A statement on sex work - Dr. Graham Scambler

This is a blog post from Dr. Graham Scambler, Professor of Sociology at UCL. He has given me his kind permission to replicate it, and I'm sure you'll agree, it's well worth a read. You should also check out his lecture on YouTube, do look it up. It's very encouraging to see the number of academics coming out in favour of sex workers' rights and common sense legislation. Enjoy.

LL xx

Chronology is not everything, especially in the context of the kind of disjointed fragments that comprise this ‘sociological autobiography’. So I am jumping ahead a few years, the rational being that it makes sense to build on my comments on sex work now rather than later. I have published two main papers since the early 1990's. The first was on ‘sex work stigma’ in 2007 in Sociology. This drew on a small interview-based study I conducted with a snowball sample of a dozen escorts who had travelled to London for a defined period (usually 1-3 months) to bank some money. The second was on ‘health work, female sex workers and HIV/AIDS’ in 2008 in Social Science and Medicine. The intention here was to develop a conceptual frame within which barriers to the delivery of health care for sex workers might be better understood. The principal aim on both occasions was to stress the importance of social structures.

The focus in the 2007 paper was on the salience of social structures for processes of stigmatization, and that in the 2008 paper on the role of social structures in fashioning barriers to effective health interventions. In particular, I emphasized the significance of class-based ‘exploitation’ and state or command-based ‘oppression’ in ‘informing’ (without ‘determining’) cultural norms of shame and blame and their policing and access to health and social care.

A further output from these excursions was a typology of sex workers. I distinguished six career ideal types: (a) coerced (e.g. abducted, trafficked), (b) destined (e.g. family or peers in the trade), (c) survivors (e.g. drug users, debtors), (d) workers (e.g. permanent job), (e) opportunists (e.g. project financing), and (f) bohemians (e.g. casual, without need). If I had any aspirations to completeness, these were dashed when a researcher at the University of Hertfordshire, where I was giving a seminar at the invitation of Hilary Thomas, added that some sex workers offer their services exclusively to ‘disabled’ clients; and so they do.

By this time it was something of a mantra of mine that agency and culture are alike structured but not structurally determined.

I also delivered one of the UCL Lunchtime Lectures on the mythology surrounding sex work in the autumn of 2011. This was and is a great concept: the lectures are given by UCL academics but the brief is to make their research intelligible to the wider community, who on the whole comprise the audiences. People turn up with their sandwiches if the title appeals. When I was invited to talk about ‘sex work today’ to mark World AIDS Day however I hesitated. What concerned me was the implication that sex work and HIV/AIDS were intimately connected. In some parts of the world they are – with 80-90% of sex workers HIV-positive – but not in the UK. Anyway, I overcame my qualms and constructed a personal agenda to set records straight.

The lecture is available on YouTube, on the home page of my website and has been debated on Twitter, so I will here offer the most succinct of summaries of the messages I was hoping to convey. Then I move on to address the nature of the fallout from talks and stances like mine (I was going to write ‘ensuing debate’ but it is far more conflictual than that). My principal messages can be represented as follows:

There is a good deal of research on the sex industry in Britain and overseas. For obvious reasons there are no probability samples of sex workers, however, so we must be cautious. Studies allow us to ‘estimate’ that there are around 80,000 sex workers in the UK. In London, the focus of my talk: 30-40% of the sex workers are men (a phenomenon unique to London among UK cities); 80% work indoors; nearly two-thirds were born overseas; the media age of entry to the industry is 24; drug use is lower in indoor than outdoor workers; and there is currently a declining rate of STIs and HIV.

This research provides an evidence-base for policy formation and implementation at global, regional, national and local levels. The kind of data I cited for London are available for other parts of the UK and across the globe. They should inform policy-making much more than they do currently. The wealthy and powerful should not be permitted to swap policy-based evidence for evidence-based policy. But I also bemoaned the lack of comparative studies. If we could compare female sex workers with, say, secretaries, then we might find that just as many of the latter as the former come from broken families and save ourselves from incautious inferences!

The sex industry between and within nations is varied and its workers heterogeneous. The typology cited above is testimony to heterogeneity with the UK and elsewhere; and individual sex workers can and do switch types of work. Moreover, there are ‘visible’ drug-using women who work the streets and give hand jobs for £30, and ‘invisible’ women escorts who charge £1000 for a night’s companionship.

Stereotypes of sex workers are simplistic, replete with errors of commission and omission. As this heterogeneity suggests, media stereotypes of sex workers contain errors of commission and omission. The street worker is the exception rather than the rule; moreover the street worker is as likely to be a brave and subtle improviser as an out-of-control alcoholic.

Two major discourses have come to dominate discussions of the sex industry: (a) the public health discourse, and (b) the sexual trafficking discourse. A lot of the research into sex work that received funding in the mid-to-late 1980's arose out of a concern that sex workers might be vectors of disease, precipitating the spread of HIV into the ‘respectable population’ (presumably via their respectable clients). They found rates of condom use approaching 100%. Like gay men a little earlier, sex workers were quickly onto the risk of HIV. Why would they not be? The principal risk of HIV, studies showed, was to sex workers themselves. While the condom provided a symbolic barrier with clients, it was intolerable with boy- or girlfriends, who not infrequently had multiple sexual partners …

The public health discourse has contributed to our evidence base and has tended to be open and liberal. Lessons were learned and most public health researchers acquired a respect for sex workers and opposed any attempt to (further) criminalize them.

The sexual trafficking discourse has largely ignored our evidence base and has tended to be closed and oppressive.

The weird admix of radical feminists and Christian and allied right-wingers who emphasize ‘sexual trafficking’ come into another category. Of course there are sex workers – the coerced – who are trafficked (e.g. young girls out of Burma to the brothels of Bangkok). And it occurs in the UK too. But it is rare: the Pentameter operations mounted by the police were a dismal failure, and Nick Mays’ ESRC study found that 6% of women had been either ‘deceived’ or ‘forced’ into selling sex. But those who push the sexual trafficking discourse are resistant to data: they would wish the public to believe that any sex workers born overseas and working in the UK have been trafficked. Their prejudice or ‘moral crusade’ is to legislate for the abolition of the industry (a forlorn hope, as we have seen).

That is enough. I end this important, non-chronological digression with an assertion that seems to me self-evident. It is an obnoxious and unacceptable conceit, a form of abuse, to deny sex workers their agency. Agency, like culture, is structured for all of us, but it is never structurally determined.

A letter to the Anti-Slavery Joint Committee

Dear Mr Coffey, Dear Mr McDonnell and Members of the Joint Committee on the Draft Modern Slavery Bill,

I am a sex worker with over 20 years experience. I have worked in Ireland and all over the UK too, in many different formats, both independently and in brothels. It is my understanding that Fiona MacTaggart is aiming to ‘make the purchase of sex illegal, remove the criminal sanctions against prostituted women and provide support to women who want to leave prostitution’.

