Last month, I was invited to speak at TEDx East End. The theme was 'Society Beyond Borders,' so I opted to talk about the history of anonymity, and why it is so important to preserve it for marginalised activists and writers.
Very often when you see the word 'anonymous' these days, it's followed almost immediately by the word 'troll'. But the rich history of anonymity and pseudonymity is far more than that, and has been a refuge for artists and others almost since the beginning of recorded history. In this talk I explore some of the leading lights of anonymity, and why they chose not to use their real names.
.
Thursday, 27 February 2014
Wednesday, 27 November 2013
An Open Letter to New Port Richey
Dear New Port Richey, Florida,
Hey there, it's been a while since we touched base. Soz about that. I've been away writing books and getting up to no good in the UK; you've been busy increasing your suburban sprawl to the point where there is now no clear boundary between you and the rest of the West Central Florida region (a.k.a. "the bit too far west of Disney").
Anyway, I thought we should probably catch up after you recently announced a new plan to arrest sex workers in the city limits. As I am arguably the city's best-known export, and certainly its best-known prostitute export, I'm surprised you didn't run this by me first. Because this plan of yours? I'm telling you this now, it ain't gonna work.
Just to catch up the rest of the folks reading this - the grandees of New Port Richey got tired of rigging elaborate stings to entrap sex wokers, so are giving cops free rein to arrest people who tick any three of eight "behaviours" off a list. These behaviours include asking if someone is a cop, getting into and out of cars at the same place by the road, trying to attract attention of drivers, and more.
You know who else asks if you're a cop? People who are trying to get help in an emergency. You know who else gets into and out of cars by the road every day? Students and workers waiting for their carpool. You know who tries to attract the attention of people driving by on US 19? Anti-abortion protestors. Last time I checked, New Port Richey had all of these in abundance.
That's the problem with these kinds of laws, you see. Profiling has a false positive rate greater than zero, and some of those false positives will no doubt lawyer up. Also, picking up people because you think they might possibly commit a crime in the future is not the same as detecting people who are actually breaking the law. It is - hm, how you say? - oh yeah, now I remember the word. "Unconstitutional." (My time in Florida's schools did not go to waste, as you can see.)
And while we're on the topic of what's legal and what's not, please explain to me what the point of criminalising sex workers is again? Because harassing people over a victimless crime seems like a pretty poor use of resources.
Back when I lived in Florida I knew a few women who were out there selling sex on the streets. Not one of them ever said, "you know what would change my life in a positive way? A mandatory minimum jail sentence and a thousand dollar fine." For the most part they were just trying to get by day to day, put food on the table, hoping maybe for something better someday. Jail is not that something better.
Remember how that Prohibition thing worked out with booze? The War on Drugs with drugs? Yeah, this is bound to backfire, too. The people you're trying to target - some of whom really are vulnerable - will be getting criminal records instead of a helping hand.
Meanwhile, the indoor sex workers like me who can easily dodge these ham-fisted vice moves will continue making money, because the truth is you can't stop the world's oldest profession.
Florida's an odd place, I'll grant you that, and it can be tough to set yourself apart when virtually every other town and city in the state has attracted international attention for doing strange stuff. Why, just down the road we have Clearwater, a place that's both the spiritual HQ of Scientology and the world HQ of Hooters restaurants. It's hard to compete with that kind of weird.
But this approach is not the way forward. Becoming well-known for something you didn't exactly plan on is kind of a bummer. I feel your pain. You know what? Sometimes you have to roll with the hand you're dealt. Like, maybe offering the sex workers passing through the Pasco County law enforcement system options other than going to jail? Or - if you're feeling like pushing the boat out a bit - letting adults mind their own business.
New Port Richey, you and me parted ways a while ago. But that doesn't mean there isn't still a part of you with me, and a part of me with you. I'd really appreciate it if you could do me a solid and reconsider this ill-thought idea. Otherwise I'm going to have to keep telling people I'm from this town, and from what I gather, that would probably rub you up the wrong way.
Sunshine and kisses,
Brooke
Hey there, it's been a while since we touched base. Soz about that. I've been away writing books and getting up to no good in the UK; you've been busy increasing your suburban sprawl to the point where there is now no clear boundary between you and the rest of the West Central Florida region (a.k.a. "the bit too far west of Disney").
Anyway, I thought we should probably catch up after you recently announced a new plan to arrest sex workers in the city limits. As I am arguably the city's best-known export, and certainly its best-known prostitute export, I'm surprised you didn't run this by me first. Because this plan of yours? I'm telling you this now, it ain't gonna work.
Just to catch up the rest of the folks reading this - the grandees of New Port Richey got tired of rigging elaborate stings to entrap sex wokers, so are giving cops free rein to arrest people who tick any three of eight "behaviours" off a list. These behaviours include asking if someone is a cop, getting into and out of cars at the same place by the road, trying to attract attention of drivers, and more.
You know who else asks if you're a cop? People who are trying to get help in an emergency. You know who else gets into and out of cars by the road every day? Students and workers waiting for their carpool. You know who tries to attract the attention of people driving by on US 19? Anti-abortion protestors. Last time I checked, New Port Richey had all of these in abundance.
