The particular brothel raided in this story was a brothel like many others in the country, filled with ethnically Shan women from Burma. Most of the women were of the age of majority, but while accounts vary, some organizations asserted that there were teenagers working in the brothel as well. How these teenagers reached the brothel is unclear; the organizations claiming that teenage girls were there also asserted that the girls’ presence could not be voluntary due to their age and that the girls were victims of human trafficking.

The coalition of organizations effected what they termed a “rescue” of the women in the brothel because of the believed presence of children. What followed was a human rights debacle. Twenty-eight women and girls, most of whom were, by all accounts, adults, were involuntarily detained beyond the period of time that victims of trafficking may be confined under Thai law. They were not arrested or charged with crimes, but detained, according to the authorities, because they had been rescued from a situation of human trafficking. They were deprived of access to their belongings and saved earnings, which were locked inside the inaccessible brothel under police control; they never regained ownership of these possessions. After a lengthy period of time, the government deported many of these women to Burma. All of these actions, which the women experienced as both harmful and alienating, occurred under the guise of rescuing them from the brothel in which they worked.

According to social services workers who interviewed four women who escaped from the brothel as the police arrived, all of the women were ethnic Shan from Burma and were at least nineteen years of age at the time of the raid. Prior to immigrating to Thailand, their status as members of the Burmese Shan indigenous group rendered these women subject to summary detention and rape at any time at the hands of officers of the Burmese junta. Faced with the option of abuse by the authorities in a region of Burma overwhelmed by poverty, many Shan women chose, and continue to choose, to cross the mountains that demarcate the Thai-Burma border and move to a Thai city to work in a brothel. This choice has a certain logic, as forced labor, forced relocations, and food shortages remain an endemic problem in Burma. For many, work in a Thai brothel presented the opportunity to escape the repression of the Burmese junta and to send adequate money home in order to support families, educate children, and maintain households. From the perspective of these women, that they at times paid people to facilitate their passage to Thailand was merely incidental.

Further, the women who escaped the brothel prior to the raid claimed that they, like the women “rescued” in this particular scenario, and like many other Shan sex workers in Thailand, worked in the brothel of their own volition. According to these women, they were free to come and go as they liked; they were not subject to physical restraint in any way. They were not in debt bondage in the traditional sense of the phrase, although some did at times take pay advances from the brothel manager to travel home and back; they would repay such advances with a portion of their earnings over time, much like a loan against future paychecks that some workplaces offer in the United States. Yet from the perspective of the American evangelical organization doing this work, the women in the brothel, particularly the minors, needed to be rescued from the brothel. According to the IJM employee with whom I spoke during the summer following the raid, as all of the women had traveled across borders and left their communities to work in the sex industry, they qualified as exploited women in need of assistance, even when they personally denied that they experienced harm in the brothels. That they may have paid others to facilitate their migration was presented as further evidence of their exploitation.

Below I have quoted from Running from the Rescuers: New U.S. Crusades Against Sex Trafficking and the Rhetoric of Abolition by Gretchen Soderlund.

Journalist Maggie Jones’s interviews with safe house managers indicate that shelter escapes are commonplace in areas where anti-trafficking groups are currently targeting their efforts (2003). The manager of the Phnom Penh home that took in the 37 prostitutes after the Dateline initiated raids reported to Jones that at least 40 percent of the women and girls taken to his shelter escape and return to work in Svay Pak’s brothels. Indeed, six of the teens taken by MSNBC/IJM had run away from the home within a week of the televised busts. When Phil Marshall of the United Nations Project on Human Trafficking in Southeast Asia’s Mekong Region was asked by Jones what he thought of current rehabilitation strategies, he said he had “never seen an issue where there is less interest in hearing from those who are most affected by it” (Jones 2003,1). In 2003, Empower, a sex workers’ advocacy program, issued a report documenting a brothel raid in Chiang Mai, Thailand conducted by International Justice Mission in which several of the 28 arrested (or “rescued,” in abolitionist parlance) Burmese women escaped from a local institution in the first 24 hours. According to Empower, the raid—conducted ostensibly for humanitarian purposes—took on many of the same features as a criminal arrest:

As soon as they had their mobile phones returned [the] women contacted Empower. They are only permitted to use their phones for a short time each evening and must hide in the bathroom to take calls outside that time. They report that they have been subjected to continual interrogation and coercion by Trafcord [an anti-trafficking NGO formed in 2002 with U.S. financial support]. Women understand that if they continue to maintain that they want to remain in Thailand and return to work that they will be held in the Public Welfare Boys Home or [a] similar institution until they recant. Similarly, they understand that refusing to be witnesses against their “traffickers” will further delay their release. (Empower 2003)

By the end of the month, more than half of the women had escaped from the shelter. What does it mean that so-called sex slaves often thwart rescue attempts? Is it intellectually and ethically responsible to call every instance of a practice “slavery” when many women involved demonstratively reject the process of protection and rehabilitation, and when they escape from supposed rescuers who aim to force them out of a life of prostitution (“captivity”) and into a life of factory work or employment in the low-paying service sector (“freedom”)?

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.