Fiona MacTaggart states that criminalising clients “has been shown to reduce sex trafficking ever since it was first adopted in Sweden in 1999”. In reality, there is no evidence to back that up, and the conflation of sex work and trafficking is one which has dogged the debate on sex work for years. I believe that it is a very deliberate conflation, placed into the discussion to benefit those who would profit from further criminalisation, the "rescue" organisations and NGO sector. It's worth asking, exactly who will be rescued ? I'd like to quote Nick Davies, in his excellent piece "Anatomy of a moral panic" -

In November 2008, Mactaggart repeated a version of the same claim when she told BBC Radio 4's Today in Parliament that "something like 80% of women in prostitution are controlled by their drug dealer, their pimp, or their trafficker." Again, there is no known source for this.

Challenged to justify this figure by a different Radio 4 programme, More or Less, in January 2009, Mactaggart claimed that it comes from the Home Office's 2004 report on prostitution, Paying the Price. But there is no sign of the figure in the report.

In the summer of 2004, The Poppy Project, which is committed to ending all prostitution on the grounds that it "helps to construct and maintain gender inequality", surveyed London prostitutes working in flats and found that 80% of them were foreign, a finding which is well supported. They then added, without any clear evidence, that "a large proportion of them are likely to have been trafficked into the country", a conclusion which is challenged by specialist police, but which was then recycled through numerous media reports and political claims.

Last year (2008), Poppy published a report called The Big Brothel, which claimed to be the most comprehensive study ever conducted into brothels in the UK and which claimed to have found "indicators of trafficking in every borough of London".

That report was subsequently condemned in a joint statement from 27 specialist academics who complained that it was "framed by a pre-existing political view of prostitution". The academics said there were "serious flaws" in the way that data had been collected and analysed; that the reliability of the data was "extremely doubtful"; and that the claims about trafficking "cannot be substantiated."

The health sector en masse recognise the benefits of decriminalisation for sex work. To quote Wendy Lyon - "The World Health Organization, UNAIDS, the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, the UN Secretary General, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health – all of these have called for the removal of laws criminalising commercial sex between consenting adults, primarily because criminalisation is a recognised risk factor for HIV/AIDS."

Further, it is not acceptable to refer to sex workers as "prostituted women". In doing so, our agency is denied as is our ability to form a decision to enter the sex industry. It suggests that we cannot think for ourselves and is offensive.

Whilst I fully support the decriminalisation of street sex workers, that decriminalisation must be industry wide, so allow us to work together in safety in flats and brothels also. Sex work is the only occupation I can think of in the UK which compels a woman to work alone with the general public. It would never be asked of an A & E nurse to work a Friday night shift on her own, so I don't see why sex workers should have to.


The "Swedish model" as being held out by Ms. Taggart as an all knowing solution is problematic in the extreme, and goes not one jot towards a real solution to those who do experience violence and abuses within the industry. It is not possible to criminalise one half of a transaction without affecting both parties. If the purchasers of sex are criminalised, then that has ramifications for the sellers, too. Street sex workers report that they have very little time to make an assessment of their clients and as such are in greater danger, because they are more concerned with evading police attention. This is evidenced by the abolition of a tolerance zone in Edinburgh, when attacks on street sex workers went up by a staggering 95%. In further criminalising the sex work transaction, it sends out a message to potential abusers that sex workers are vulnerable, and alone. It further sends out a message that the state simply doesn't care about us, they would rather spend tax payers money on catching our clients than providing us with safe spaces to work from.


In conclusion, I would like to ask why Fiona MacTaggart feels she knows better than all of the above experts, but more importantly, sex workers. Our voices must be heard as we are experts on our own lives and know what is best for us. My contact details are on my website which is listed in my signature below, and I am happy to talk through any of the points raised above.

Yours sincerely,

Laura Lee

Sex Worker & Sex Workers' Rights Advocate

Protest at Stormont - Monday 20th October

STOP CRIMINALISATION: SAFETY FIRST !!

Sex workers and allies -

PROTEST AGAINST THE CRIMINALISATION OF THE PURCHASE OF SEX.

Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Monday 20 October, 4pm-5pm.

On Monday 20th October the Northern Ireland Assembly will vote on the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill. This Bill includes a clause which will criminalise the purchase of sex.

This Bill has been put forward by the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) backed by CARE (Christian Action Research and Education). Sinn Féin, the second largest party, is believed to have now decided not to not oppose it. Thus it will pass.

The Department of Justice published independent research into prostitution in Northern Ireland on Friday 17th October clearly showing that criminalising the purchase of sex will not achieve the stated aims but will harm sex workers. However Northern Ireland’s politicians are ignoring the evidence and throwing sex workers under the bus.

I am calling for a protest.

Red umbrellas and sex worker rights banners are encouraged. Sex workers are highly stigmatised in Northern Ireland and thus masks are welcome. Masks will also be made available on the day.

Some of the findings of the recently published Northern Ireland research are:

Only 2% of sex workers support criminalising the purchase of sex.

Sex workers worry that criminalisation of clients will lead to a potential decrease in security, worsen working conditions and increase risks of violence and other abuse. Another common concern is that criminalisation of clients will lead to the increased involvement of organised crime groups and ‘pimps’ in the sex industry;

61% of NI-based sex workers feel criminalising the purchase of sex will make them less safe.

There is likely to be significant difficulties with enforcement of the law. PSNI officers who took part in the research noted that, in their opinion, a sex purchase ban would be difficult to enforce and would be largely ineffective in reducing the level of trafficking in sexual exploitation.

85% of sex workers believe the law will not reduce sex trafficking.

Only 8% of respondents to the client survey said it would make them stop paying for sex altogether.

Stigmatisation and the related fear of exposure constitutes a very significant issue for the sex workers who took part in the study, it ranked above all other concerns.

The full research report is available here:

http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/media-centre/independent-research-into-prostitution-in-northern-ireland-published.htm

LL xx

Northern Ireland, we need you !

As you know, the debate on the implementation of the Swedish model in Northern Ireland has been heating up and is expected to conclude in the autumn. It has been a long and drawn out battle, but the passion and resilience of a number of people have kept the abolitionists on their toes, in spite of a very heavily funded campaign built on proven lies. Now it's your turn. Justice Minister Ford has called for evidence around the sex industry in NI, because he wants to be informed of the facts, which is very admirable. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of research which can be called upon to give him, so a new study has been commissioned and is well under way.

What is crucially important about this study is that it is impartial, factual and accurate. The researchers are respected academics and want to hear from anyone who has ever bought or sold sex in Northern Ireland. They want to meet and discuss your experiences whether those were good, bad or indifferent because it's important that a true cross section is sampled. Your anonymity is guaranteed and your opinion matters, so please consider the invite below and have your voice heard. It is apathy and silence which have historically allowed crippling laws to be passed, causing real harm to sex workers and indeed those around us. Let silence no longer be the biggest ally to those abolitionists who would do us harm.