That's the problem with these kinds of laws, you see. Profiling has a false positive rate greater than zero, and some of those false positives will no doubt lawyer up. Also, picking up people because you think they might possibly commit a crime in the future is not the same as detecting people who are actually breaking the law. It is - hm, how you say? - oh yeah, now I remember the word. "Unconstitutional." (My time in Florida's schools did not go to waste, as you can see.)
And while we're on the topic of what's legal and what's not, please explain to me what the point of criminalising sex workers is again? Because harassing people over a victimless crime seems like a pretty poor use of resources.
Back when I lived in Florida I knew a few women who were out there selling sex on the streets. Not one of them ever said, "you know what would change my life in a positive way? A mandatory minimum jail sentence and a thousand dollar fine." For the most part they were just trying to get by day to day, put food on the table, hoping maybe for something better someday. Jail is not that something better.
Remember how that Prohibition thing worked out with booze? The War on Drugs with drugs? Yeah, this is bound to backfire, too. The people you're trying to target - some of whom really are vulnerable - will be getting criminal records instead of a helping hand.
Meanwhile, the indoor sex workers like me who can easily dodge these ham-fisted vice moves will continue making money, because the truth is you can't stop the world's oldest profession.
Florida's an odd place, I'll grant you that, and it can be tough to set yourself apart when virtually every other town and city in the state has attracted international attention for doing strange stuff. Why, just down the road we have Clearwater, a place that's both the spiritual HQ of Scientology and the world HQ of Hooters restaurants. It's hard to compete with that kind of weird.
But this approach is not the way forward. Becoming well-known for something you didn't exactly plan on is kind of a bummer. I feel your pain. You know what? Sometimes you have to roll with the hand you're dealt. Like, maybe offering the sex workers passing through the Pasco County law enforcement system options other than going to jail? Or - if you're feeling like pushing the boat out a bit - letting adults mind their own business.
New Port Richey, you and me parted ways a while ago. But that doesn't mean there isn't still a part of you with me, and a part of me with you. I'd really appreciate it if you could do me a solid and reconsider this ill-thought idea. Otherwise I'm going to have to keep telling people I'm from this town, and from what I gather, that would probably rub you up the wrong way.
Sunshine and kisses,
Brooke
Sunday, 11 August 2013
BREAKING NEWS: I was a sex worker.
This morning I awoke to find a claim published in the Mail that I was not a sex worker.
It is a direct attack on my integrity as a writer, to claim that I lied. And I have been prepared.
When the case goes to trial, I will have to present evidence that I was a sex worker. Starting with this - an Archive.org snap of my first escorting ad from October 2003 (link NSFW).
(Readers of the first book may recall this was the session with the grumpy photographer I wrote about. As I have often said, it was that experience - being made to wear terrible lingerie, awkward poses, all the rest - that first made me think, 'hey, I should be blogging this.'
And if you read the third book, I made a reference to a restaurant on Old Compton Street that has the same name as my working name - that is, of course, Taro.)
I will also be presenting my bank records from 2003-04, showing the cash deposits from the money I earned as an escort, and tax records from the same years showing that this income was declared to HMRC and tax paid. Here is a sample:
I also have the notebook in which I recorded details of appointments, etc. In several instances I have been able to piece together entries from the notebook, deposits to my accounts, and the corresponding entries in the book. If pressed, I will name a client, but only as a last resort.
The Mail also claims I didn't own nice enough clothes so couldn't have been an escort!
That's from December 2003, and is the same red silk top I wore to meet the manager for the first time (as written about in the first book). The next is at Henley Regatta in July 2004, suit is from Austin Reed, the bracelet was a gift from a client.
The Mail claims I was in Sheffield when writing the blog, but I moved to London in September 2003 and started escorting in October, starting blogging a few weeks later. All of which is easy - trivial, even - to prove.
Oh, and the "former landlady in Sheffield, who did not wish to be named", where I supposedly lived for three years? Who apparently saw me in 'Oxfam jumpers'? Hmm... I lived one year in university accommodation (St George's Flats), one year in a shared flat with an absentee landlord I never met (Hawthorne Road), and one year on my own in a house let through an agency (Loxley New Road). All well before moving to London. So either the landlady is lying about the timing of my tenancy and having met me, or (shock, horror) they made it up.
There's much more but it would be boring to put it all here. It's amazing to me the MoS made no effort at all to match anything they printed against things that are easy to find and in the public domain. But that's by the by, and will come out in due course.
It matters because this is a concerted and direct attack on my work as a writer. When I was anonymous, being real was my main - my only - advantage. The Mail on Sunday have made some frankly nonsense claims, and I will be going to town on this.
Because I know people do not trust the word of a sex worker, that is why I saved everything.
I look forward to the opportunity to rebut all claims in court. (The MoS claim the trial is expected "within weeks." In fact it is scheduled for June 2015.)
It is a direct attack on my integrity as a writer, to claim that I lied. And I have been prepared.