LL xx

STUDY ON PROSTITUTION IN NORTHERN IRELAND

What is this about?

We are doing research on the sex industry in Northern Ireland. The project was commissioned by the Department of Justice and aims to provide a detailed understanding of the sex industry (i.e. who sells which services where and why, and to whom). The findings from the may be used to inform policy and debate within Northern Ireland.

How can you help?

We are looking for people to interview – both people who sell and who buy sex. All interviews are anonymous and confidential. We don’t need to know your real name. If we use quotes or information from the interview in the report we will write, they will be anonymized so that that your are not identified.

Who are we?

We are a team of researchers based at Queen’s University Belfast and at the National University of Ireland in Galway. Most of the interviews will be undertaken by Susann Huschke. If you would prefer to be interviewed by a male researcher, this can be arranged.

What’s in it for you?

You will not be paid to participate in this research project. The interviews are important in terms of informing debate and giving voice to those who sell and pay for sex. This is an opportunity for you to have your voice, experience and issues heard. You are free to not answer questions that make you uncomfortable, and to withdraw from the study at any stage (we will then not use the interview in any material that we produce).

Are there other ways of participating?

At a later stage, we will also be doing a survey which can be filled out online anonymously. Both the interviews and the survey are essential and important parts of the study, if you are interested in taking part in one or the other, or both, or if you have any further questions, please contact me via email:

Dr Susann Huschke
Queen’s University Belfast
Email: sexwork.research.NI@gmail.com
Phone: +44(0) 28 9097 5155

The SURVEY FOR CLIENTS (people who pay for sexual services) is available in English here:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SexworkResearch_ClientSurvey

The SURVEY FOR SEX WORKERS/ESCORTS is available in English and 9 other languages here:

English: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Research_SexWork_English
Bulgarian/ български: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Izsledvane_Prostitucija_Balgarski
French/français: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Recherche_Prostitution_Francais
Italian/italiano: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Ricerca_Prostituzione_Italiano
Polish/polski: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Badanie_Prostytucja_Polski
Portuguese/português: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Pesquisa_Prostituicao_Portugues
Romanian/românesc: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Cercetare_Prostitutie_Roman
Russian/ ру́сский: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Issledovanie_Prostitucija_Russkij
Spanish/español: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Investigacion_Prostitucion_Espanol

A letter to the Irish Examiner

Dear Sirs,

On August 22nd you published an article in your paper entitled - "People who trivialise prostitution ‘ignorant of reality’." The piece included several quotes from Niall Collins TD, around his encounter with street sex workers in Limerick.

Firstly, Mr Collins states that "In Sweden, prostitution has reportedly been reduced by 70% through legislation." That is both erroneous in fact and hugely misleading. There is no evidence from Sweden whatsoever to suggest that overall prostitution has been reduced, other than a small reduction in street prostitution. In itself street sex work is but a tiny part of a huge industry. In many cases the sex workers simply moved from the street to an indoor place of work where, arguably, they are in more danger as they cannot rely on each other for support. To make such a bald statement as a '70% reduction' is, simply, wrong - especially since the Swedish Police's final report on Prostitution and Trafficking published in February 2011 showed a 569% increase in reported cases of the purchase of sexual services between 2008 and 2010.

Secondly, Mr. Collins goes on to say, "People should realise 99% of these women have been abused and trafficked into this country." It would be interesting to see if he has any evidence to support this figure as, I can say without a shadow of a doubt, during my twenty years of experience in the industry I have never met a trafficked or abused sex worker in Ireland. On any given day there will be between 800 - 1,000 sex workers advertising online, many of them from countries other than Ireland. However, that's not to say that they are abused or trafficked; a distinction needs to be drawn between a 'migrant' and a 'trafficked' sex worker.

There is no doubt that there are issues surrounding some street sex workers such as drug addiction and poverty, but these are exacerbated when further criminalisation is introduced, because outreach services struggle to reach those workers who do so badly need help. With regard to the assertion that the sex worker Mr. Collins spoke to was 14, it should be noted that there is no such thing as an underage sex worker, only a child victim of rape, and I do hope Mr. Collins has taken the necessary steps and called the Gardai.

The solution for Limerick is a tolerance zone, away from the city centre, where the Gardai can work with the sex workers rather than against them. This model has shown to be very successful in Merseyside, where the crime rate has plummeted along with other associated anti-social behaviours.

It is impossible for any society to completely eradicate prostitution, what is required is a sensible approach to protect the most vulnerable and ensure that the safety of all is paramount.

Yours faithfully,

Laura Lee
International Union of Sex Workers

The final countdown

Rhoda Grant wrote a final hour article for the NewStatesman in which she seeks to undermine our position as sex workers entitled to defend our industry with facts and common sense. The link to the article is here.

It's nine days until we discover whether Ms. Grant has secured the required cross party support to bring her bill forward, criminalizing the purchase of sex in Scotland. At the time of writing, that support isn't in evidence.

The article claims that none of our current laws 'protect those who are prostituted' - but rape is an offence, as is assault and many forms of harassment. Human trafficking is also already covered by statute, although I support the proposal to implement a new law re 'aggravated trafficking'. So the laws to protect us are already in place.

As sex workers on the front line, Ms. Grant has steadfastly ignored us from the outset. We have presented statistics, personal testimony and evidence from around the world as to the damage the Swedish model would do and we have simply been told either that we are not representative or that she is in possession of (seriously flawed) evidence to suggest otherwise.

There is a further suggestion that all reports indicate that abuse is rampant within the industry. I would like to see some evidence to support such a sweeping statement. How odd, that when I have twenty years experience right through the industry that I have never encountered 'rampant abuse'. Neither have my very many colleagues. Later on, Grant herself calls for evidence to 'demonstrate that they (clients) are reporting instances of trafficking in great numbers'.

In order for there to be evidence of trafficking in great numbers, there needs to be trafficking in great numbers. There isn't, it's really that simple. Not quite what Abolition Scotland would have you believe when they rolled out the 'Nefarious' roadshow, each screening of which I believe told attendees of greatly exaggerated trafficking figures and urged them to write in support of this bill.

New Zealand (we are told) exists in a very different context to us and their immigration polices help to ensure that people who enter the country are protected through a buddy scheme. I'm not quite sure what different 'context' New Zealand enjoys, but we have a buddy scheme in the UK too, designed specifically for sex workers to look out for each other. Here's a link to the site for reference.