When the case goes to trial, I will have to present evidence that I was a sex worker. Starting with this - an Archive.org snap of my first escorting ad from October 2003 (link NSFW).
(Readers of the first book may recall this was the session with the grumpy photographer I wrote about. As I have often said, it was that experience - being made to wear terrible lingerie, awkward poses, all the rest - that first made me think, 'hey, I should be blogging this.'
And if you read the third book, I made a reference to a restaurant on Old Compton Street that has the same name as my working name - that is, of course, Taro.)
I will also be presenting my bank records from 2003-04, showing the cash deposits from the money I earned as an escort, and tax records from the same years showing that this income was declared to HMRC and tax paid. Here is a sample:
I also have the notebook in which I recorded details of appointments, etc. In several instances I have been able to piece together entries from the notebook, deposits to my accounts, and the corresponding entries in the book. If pressed, I will name a client, but only as a last resort.
The Mail also claims I didn't own nice enough clothes so couldn't have been an escort!
That's from December 2003, and is the same red silk top I wore to meet the manager for the first time (as written about in the first book). The next is at Henley Regatta in July 2004, suit is from Austin Reed, the bracelet was a gift from a client.
The Mail claims I was in Sheffield when writing the blog, but I moved to London in September 2003 and started escorting in October, starting blogging a few weeks later. All of which is easy - trivial, even - to prove.
Oh, and the "former landlady in Sheffield, who did not wish to be named", where I supposedly lived for three years? Who apparently saw me in 'Oxfam jumpers'? Hmm... I lived one year in university accommodation (St George's Flats), one year in a shared flat with an absentee landlord I never met (Hawthorne Road), and one year on my own in a house let through an agency (Loxley New Road). All well before moving to London. So either the landlady is lying about the timing of my tenancy and having met me, or (shock, horror) they made it up.
There's much more but it would be boring to put it all here. It's amazing to me the MoS made no effort at all to match anything they printed against things that are easy to find and in the public domain. But that's by the by, and will come out in due course.
It matters because this is a concerted and direct attack on my work as a writer. When I was anonymous, being real was my main - my only - advantage. The Mail on Sunday have made some frankly nonsense claims, and I will be going to town on this.
Because I know people do not trust the word of a sex worker, that is why I saved everything.
I look forward to the opportunity to rebut all claims in court. (The MoS claim the trial is expected "within weeks." In fact it is scheduled for June 2015.)
Saturday, 27 April 2013
Fan Mail!
TW for violent language
Many sex workers, at some point in their careers, have dealt with the abusive masturbator. That's someone who apprehends you, is not a paying client, and spews obscenities at you whilst masturbating furiously (clearly audible when they phone).
Obviously, on Twitter it's impossible to keep track of where everyone's hands are. But I couldn't help but be reminded of the abusive masturbators when yesterday I had this:
Of
course, as it was an account created specifically to abuse me (it has
since disappeared, more's the pity), it's difficult to say what exactly
the motivation was. Weirdo who gets off on abusing people? Angry critic
thwarted by the blog's lack of comment box? Misguided attempt to defend MamaMia? Does it matter?
By the way, where are the nice lady bloggers who claim to "care" so much when this happens? Nowhere to be seen. They seem to think their systematic shaming and casual dehumanisation doesn't matter or is, somehow, beneficial. That it doesn't implicitly endorse a system putting people in danger. Tell that to the Green River Killer, who used the widespread revulsion and rejection of sex workers to get away with so many murders for so long.
So on the one side, you have the Nice Ladies saying, 'it's okay to disrespect sex workers, because they get abused' and on the other you have the Creepy Fuckwits saying 'it's okay to abuse sex workers, because they are disrespected'. See how that works?
But I don't believe in censoring either of them, or making it a crime to say whatever hateful, ignorant, damn-fool thing comes into your empty head. I believe sunshine is the best disinfectant. I believe if those who have these thoughts don't feel free to speak them, we can never effectively challenge them. I know this is not a popular stand but it's one I've come through after a lot of thought and a lot of dickheads like ol' Hadtosay1 up there.
In any case, I'll be giving a talk on trolls - the history of anonymous criticism, and why freedom of speech is important (even for airheads and dickheads) - at the How the Light Gets In Festival in Hay-on-Wye in June. @Hadtosay1, there'll be a ticket on the door especially for you. Don't miss this valuable opportunity to say anything you fancy to my very noticeably scarred face. I look forward to seeing you there!
Many sex workers, at some point in their careers, have dealt with the abusive masturbator. That's someone who apprehends you, is not a paying client, and spews obscenities at you whilst masturbating furiously (clearly audible when they phone).
Obviously, on Twitter it's impossible to keep track of where everyone's hands are. But I couldn't help but be reminded of the abusive masturbators when yesterday I had this:
By the way, where are the nice lady bloggers who claim to "care" so much when this happens? Nowhere to be seen. They seem to think their systematic shaming and casual dehumanisation doesn't matter or is, somehow, beneficial. That it doesn't implicitly endorse a system putting people in danger. Tell that to the Green River Killer, who used the widespread revulsion and rejection of sex workers to get away with so many murders for so long.