Having regard to the suggestion that Grant's proposed legislation is not flying in the face of worldwide recommendations, I quote Wendy Lyon - "Rhoda Grant is quite wrong to suggest that UN groups have only come out against criminalisation of sex workers, not of their clients. A 2012 joint report by UNAIDS, UNDP and UNFPA very explicitly opposed the criminalisation of clients and endorsed the New Zealand/New South Wales decriminalisation approach. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Anand Grover, has also stated that removing criminal penalties against clients makes it easier to promote responsible client sexual behaviour."

Finally, to allege that those of us who speak up for our industry do so just because we are 'pimps' is as nonsensical as it is uncalled for. Grant is only too aware that several of us openly advertise as independent escorts.

One commentator sums up the discourse around this proposed legislation beautifully -
"Sex workers know more about the industry than anyone else....Why can't you grasp that simple fact?"

LL

PRESS RELEASE: SCOT-PEP Responds to Rhoda Grant

30th May 2013

Today, Scottish charity SCOT-PEP criticised Ms Grant’s summary of responses for her dismissal of the voices of sex workers and other experts on the regulation of sex work in Scotland. Over 900 responses were submitted to the public consultation which closed in December 2012 and Ms Grant claims most were in support of her proposals. SCOT-PEP however maintain that she has ignored the overwhelming evidence from renowned academics, un-biased experts and international bodies warning of the dangers of her proposed legislative approach, as well as the lived experiences of sex workers themselves. Instead, she favours the unsubstantiated views of those who support her position, relying on a combination of selective quotes from research findings, ‘studies’ that have been widely criticised for breaching ethical codes and in many cases a complete misrepresentation of the available evidence.

SCOT-PEP noted with interest Rhoda Grant’s reliance on the supposed success of the ‘Swedish model’. This is despite the fact that the Swedish government itself acknowledges the failure of the law - albeit in the small print. In 2007, the Swedish national health board wrote, “we cannot give any unambiguous answer to [the question of whether prostitution has increased or decreased] … no causal connections can be proven between legislation and changes in prostitution”. Expert on trafficking and labour exploitation Ann Jordan has repeatedly noted that there is “no evidence” that the Swedish law has decreased trafficking, and furthermore, in 2005 Swedish police complained of a decrease in information about trafficking, leading to zero convictions. Self-evidently, the police having no information and thus being unable to secure convictions against traffickers is hardly a victory against exploitation.

Even on its own terms, then, the Swedish model has failed: it has not reduced the amount of sex work, nor has it tackled trafficking. It has ushered in numerous harms for those working in the Swedish sex industry, with the most vulnerable workers the most badly affected. Sex workers report increased fear of violence, and increased stigma against them - which the Swedish government characterised as “positive”.

A SCOT-PEP Board member went into more detail on the damage of the Swedish model: “Legislation that criminalises the purchase of sex results in harmful outcomes for sex workers, including increasing their HIV risk, vulnerability to abuse and exploitation and limiting their access to effective healthcare and support services. This has been well documented around the world”, adding, “... with the alternative approach of decriminalisation being recommended by UNAIDS, UNFPA, UNDP, the Global Commission on HIV and the Law and most recently the World Health Organization. We fail to see why Rhoda Grant thinks she is better placed to decide the best model of legislation than global experts”.

Sex workers who are part of the SCOT-PEP network have come out in force against the lack of inclusion of their voices and recommendations in Rhoda’s summary.

An anonymous female sex worker said, “Ms Grant may be good at saving puddings but she sure doesn't show the same level of understanding and support when it comes to saving women. Where was she with her help 10 years ago when I had nowhere to spend the night and no money to buy food? Now, when through sex work I have a home, a comfortable life and, above all, a job that gives me purpose in life and pride in my own achievements, she suddenly wants to take it all away from me. How is this helping me? If she really wanted to protect women, she'd be dealing with what makes women enter prostitution in the first place: poverty, cuts and poor child support. With the law she's proposing she simply creates more poverty, misery and inequality."

Another anonymous female sex worker also noted that Rhoda Grant, despite her ‘feminist’ credentials, apparently has no care for women who are currently working. “I feel extremely let down. Has she forgotten that she entered politics to represent the people and not just to pursue her own agenda? I wonder if Ms Grant has any suggestions as to how I should support my family if she succeeds in effectively taking away my livelihood.”

Lily, a sex worker, said: "If Rhoda would open her closed mind and listen to the voices of sex workers she would hear stories of resilience, strength and pride, all of which she sidelines in her portrayal of us as victims in need of rescue and rehabilitation. We deserve the right to work and live free from violence, discrimination and labour exploitation, all of which will flourish under the legal system Rhoda is proposing.”

Laura Lee, a sex worker, expressed dismay at Rhoda Grant’s cavalier disregard of solid evidence. “I am appalled that Rhoda Grant has chosen to ignore the evidence as presented to her on numerous occasions as to the harm that this proposal will do to the very women she is purporting to protect.”

Sia, a sex worker, highlighted that Rhoda Grant’s understanding of the sex industry shows women less respect than the clients she imagines as universally abusive. “The definition of commercial sex work as a form of violence against women is extremely offensive to both us women who have made autonomous decisions to engage in commercial sex work as well as to the clients who treat us with respect and dignity. Something Rhoda Grant seems incapable of affording to adult women.”

Luca, a male sex worker, noted how dangerous Rhoda’s proposals are. "Many reports from Sweden and internationally show that the criminalisation of clients is not only ineffective but dangerous. To ensure sex worker's access to rights, health and justice, the right legal framework is decriminalisation".

Veronica, a sauna-based sex worker, said, “Rhoda Grant seems to think that any sex worker who disagrees with her is by definition ‘not representative’. This is a handy device for pre-emptively ignoring the many voices of those working who think her understanding of the sex industry is both flawed and dangerous. The women I work with in the saunas aren’t fancy, we don’t have lovely Holyrood careers. We just want the legal protections that come from recognising our work as work. If she had listened to any of us she would know that.”

SCOT-PEP particularly deplores that the serious and nuanced debate around tackling exploitation has been reduced in Rhoda Grant’s proposal to such a simplistic and poorly evidenced series of catch-phrases. The voices of sex workers - who are the people who know best how to tackle exploitation within the sex industry - are backed up by a huge body of international evidence which has shown repeatedly that, in the words of the most recent World Health Organization guidelines (December 2012), “countries should work toward decriminalisation of sex work”.

CONTACT DETAILS

Telephone: (+44) 0131 622 7550

Email: voice@scot-pep.org.uk

All clients great and small

If there's one thing which maddens me beyond all reason, it's the portrayal of clients/punters/call them what you will in the media. With the proposed introduction of the Swedish model, never before has it been more evident that those in 'power' really don't have a clue about the realities of our client base. Truly, I am sick to death of hearing my clients described as little more than lust filled animals with all the sensibilities of a zombie.