So on the one side, you have the Nice Ladies saying, 'it's okay to disrespect sex workers, because they get abused' and on the other you have the Creepy Fuckwits saying 'it's okay to abuse sex workers, because they are disrespected'. See how that works?
But I don't believe in censoring either of them, or making it a crime to say whatever hateful, ignorant, damn-fool thing comes into your empty head. I believe sunshine is the best disinfectant. I believe if those who have these thoughts don't feel free to speak them, we can never effectively challenge them. I know this is not a popular stand but it's one I've come through after a lot of thought and a lot of dickheads like ol' Hadtosay1 up there.
In any case, I'll be giving a talk on trolls - the history of anonymous criticism, and why freedom of speech is important (even for airheads and dickheads) - at the How the Light Gets In Festival in Hay-on-Wye in June. @Hadtosay1, there'll be a ticket on the door especially for you. Don't miss this valuable opportunity to say anything you fancy to my very noticeably scarred face. I look forward to seeing you there!
Friday, 26 April 2013
Should Mia Freedman Apologise?
I went to Australia last month as a guest of the Opera House for the All About Women symposium. As part of the event, I agreed to do some media appearances on ABC, including the Drum and Q&A.
All About Women was a fantastic day and I feel privileged to have met so many interesting and talented people there, including people I would put in the category of genuine modern heroes.
As for Q&A… this is the Australian equivalent of Question Time, so I went anticipating a varied panel with a wide variety of opinions jostling to be heard. I was told Tony Jones was a strong moderator, so I went expecting him to rein in the conversation if things went off-piste. This was to be Q & A's first all-woman panel and expectations were high. The topics they circulated beforehand indicated I was in for a grilling while everyone else got softball. I went, not to put too fine a point on it, loaded for bear.
I thought it went pretty well. Opinions differed. Points of view were exchanged. Margaret Thatcher died. All in all, a good night. The producers seemed very pleased with the outcome.
So imagine my surprise, weeks later, that fellow guest Mia Freedman is still flogging her commentary about the appearance as content on her site MamaMia. The topic: should she apologise for continually insulting sex workers?
During the show Mia kept falling back on sloppy, ill-thought, and pat little lines that were easily countered. I found to my surprise a lot of common ground with Germaine Greer, hardly known as a fan of sexual entertainment, on the fact that conditions of labour and not sex per se are the most pressing issue for sex workers worldwide right now. Then in comes Mia with her assumptions about the people who do sex work (men AND women) and the people who hire them (men AND women). With Tony backing her up. So much for the disinterested moderator, eh? Maybe he felt bad for her. I don't know.
Here's the thing. I agree with Mia on this: I don't think she should apologise.
Why not? Because if she did it would be insincere. My first impression when we met backstage was that she was insincere, and damn it, a successful lady editor like her should have the guts to be true to herself and stand by her opinions no matter what they are.
Because the general public needs to see what kinds of uninformed nonsense that sex workers who stick their heads above the parapet get every single day.
Because for every 100 people who visit her site, there is one who is both a parent AND a sex worker, who knows what she is saying is nonsense. Yes, that's right Mia: sex workers raise families too. It's almost as if we're people.
Because she is a magazine editor who cares deeply about hits and attention, and clearly this is delivering on every level.
Because the sort of people who think sex workers should be topics of discussion rather than active participants are fighting a losing battle.
Keep digging, Mia. I ain't gonna stop you. Keep writing off other people simply because they didn't have the privileges you did or didn't make the same choices you did, and you can't accept that. Get it off your chest, lock up your children, whatever you think you need to do. Perhaps you have some issues about sex you want to work out in public, or this wouldn't be the biggest issue on your agenda weeks after the show went to air?
Mia, you have my express permission not to apologise. No, don't thank me… I insist.
All About Women was a fantastic day and I feel privileged to have met so many interesting and talented people there, including people I would put in the category of genuine modern heroes.
As for Q&A… this is the Australian equivalent of Question Time, so I went anticipating a varied panel with a wide variety of opinions jostling to be heard. I was told Tony Jones was a strong moderator, so I went expecting him to rein in the conversation if things went off-piste. This was to be Q & A's first all-woman panel and expectations were high. The topics they circulated beforehand indicated I was in for a grilling while everyone else got softball. I went, not to put too fine a point on it, loaded for bear.
I thought it went pretty well. Opinions differed. Points of view were exchanged. Margaret Thatcher died. All in all, a good night. The producers seemed very pleased with the outcome.
So imagine my surprise, weeks later, that fellow guest Mia Freedman is still flogging her commentary about the appearance as content on her site MamaMia. The topic: should she apologise for continually insulting sex workers?
During the show Mia kept falling back on sloppy, ill-thought, and pat little lines that were easily countered. I found to my surprise a lot of common ground with Germaine Greer, hardly known as a fan of sexual entertainment, on the fact that conditions of labour and not sex per se are the most pressing issue for sex workers worldwide right now. Then in comes Mia with her assumptions about the people who do sex work (men AND women) and the people who hire them (men AND women). With Tony backing her up. So much for the disinterested moderator, eh? Maybe he felt bad for her. I don't know.