Just as sex workers are individual human beings, so too are our clients. Speaking for myself, I have an extremely diverse client base, it's really impossible to bracket them into one group, because they come from all walks of life, backgrounds, beliefs, ethnicities. I don't ask a lot of my guys, just that they treat me with respect and that they meet my standards of discretion and hygiene. After that, they can worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care, once they don't think they're going to convert me to Pastafarianism.

Over and over again, I hear in debates that we need to stop those men, those who 'feed the industry' with their demands, using coercion and force to get what they want. We really need to step back from the stereotype of a dirty old man in a mac looking around him furtively as he negotiates a price with a girl on a street corner.

Here are some client profiles -

1. He got married at 20, he's now 50. He adores his wife, who's given him three beautiful children and would do anything for her. They haven't had sex for five years now, because she's developed MS. For those five years, he has battled with his conscience. He can't have an affair because well, that involves feelings and people will get hurt, but he can't deny the physical needs he has.

2. As a young man, he left a job in the city to care for his father full time. He gets four hours reprieve a week when a carer paid for by the state comes in, and he uses this time to visit a local escort, where they open a bottle of wine and share a bubble bath together. It is this time which he treasures.

3. He got married young and it quickly became apparent that the marriage was wrong. There is violence in the marital home, she regularly assaults him, but because he has now become a public figure he can never report that, much less leave her. Provided he keeps her credit card topped up, she turns a blind eye when he books into a hotel one night a month and hires an escort.

4. As a teenager he was reckless and fell in with the wrong crowd. He began 'joy riding' which culminated in a horrific smash. Since then, he has been confined to a wheelchair and has no sensation from the waist down. He feels his injuries are God's way of punishing him for his behaviour and he frequently sinks into long bouts of black depression, even contemplating ending his life. What keeps him going is the periodic visits he gets from a sex worker, when he enjoys a sensual massage.

5. As a young boy, he was repeatedly and savagely raped by a close family member. He has serious issues with body dysmorphia and self esteem as a result. He wants to learn to enjoy sex as an act of love and tenderness, so that he can disassociate it from violence and terror.

The above examples are real clients, my clients. Are these the men we need to criminalise ? No. The men we need to (further) criminalise are the traffickers, those who trade in misery and suffering. Leave the men who are already dealing with their own misery and suffering alone.

LL xx

Magdalene martyrs

Ironic, isn't it, that my first bout of 'sex education' came from a Catholic nun, Sr. Noreen, or Boreen Noreen as she was affectionately known. Noreen was a kind soul and deeply uncomfortable with the subject matter. Mortified, she explained that sanitary towels were always to be worn with the sticky side down, because to fail in that could lead to abject discomfort.

I say ironic because on International Women's Day, I was listening to the Sisters of Mercy try to defend the indefensible with regard to the Magdalene Laundries. I very nearly pitied them. Until I remembered that the same order of nuns responsible for the atrocities committed in the laundries are now the chief anti sex work protagonists in Ireland. Now known as Ruhama, the same nuns that bullied and victimised those 'fallen women' for generations are still at it, although if the interview I just heard is anything to go by, it's nothing to do with funding, it's from the goodness of their hearts, obviously. You'd have to wonder then, exactly what they've done with over fourteen million euros since 2006.

Asked about whether the work the women endured in the laundries was 'slavery', the nuns replied, with regard to prostitution - " The women who work in our towns and villages today, that's slavery. Doing stuff you don't want to do under coercion". That was a pretty impressive deflection attempt, but nowhere near successful. The fact remains, the Magdalene women were forced to work long hours, and (allegedly) had to endure physical, mental and sexual abuse. They were separated from their babies, their families and their friends and in some cases became so institutionalised that the only solution was for them to remain in the laundries until they died. If that's not slavery then I don't know what is.

To refer to sex workers who choose to travel around Ireland having consensual sex as slaves is erroneous and quite frankly, offensive. I say offensive because it paints a picture of poor vulnerable women who can't or won't choose their own destinies and are at the mercy of abusers. Not true. The vast majority of women in prostitution in Ireland are there by choice and are more than capable of controlling their own lives, I know because I am one of them and have met many others, over many years.

The nuns who were being interviewed were then asked about their decision to remain anonymous and their reply was very interesting to say the least. They said that they are being 'cast out into the desert to get rid of the stigma' and that should their identities become known, they would be 'stoned'. What about the women who were cast out of society for the 'sin' of bearing a child ? Those women had to endure stigma as do the many sex workers in Ireland today. It also begs the question, if the nuns are so resolute in their claims of innocence, what have they got to hide ? Why the secrecy ?

One question I was very interested in the reply to centred around funding, and they were asked what became of the money that was earned in the laundries. They replied that it was used to pay for the keep of the women and that actually, the nuns led very frugal lives. How odd then, that I can easily source a report from The Irish Examiner which estimates the wealth of The Sisters of Mercy at €1.6bn. Having regard to that figure, can anyone really claim that an award of compensation of €200,000 per victim is excessive ? How can one begin to quantify the pain and suffering those women endured, losing their precious babies and years of their lives ?

Further on in the interview, the nuns went on to explain that as a society, we are "looking with today eyes at a totally different era". Therein lies the ultimate irony, because I believe that unless Ruhama and their co-abolitionists are stopped from State sponsored bullying of sex workers, then another apology from Enda Kenny's successor will not be enough. As an enlightened and modern society, the oppression of Irish and migrant sex workers can no longer be justified.


LL xx

Nefarious - A sex worker's review

Sub titled the "Merchant of Souls", Nefarious is a documentary currently being screened by Abolition Scotland. I went to a viewing in a church in Johnstone. My companion and I immediately aroused suspicion and the lovely lady who was hosting the evening asked who we were and where we were from. Whilst my friend answered her questions, I fumbled around in my bag and finally fished out my glasses and notebook, perhaps they thought I was a reporter. I've become quite accustomed to sitting in a room full of abolitionists and holding my own but there was no necessity for that here, because this was a very different environment. This was a group of truly lovely people, devoutly spiritual and all ready to be exposed to the 'truths' of trafficking.

The film opened with a look at Moldova, which is reportedly at the heart of trafficking. Here, we were told, 10% of the country have been trafficked. There was no mention of an overall population figure or the industries attached to that percentage, be they domestic servitude, factory work or the sex industry. The figure of 10% was offered as a bald fact.

The next segment was entitled - 'The Breaking Rooms'. Having answered advertisements for offers of jobs abroad or having been simply snatched from the streets, it is here that the young girls are repeatedly raped and beaten until they comply with their handler's orders. Their treatment was horrific and the psychological torture that they endured was heart breaking. One statement stuck with me from that segment, that once some of these girls are sourced from an orphanage, they fall into 'a vortex' and are not missed. Why not ? Can you imagine if a child was snatched from an orphanage in the UK ? There would be a nationwide search and no stone left unturned until she was found.

The film moved on to Cambodia to look at the child sex trade and there is no other description for it, it was stomach turning. Here, we were told, there is a flourishing industry in the sale of a daughter to the sex trade. There was a horrific image of a seven year old girl's pyjamas, badly blood stained around the groin where she had been raped by a 'punter'. As a mother, that made me cry. I couldn't help but think of my own daughter when we saw images of very young girls wearing next to nothing and reluctantly flirting with punters. I wanted to scoop every one of those little girls up and just get them the hell out of there, to where they could be children again. And safe.

Then came the statistics. 80 to 90% of parents in Cambodia sell their daughters to the sex trade. Often,(we were told) it's not to provide for food or other such necessities but luxuries, such as mobile phones and televisions. Indeed, in some cases, the women celebrate when they give birth to a girl because they know that as soon as she becomes in any way exploitable she will be their ticket to a new life of prosperity. What a disgusting conjecture to make.

As a mother myself, I object to the unfounded hypothesis that the majority of an entire race will see a baby girl as a meal ticket. Mothers will fight to the death for their children and would offer themselves in a heartbeat to save them, that's reality. Of course there are exceptions to that rule but to broadly proclaim a figure of 80 - 90% where there is no real basis or evidence to substantiate that is misleading and counter factual.

Throughout the screening Melissa Farley was interviewed. Since Farley's evidence has been treated as biased and questionable by a court of law, and not forgetting the complaint to the APA, then I disregard any of her assertions.

At the end of the screening, a member of Abolition Scotland stood on the altar of the church to address our group. This was the moment I had been waiting for. They thanked us for coming, asked for donations and sold some DVD's and then began to speak in favour of Rhoda Grant's proposal to criminalise the purchase of sex. The film we had just been shown, (they said) is just the tip of the iceberg. Trafficking is RIFE in Scotland too. Why only in 2006 did a police report make mention of 6,000 people trafficked into Scotland, with approximately 90% of those destined for the sex industry.

Mathematics was never my strong point but I'm pretty sure Abolition Scotland just claimed that in 2006, there were 5,400 prostitutes trafficked into Scotland. Isn't it simply amazing then that last year we had one conviction ? ONE.

Needless to say I'm going to request a copy of that 'police report' and debunk the statistics they are using for myself, because that's a MUST do.

Of all the memories which will stay with me from that evening, one of the most potent was the woman behind me who was visibly moved. She was going to write to Rhoda Grant, she said, because THAT level of trafficking in Scotland is simply not acceptable. It took all of my self control to resist initiating a friendly debate based on fact, but I believe that it is far better to write about the truth and inform many than to channel my energy into challenging one.

LL xx

Conference Against Human Trafficking - why YOU should be very angry.

Let me begin this blog post by saying that the statements I attribute to various speakers at the CAHT are not verbatim. It is very difficult to pose a question, contemplate the answer whilst paying attention to the speaker and write it down simultaneously.

When N and I volunteered to attend the conference, we knew it would be difficult. We knew we would be the only two sex workers' advocates there, and we knew that both Trish Godman and Rhoda Grant would be speaking at the event. Regular readers will need no introduction to those two.

First to speak was Trish Godman and she began by saying that the movement to ban the purchase of prostitution should not be deterred by the lack of statistics, in fact she said, "we don't need numbers just now". Further, she said that the "Belle" ideology is all a myth, there is no such thing as a happy sex worker. The Belle 'myth' is wheeled out by those of us in favour of decriminalisation to strengthen our position and has no place in reality.

Godman went on to say that really, it is the buyer of sex who has all of the choice and in fact she went so far as to say that she would advocate a public list of all 'punters' to include their names and car registration numbers. The survivors of the sex trade, she said, deserve to have their voices heard.

So to the Q & A session thereafter. I challenged Godman by saying, "it's not just my clients who have a choice, I have a choice and I choose to work in the sex industry. I too deserve to have my voice heard and further, I have the right to earn a living and support my family".

Her reply is something I will never forget. She said, "of course you have a voice, you're here now and we're listening to you aren't we ? You also have a choice and if you continue with that choice in the event that this law comes into place then you will be running a risk as you will be breaking the law". She chose to ignore the last part of my question.

So, not only was Godman dismissive, she was factually incorrect, and I had no opportunity to rectify her statement as the next question was being posed.

Next to speak was Jenny Marra, who was her usual lovely and sensible self. She spoke about Kenny MacAskill's suggestion regarding the introduction of an aggravated charge on trafficking, because people trafficking is already an offence. I should also point out that Jenny was the only one of the politicians to approach both N and I and extend her hand to welcome us to the conference.

Jenny spoke further about arming the front line forces to be able to better deal with trafficking, such as police, the health services etc. and went on to say that she would be visiting the training to ensure that it would be implemented effectively. Having met Jenny before at a cross party group on trafficking I knew that she would be level headed and refreshing as a speaker and she certainly was.

Following on from the first two speakers we were separated into smaller discussion groups, and when I looked at my group I could have fled. It was comprised of many much older Soroptimists and - Jan MacLeod. Jan comes from the Women's Support Project and suffice to say that when she and I met it was very much a case of - "we meet at last". Yes, there have been times when we have clashed in the past and I'm sure that there will be times in the future too, but to disappoint you all, I have to tell you, Jan is a lovely person. She's witty, warm and engaging and as she said herself, we may not agree on the legislative piece but we are very much on the same page when it comes to other aspects of women's welfare. In fact, we spoke about the possibility of an outreach service in Glasgow which would involve visiting the working flats rather than police knocking on the door because the ladies therein would be far more likely to speak to another sex worker. And I didn't just say all of that because Jan admitted she reads my blog, honest.

The Soroptomists were a very pleasant surprise. They were open and willing to listen when I told them that as an industry we are very self regulating and that we would look to report anything untoward as a policy. Overall I was very encouraged by the group discussion and we took time out for lunch. Great raspberry cheesecake.

Next to speak was Gunilla Edberg, a feminist lawyer and a former Special Advisor to the Swedish Government. Edberg said that it was time to break the silence in relation to the real perpetrators, the clients. Prostitution she said, is a crime of violence and as women in prostitution, we are not afforded the option to go to the police.

Further, she said that by following the buyers, the organisers will be found and that the only people who are usually opposed to criminalisation are the buyers. The part which stood out was when she said that we must not buy into the stereotype of the "lonely client". These are not men in search of companionship, rather they are "sexually experienced" individuals who know exactly what they are doing in terms of exploiting and repeatedly violating sex workers. She finished by saying that prostitution is akin to indignity and a loss of integrity.

Of most interest to me was the next speaker, Rhoda Grant. In fact, we first met in the ladies "restroom", and I extended my hand and a smile.

"Rhoda ? Delighted to meet you at last. I'm Laura Lee."

"I'm aware of who you are and your work".