Here's the thing. I agree with Mia on this: I don't think she should apologise.
Why not? Because if she did it would be insincere. My first impression when we met backstage was that she was insincere, and damn it, a successful lady editor like her should have the guts to be true to herself and stand by her opinions no matter what they are.
Because the general public needs to see what kinds of uninformed nonsense that sex workers who stick their heads above the parapet get every single day.
Because for every 100 people who visit her site, there is one who is both a parent AND a sex worker, who knows what she is saying is nonsense. Yes, that's right Mia: sex workers raise families too. It's almost as if we're people.
Because she is a magazine editor who cares deeply about hits and attention, and clearly this is delivering on every level.
Because the sort of people who think sex workers should be topics of discussion rather than active participants are fighting a losing battle.
Keep digging, Mia. I ain't gonna stop you. Keep writing off other people simply because they didn't have the privileges you did or didn't make the same choices you did, and you can't accept that. Get it off your chest, lock up your children, whatever you think you need to do. Perhaps you have some issues about sex you want to work out in public, or this wouldn't be the biggest issue on your agenda weeks after the show went to air?
Mia, you have my express permission not to apologise. No, don't thank me… I insist.
Saturday, 2 February 2013
Radfems, Racists, and the problem with "pimps"
I was re-reading Iceberg Slim recently (as you do), and wondering
what exactly it is the anti-sex brigade mean when they go around calling
people "pimps".
I've been called a pimp before. By Julie Bindel, to my face, and I laughed because it is so ridiculous: I have never profited off of anyone's erotic capital but my own… and arguably Billie Piper's, though that makes me no more and perhaps significantly less pimp-like than (say) her agent and the show's producers.
I don't get particularly offended by such obviously over the top labels. But the word itself has started to crop up more and more in the arguments surrounding sex work and the proposed laws regarding prostitution. Take for example in Ireland, where the widespread assumption is that all sex workers are a) women and b) "pimped". Both of these are demonstrably and flagrantly not true, and yet are found in virtually any media coverage of the topic which is heavily influenced by an unholy coalition of extreme religious groups and extreme radfem ideologues.
The side issue dogging the proposed changes, that is, the discourse about what exactly constitutes trafficking and who exactly is trafficked, is of course pretty openly racist - both the words and the imagery. This has been covered in some detail and extremely well by eg. Laura Agustin, whose work on the topic I highly recommend.
Typical "trafficking" propaganda: shades of White Slavery all over the place.
Anyway, back to the concept of "pimp". Now we all know, or think we know, what a pimp is, and much of this archetype comes from highly fictionalised misrepresentations of Mr Slim's own work.
Go on, you know exactly what people mean by the word. What "pimp" implies. A man who runs women, lures them with money and romance, then turns them out to whoring, often beaten, always drug-addicted.
And he is black.
Starting to sound like casual use of "pimp" is dog-whistle racism, isn't it?
For the life of me I have never met a person even remotely like the stereotypical pimp, and yet I "know" they exist, largely because I have been told so over and over again. I've met streetwalkers, both drug-addicted and not; escorts and call girls, same; not one ever had what popular imagination would classify as a "pimp," but then I keep getting told I'm not representative, so maybe the literally hundreds of men and women, cis and trans sex workers I've met are just "not representative" too?
Occasionally you also hear talk of the "Eastern European gangmaster", but for some reason the class- and racially-evocative term "pimp" comes up far, far more often. Could that be because plain xenophobia just doesn't inspire the troops in quite the same way bald racism does?
Independent sex workers who organise their own affairs and work solo. Roommates who share a flat and both happen to sell sex. Managers running escorts agencies with a dozen or so girls they mostly interact with by text. Massage parlour owners. Women whose house is used by other sex workers, so technically I guess are madams. People who set up message boards and internet forums where clients and sex workers talk among themselves and with each other. All of these are people who get called "pimps" by the anti-sex lobby.
A guy in a crushed velvet suit on a street corner, keeping his girls high and working the neighbourhood? Not so many of those to the pound.
But, let's say he really is out there, because we all keep getting told he is. This working-class black man in the loud clothes who is sexually and physically aggressive and probably has a criminal record. This "pimp".
Do you think his choice of work isn't somehow constrained by society too? That he wouldn't rather be earning money some other way? Because anyone with any sense can surely suss out that a lot of activities, both legal and illegal, would be far more profit and far less hassle than running girls.
Iceberg Slim: hustling because it's not as if you were going to save him and his mother from poverty, were you?
This is the reality of waged work, all waged work, whether sex is involved or not. No one, but no one, has "free choice". If you think otherwise, remind yourself what you wanted to be when you grew up, and reflect on how exactly you ended up where you are now. Did you freely select from all career choices in the world, ever? Or did you choose as best you could from the options offered by your abilities and (more crucially) your circumstances? You know, like Iceberg Slim did?