Right, stage set then. To her credit she did shake my hand and smile too.

When she began speaking, her tone and delivery were very different to that of Godman. She was quietly spoken, flat and monotonous and I found it difficult to stay focused at times. I was soon jolted out of my stupor in spectacular fashion. To a shocked "oooh" from the audience Grant declared, "studies have shown that 75% of women enter the industry as children".

Come Q & A, I challenged her."No-one will deny that the notion of 75% of new entrants being children is horrific. However, the statistic you are quoting is from a study conducted in 2004 by Melrose, which was based on 47 street sex workers. Since we know that only about 10% of all sex work takes place on street, then those figures as presented are inadmissable".

Her face was a picture of dark thunderous anger.

Here, in my own words, is Grant's (visibly flustered) reply - "I CAN rely on that study because there are very few others done".

N and I were aghast, and speechless.

As someone who obviously also (begrudgingly) reads my blog, she went on to say - "I'd also like to say that the notion of using disability as an excuse is offensive and appalling".

So there we have it. To highlight the perfectly natural desires of disabled persons when it comes to paid sex is offensive. To my disabled clients, take a bow. You are little more than an excuse.

Get ANGRY. Anger and action are what will stop the success of this preposterous abolition attempt.

LL xx

Let's get to WORK.

Rhoda Grant MSP believes that ‘prostitution in Scotland is a form of sexual violence against women and sexual exploitation.’ She believes that ‘prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanising’ and that ‘the majority of those who are involved in prostitution are unwilling participants.' She is proposing to make it illegal to purchase sex in Scotland.

Now, I know, and you know, that her assertions are simply not true. I know from years of experience at various levels in the sex industry that in fact the vast majority of sex workers are working (quite contentedly) of their own volition and to support themselves and their families. Indeed, my colleagues and I have been visiting brothels so we know the truth, and we think it's time that the truth is told.

The public consultation on Rhoda Grant’s proposals for a new law to criminalise the purchase of sex is open until 14th December. This is an open consultation - you do not have to be a resident of Scotland or the UK to respond.

All of us at SCOT-PEP have been campaigning to stop this law going through and we will continue to do so but we need YOU to use your voice too.

Are you a sex worker, a client or an individual interested in human rights and safety for sex workers? Politicians need to know the realities of sex work, so let's tell them!

If you are a sex worker and enjoy your job, if you do not feel exploited or that it is dehumanising, harmful or degrading, SAY SO.

If you choose to work as a sex worker because it is the best available option for you, SAY SO.

If you see disabled clients who would otherwise never experience the joy of skin to skin contact, SAY SO.

If you feel that making it illegal for your clients to pay you is not going to tackle trafficking or ‘reduce demand’ but deprive you of a living, SAY SO.

If you are a client, who uses the services of sex workers and have yet to find a victim of coercion or trafficking, SAY SO.

If you work in health services and come into contact with sex workers who don't fit *that* stereotype, SAY SO.

Here's what you can do.

You can write to Rhoda Grant and tell her what you think of her proposals.

The consultation document asks specifically for answers to 8 questions – but you can also just write in with your opinion if you prefer. Your letter will be much more powerful if you can add your own views and experiences, although at Scot-PEP we have prepared some template letters here which you can use as a guideline for your own letter. In fact you can simply print the letters off and sign them.

You don't need to use your real name, for example you can use your work name or an alias to send in your opinion. If you do use your own name you must ask for your response to be treated as anonymous if you do not wish your name to be published on Rhoda Grant’s website and by the Scottish Parliament. (Only names will be published – not contact addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses etc.)

You can email your letter to: Rhoda.Grant.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

or post it to:

Rhoda Grant MSP
Room M1.06
Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh
EH99 1SP

It has never been more important to stand up for your rights and to have your voice heard. Please don't let this new proposal drive our already clandestine and stigmatised jobs further underground and please don't allow politicians to tell you how you feel or how you ought to live your life. Enough is enough.

On the subject of Rhoda Grant

Quite a while ago now, I took La Princess to see the new(ish) Katy Perry film. I was looking forward to it rather like I look forward to a smear test, irritating but necessary nevertheless. For the first part, I was mildly interested and just able to resist the infantile temptation to flick popcorn at random heads. Understand this, embarrassing your children in public is not a benefit, it's an obligation.

Imagine my pleasant surprise then, when I discovered what an immensely enjoyable outing it was. The film itself wasn't exactly oscar award winning, but what struck me was the way in which Ms. Perry dealt with the disintegration of her marriage to Russell Brand. She was in the middle of a gruelling tour and absolutely exhausted and one was left with the feeling that his treatment of her during the break up was nothing short of appalling. (Lawyer clients, quit twitching, I of course mean allegedly.)

There was a scene which will stay with me for a long time. Our heroine was lying on a bench where ordinarily she would have her make up and hair done before going on stage and she was crying. Now, I don't mean "crocodile tears and gentle dabbing of eyes with embalmed tissues" crying, I mean sobbing. The majority had no idea what was wrong, since she had been intensely private about her marital troubles and only the very closest to her such as her sister were able to give her some comfort.

There were various people clucking around her who were clearly unwelcome at that moment not because she was being unkind but because she just couldn't do the whole "air kiss" thing. Having sought solace with her closest, she took a deep breath, looked at her make up artist and said "START". Various voices arose into the fracas, "are you sure ? we can cancel the show". Her reply was simply, "I SAID START". Start they did and thereafter, she managed to find a huge smile from somewhere and went on to deliver an undeniably mind blowing performance.

I can relate to that. I know how she felt and I know what it took to find that smile and "KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON". Crucially, she wasn't alone and there was a huge amount of support in evidence. Thanks to those treasured people around her she found that last reserve of strength.

This week, Rhoda Grant announced her proposed change to the legislation in Scotland (link here) and when I read it I could have sobbed myself. Debunking the "statistics" quoted will not be an issue and together with her own comments, the whole paper made me gasp in disbelief. It is simply unthinkable that anyone in a position of supposed power could be so ill informed, not to mention doggedly determined to proceed on the basis of some seriously skewed beliefs and statistics.

But if I thought for one moment that I could curl up on a sofa and weep, not a chance. Once again, I am surrounded by those who truly care not to mention the army of activists who will fight to the death to ensure this shoddy and contemptible piece of legislation will never see the light of day. We will not be dictated to and no-one, but NO-ONE will take away our rights and our livelihoods. We are many, we are united and we are strong.

I said START.


LL xx

A Feminist Whore ? Surely not ....