Some folks seem especially resistant to acknowledging the truth about work, so I'll underline it some more. Entire towns in the North weren't full of miners because everyone there just happened to have the aptitude and preference for that sole job, but because it was the only job going. NE Scotland isn't full of fishermen because they have a particular concentration of people whose life's dream was to catch fish, but because that's what the job market offers. Everyone's outcome is the product of limited choices, from streetwalkers to the Queen. And no one's suggesting she needs to be "rescued" from her lack of career options.
If you want to improve someone's options, you address the things that constrain their choices in the first place. Poverty, addiction, education, to name a few. Not take away the only choices they have.
The pimp as we perceive him is a low-end tough. He's not exactly a criminal mastermind. And unlike a lot of the people who talk about "pimps" and whatnot, I know criminals. I have seen that life up close and fucking personal. I have lived in their neighbourhoods and their houses, and even in their families. I know that anyone who runs a business in the way the supposed pimp supposedly does is making little money, if any. What's 50% of that £10 anal bareback the anti-sex lobby claim is available in red lights everywhere? A fiver? Yeah, that sounds logical. Now pull the other one.
I know that his power - again, if he exists, because even when I was living in Cracktown, Pinellas County I saw shit that would stop your heart but I never once saw a "pimp" - is a power of an extremely limited kind. The power of someone with few and possibly no other options.
The anti-sex lobby's fantasy use of the term "pimp" is bogus and it is racist. Anyone who claims otherwise is being purposely disingenuous for the sake of striking fear into white, English-speaking, middle-class people.
I've been called a pimp before. By Julie Bindel, to my face, and I laughed because it is so ridiculous: I have never profited off of anyone's erotic capital but my own… and arguably Billie Piper's, though that makes me no more and perhaps significantly less pimp-like than (say) her agent and the show's producers.
I don't get particularly offended by such obviously over the top labels. But the word itself has started to crop up more and more in the arguments surrounding sex work and the proposed laws regarding prostitution. Take for example in Ireland, where the widespread assumption is that all sex workers are a) women and b) "pimped". Both of these are demonstrably and flagrantly not true, and yet are found in virtually any media coverage of the topic which is heavily influenced by an unholy coalition of extreme religious groups and extreme radfem ideologues.
The side issue dogging the proposed changes, that is, the discourse about what exactly constitutes trafficking and who exactly is trafficked, is of course pretty openly racist - both the words and the imagery. This has been covered in some detail and extremely well by eg. Laura Agustin, whose work on the topic I highly recommend.
Typical "trafficking" propaganda: shades of White Slavery all over the place.
Anyway, back to the concept of "pimp". Now we all know, or think we know, what a pimp is, and much of this archetype comes from highly fictionalised misrepresentations of Mr Slim's own work.
Go on, you know exactly what people mean by the word. What "pimp" implies. A man who runs women, lures them with money and romance, then turns them out to whoring, often beaten, always drug-addicted.
And he is black.
Starting to sound like casual use of "pimp" is dog-whistle racism, isn't it?
For the life of me I have never met a person even remotely like the stereotypical pimp, and yet I "know" they exist, largely because I have been told so over and over again. I've met streetwalkers, both drug-addicted and not; escorts and call girls, same; not one ever had what popular imagination would classify as a "pimp," but then I keep getting told I'm not representative, so maybe the literally hundreds of men and women, cis and trans sex workers I've met are just "not representative" too?
Occasionally you also hear talk of the "Eastern European gangmaster", but for some reason the class- and racially-evocative term "pimp" comes up far, far more often. Could that be because plain xenophobia just doesn't inspire the troops in quite the same way bald racism does?
Independent sex workers who organise their own affairs and work solo. Roommates who share a flat and both happen to sell sex. Managers running escorts agencies with a dozen or so girls they mostly interact with by text. Massage parlour owners. Women whose house is used by other sex workers, so technically I guess are madams. People who set up message boards and internet forums where clients and sex workers talk among themselves and with each other. All of these are people who get called "pimps" by the anti-sex lobby.
A guy in a crushed velvet suit on a street corner, keeping his girls high and working the neighbourhood? Not so many of those to the pound.
But, let's say he really is out there, because we all keep getting told he is. This working-class black man in the loud clothes who is sexually and physically aggressive and probably has a criminal record. This "pimp".
Do you think his choice of work isn't somehow constrained by society too? That he wouldn't rather be earning money some other way? Because anyone with any sense can surely suss out that a lot of activities, both legal and illegal, would be far more profit and far less hassle than running girls.
Iceberg Slim: hustling because it's not as if you were going to save him and his mother from poverty, were you?
This is the reality of waged work, all waged work, whether sex is involved or not. No one, but no one, has "free choice". If you think otherwise, remind yourself what you wanted to be when you grew up, and reflect on how exactly you ended up where you are now. Did you freely select from all career choices in the world, ever? Or did you choose as best you could from the options offered by your abilities and (more crucially) your circumstances? You know, like Iceberg Slim did?
Some folks seem especially resistant to acknowledging the truth about work, so I'll underline it some more. Entire towns in the North weren't full of miners because everyone there just happened to have the aptitude and preference for that sole job, but because it was the only job going. NE Scotland isn't full of fishermen because they have a particular concentration of people whose life's dream was to catch fish, but because that's what the job market offers. Everyone's outcome is the product of limited choices, from streetwalkers to the Queen. And no one's suggesting she needs to be "rescued" from her lack of career options.
If you want to improve someone's options, you address the things that constrain their choices in the first place. Poverty, addiction, education, to name a few. Not take away the only choices they have.
The pimp as we perceive him is a low-end tough. He's not exactly a criminal mastermind. And unlike a lot of the people who talk about "pimps" and whatnot, I know criminals. I have seen that life up close and fucking personal. I have lived in their neighbourhoods and their houses, and even in their families. I know that anyone who runs a business in the way the supposed pimp supposedly does is making little money, if any. What's 50% of that £10 anal bareback the anti-sex lobby claim is available in red lights everywhere? A fiver? Yeah, that sounds logical. Now pull the other one.
I know that his power - again, if he exists, because even when I was living in Cracktown, Pinellas County I saw shit that would stop your heart but I never once saw a "pimp" - is a power of an extremely limited kind. The power of someone with few and possibly no other options.
The anti-sex lobby's fantasy use of the term "pimp" is bogus and it is racist. Anyone who claims otherwise is being purposely disingenuous for the sake of striking fear into white, English-speaking, middle-class people.
Thursday, 31 January 2013
When Help is Anything But
TW for graphic description of violence against women inside.
You may already be aware of the recent prostitution consultation in Ireland, which closed at the end of August, and the Justice Committee hearings which are going on now. At the forefront of campaigning was 'prostitution and trafficking NGO' Ruhama, which produced their own submission to the process (a submission that was, incidentally, highly reliant on numbers created by Melissa Farley, whose testimony on similar issues has already been deemed not good enough for Canadian court).
Data aside, however, it is worth asking the question of who Ruhama actually are. It would seem they have form on wanting to "save" fallen women, for according to the Irish Times Ruhama is run by two of the orders involved in running the infamous Magdalene Laundries. (Here is their list of trustees and directors.) The Magdalene Laundries were institutions where women and girls were separated from their families, subjected to slave labour, mentally and physically tortured. Many women died there.
A mass grave in Limerick - victims of the Good Shepherd Sisters, one of the orders that co-founded Ruhama. Photo via and copyright Bocktherobber.com
Even decades after the worst of the Magdalene abuses, the scandal is still ongoing: a recent submission to the committee investigating the laundries includes some shocking facts.
Just one of the memorial stones commemorating the women from the mass grave in Limerick. Photo via and copyright Bocktherobber.com
Now I do not doubt there will be people who say, well yes, but this was a different generation and things have changed. Have they? Have they really? Who has been held to account for the systematic abuse of thousands of women and girls with the tacit approval of the Church and the government?
Jane Fae over at Huffington Post makes an excellent point that in the Hillsborough tragedy, when we consider the scale of denial and coverup, simply saying 'it was a different generation' is not good enough.
Well the Magdalene Laundries were scandal on a scale far greater than the Hillsborough tragedy, for many more years. So I think the same arguments hold. The people who did this should not be in any way involved with women and young people, ever. Could you imagine if the South Yorkshire police branched out and started a private security firm specifically for football matches? They'd be laughed and shamed out of town. Carry that thinking through: we should be laughing and shaming Ruhama far, far away from anything to do with the welfare of vulnerable women and children.
We still do not know the truth about what happened in the Laundries, nor who exactly was responsible, how many families it affected. To even consider letting Ruhama be involved with the prostitution consultation, much less any policymaking or aid, should be scandalous.
And yet it somehow is not. Anyone wish to explain exactly why?
(mega hat tip to Wendy Lyon and FeministIre for bringing this to my attention in 2010.)
You may already be aware of the recent prostitution consultation in Ireland, which closed at the end of August, and the Justice Committee hearings which are going on now. At the forefront of campaigning was 'prostitution and trafficking NGO' Ruhama, which produced their own submission to the process (a submission that was, incidentally, highly reliant on numbers created by Melissa Farley, whose testimony on similar issues has already been deemed not good enough for Canadian court).
Data aside, however, it is worth asking the question of who Ruhama actually are. It would seem they have form on wanting to "save" fallen women, for according to the Irish Times Ruhama is run by two of the orders involved in running the infamous Magdalene Laundries. (Here is their list of trustees and directors.) The Magdalene Laundries were institutions where women and girls were separated from their families, subjected to slave labour, mentally and physically tortured. Many women died there.
A mass grave in Limerick - victims of the Good Shepherd Sisters, one of the orders that co-founded Ruhama. Photo via and copyright Bocktherobber.com
Even decades after the worst of the Magdalene abuses, the scandal is still ongoing: a recent submission to the committee investigating the laundries includes some shocking facts.
JFM describes from testimony how the women suffered abuse of various kinds — their hair was forcibly cut, they were beaten with belts until they bled and once the door to the outside world was shut on them, they were referred to by number not by name ...