Am I a feminist ? Absofeckinlutely, but here's the thing, I am what you might call a traditional feminist. To me that means that as women, we are equal to men, not superior. Oh sure, we carry the can when it comes to childcare etc, but don't we expect a lot of our menfolk too ? If you subscribe to the age old stereotype then man should be the hunter, slaying a mammoth for dinner or at the very least beating up the guy next door because he peered at "his woman" over the geraniums. These days, and in times of recession then it's whoever has a job hangs onto it for dear life, conforming to stereotypes for the sake of it can lead to poverty, relationship breakdowns and a serious compromise to the welfare of the children, that's a fact.

A long time ago and in a doctor's waiting room far away, I was busying myself by reading the gardening section of a Sunday Times magazine, (I hate gardening). I was praying to anyone who would listen that the very elderly lady beside me wouldn't try and strike up a conversation. (I know, but I was in a dreadful mood and really not in the humour for a conversation around the useful properties of figs in the treatment of constipation.) As it turns out, I'm very glad she did strike up a conversation because we ended up so lost in our exchange that the receptionist had to bellow my name to get my attention. Eunice (not her real name, not that it matters) told me that as a young girl she worked for a number of years in a factory, before falling in love with a dubious cad who went on to become her husband of some 40 years. (He was a bastard apparently, but she still missed him every day.) Eunice became the first woman to successfully challenge the rule in that factory that all married women had to give up their jobs to become home makers. This was in a time where the woman's place was very definitely in the kitchen, as a matter of fact under Irish law, until relatively recently, a woman was considered a "chattel", no better than furniture, and there was no such thing as marital rape. I'll just say that again. THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS MARITAL RAPE, once you were married you were automatically deemed to have given consent, ergo, your husband could do as he liked and there was nothing you could do about it.

Further, I can remember when the proposed legislative change to the divorce laws in Ireland came up for consideration. Night after night we sat watching RTE broadcasts of Catholic priests urging us to consider our faith and our pledges in marriage, to divorce was to fly in the face of The Vatican and those who sought a divorce would surely burn in the fires of hell. So, if your husband broke your jaw, or regularly beat your children to within an inch of their lives, tough. You were married for better or worse, brush that hair and be sure to be at Mass at 10am on Sunday, in case the neighbours talked.

When it comes to feminism, I don't believe that I should burn my bra, aside from anything else, have you ANY idea how much that cost ? Also, I don't think throwing myself beneath a horse or chaining myself to the railings of Holyrood will achieve much either, well it would certainly get press coverage for whatever cause it is I'm proposing to champion, but ultimately, I think I would look pretty foolish. I wouldn't consider myself a "radical" feminist either, quite obviously I don't believe that every time I allow a client to have sex with me it is rape and I am letting down "The Sisterhood". It's been an age since I've looked at actus reus or mens rea but I'm pretty sure that the burden of proof rests upon a lack of consent. As a sex worker, when I have finally untied a submissive male and as a "reward", allow him to have some sexual favours with me then to be honest I'm struggling to see who is consenting in that situation.

As I have declared myself a feminist, you'd be forgiven for thinking that I probably should and have read "The Female Eunuch". The answer to that would be a resounding 'no', because I have no great desire to taste my own menstrual blood and further, given my own curly mop then I resent, yes I said RESENT, Greer's pop at Suzanne Moore for her back combed hair, (sigh). See I'm not a selective feminist either, I don't subscribe to the notion that there is an elite group of women who are entitled to give themselves the title of feminist and to hell with everyone else. Either you support ALL women in their given choices or you don't, it's that simple.

So what do I believe in then, as a feminist in the very old fashioned "I have so reclaimed this word" kinda way ? It's very simple really. Like Eunice, I believe I have the choice to work, quite legally, without fear and the overhanging threat of intimidation, and stigma. That's all.

I don't ask you to place me on a pedestal, I don't ask you to declare me as superior to the male sex, I don't ask for any "special" treatment whatsoever. I simply ask you to respect my right to work as a sex worker, to make the informed choices that I make every day, without recourse to a "nanny state" which seeks to impose sanction on me, or my client.

In that regard, I ask my readers to consider the latest proposals from Rhoda Grant which will be tabled shortly in Holyrood. Ms. Grant is seeking to have a bill approved which will make it illegal for my clients to come to me as a perfectly willing and happy provider, and pay for my services.

The link is here, and I will write on it further as it develops.

LL xx

Elitism and Empowerment

This evening Douglas Fox has written another excellent piece for Harlot's Parlour :

http://www.harlots-parlour.com/2009/10/its-all-about-class-dear.html

He addresses a very important issue that has always been on the back burner in the sex industry and that is snobbery and elitism. There is no doubt that it does exist, of that there is no question. The real question though, is how it will affect us. If those who shout the loudest amongst the anti- sex industry groups can drive a wedge amongst us at all, snobbery is an easy target. To quote Douglas himself -

"Sex workers are perhaps one of the most socially diverse groups of workers that you will ever meet which makes us unique. Historically we have a heritage that includes high class courtesans who led fashionable society from glamorous salons that attracted the leading minds of society to penny whores who stalked the London stews.
Many of the most aristocratic families owe their positions and wealth to the bed room skills of some distant relative who caught the attention of a king or Queen and like wise many a poor family survived because one entrepreneurial member chose to use their body to live. Today the international nature of the labour market is recognised in the sex industry although often it is conveniently confused with trafficking by moralists and anti sex work campaigners. The truth is that sex sells and always will what ever the moral or political climate.

The one thing we all have in common is that sex, whither on a street corner or between Yves Delorme sheets, does not change. A fuck is a fuck and a blow job is a blow job. That is the common denominator that links us all in this work and we should not forget that regardless of where we work or the nuances of the culture in which we work or the hierarchical structures in which we operate our job is universally similar in its basics. Accusations of elitism and snobbery directed at us by predominantly middle class moralists who objectify all whores as victims are the worst snobs because they endanger the lives and liberty of every sex worker and that again unites us all against the common enemy, prejudice and ignorance about our work."

I absolutely agree with Douglas. In the passing of any legislation or reformatory measures, due consideration must be given to all aspects of our industry and the hierarchy within. It is simply not acceptable to utilise our differences in an attempt to treat all sex workers as victims. To acknowledge the many different levels within the sex industry is to go half way towards reaching a workable solution for everyone. As sex workers, we need to embrace our differences as well as broad similarities.

One of the most maddening things about being a woman who chooses to work in the sex industry is the refusal on the part of the likes of Julie Bindel to see what is abundantly plain. No matter what level of the industry you choose to examine, there will be women who have chosen that path and have enjoyed the journey they've gone on, together with the freedoms associated with a higher than normal income. Prostitution is the only profession where women's earnings are consistently higher than that of our male counterparts. That in itself is very empowering and allows me as a sex worker the opportunity to make choices I would otherwise not have had available to me.

Hmmmm. Speaking of empowerment and choices, I haven't heard from my slave bitch for a while and I hope he's ok. Strolling towards him in my leather basque with my strap on at the ready is empowerment personified. ;)

Nite, LL xx