...the State used the laundries as a way of dealing with births outside marriage, poverty, homelessness, promiscuity, domestic and sexual abuse as well as youth crime and infanticide. It chose to enslave women with the nuns rather than develop a female borstal.
"It repeatedly sought to funnel diverse populations of women and girls to the Magdalene Laundries. In return, the religious orders ensured a captive workforce for their commercial laundry enterprises," they wrote.
Survivors and witnesses told JFM how the women washed, ironed and sewed from dawn to dusk, were regularly beaten, not allowed to talk to one another and punished if they laughed. There was no regard whatsoever for their health or medical needs. If they stepped out of line, they were "put down the hole".
"This was a four by four room… There was nothing in it, only a bench — no windows. You were put in there; your hair was cut, more or less off completely. Your hair was cut, and you were there all day without anything to eat," one woman recalled.Before you start imagining this is a tale from some sepia-tinted past, know that the last Magdalene laundry did not close until 1996. I have heard from people by email and Twitter about women being institutionalised in the 1970s. It is also interesting to read the Wikipedia talk page on the subject. The fallout from the fates of the estimated 30,000 women in Ireland subjected to this "help" is still a real wound. This all continued to happen well into living memory.
Just one of the memorial stones commemorating the women from the mass grave in Limerick. Photo via and copyright Bocktherobber.com
Now I do not doubt there will be people who say, well yes, but this was a different generation and things have changed. Have they? Have they really? Who has been held to account for the systematic abuse of thousands of women and girls with the tacit approval of the Church and the government?
Jane Fae over at Huffington Post makes an excellent point that in the Hillsborough tragedy, when we consider the scale of denial and coverup, simply saying 'it was a different generation' is not good enough.
Well the Magdalene Laundries were scandal on a scale far greater than the Hillsborough tragedy, for many more years. So I think the same arguments hold. The people who did this should not be in any way involved with women and young people, ever. Could you imagine if the South Yorkshire police branched out and started a private security firm specifically for football matches? They'd be laughed and shamed out of town. Carry that thinking through: we should be laughing and shaming Ruhama far, far away from anything to do with the welfare of vulnerable women and children.
We still do not know the truth about what happened in the Laundries, nor who exactly was responsible, how many families it affected. To even consider letting Ruhama be involved with the prostitution consultation, much less any policymaking or aid, should be scandalous.
And yet it somehow is not. Anyone wish to explain exactly why?
(mega hat tip to Wendy Lyon and FeministIre for bringing this to my attention in 2010.)
Friday, 14 December 2012
My response to Rhoda Grant's prostitution consultation
As you may know, there is a consultation that closes today for a bill in Scotland that would criminalise the purchase of sex.
The response to the consultation that I have submitted to MSP Rhoda Grant is included below. It's long.
If you would like to make a last-minute submission, please consider the excellent template letters offered by SCOT-PEP. Please be sure to request anonymity if you want to do it privately, or consider signing with a pseudonym. You don't have to be in Scotland to reply.
My response:
First off, I would like to address to comments Trish Godman MSP made at the Conference Against Human Trafficking in October this year that “Belle” does not exist and is not happy. I am Belle de Jour, I do exist, and please thank Ms Godman for being so concerned about my feelings – I am happy.
QUESTIONS Q1: Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill? Please indicate “yes/no/undecided” and explain the reasons for your response.
No, I do not support the general aim of the bill.
If the current laws are not working, as you claim, what makes you think new, badly thought out laws would work better? Or is this another 'send a message' law? Passing laws is easy. Passing a law which actually works in the way intended, is enforceable and has no harmful unforeseen consequences is far more difficult.
Such a law as proposed here will not affect whether or not prostitution happens: it will simply affect the conditions under which it takes place to the harm of sex workers. The question is, do you care about those conditions? I do. My priority is access for sex workers to the services they need to preserve or improve their circumstances.
The criminalisation of the purchase of sex in other countries has been shown not to be a successful approach in either helping sex workers or stopping the phenomenon of paying for sex. The extensive evidence for this position is outlined in the replies to the following questions.
Q2: What do you believe would be the effects of legislating to criminalise the purchase of sex (as outlined above)? Please provide evidence to support your answer.
The effects of criminalising the purchase of sex would be increased danger for the people involved in selling sex and no reduction in demand. It is neither the logical response to sex work nor is it the compassionate one.
It has been reported that at a meeting in London at the House of Commons in November, Rhoda Grant said that harm or attacks that might be suffered by sex workers as the result of this bill was a “price worth paying”. How easy to say when other people are the ones paying the price! This shows me the bill is putting ideology above people’s lives. That the desire to punish sex workers and their clients matters more to her than women’s safety. It is horrifying. [Alex Bryce, ” A Regressive Move Which Would Further Stigmatise and Endanger Sex Workers”. Huffington Post, 28 November 2012]
Legislators who care about lives should focus on the provision of essential support services first and foremost. There is ample evidence to suggest that introducing criminalisation as well as spending valuable time and police resources would be to the detriment of the sex workers this Bill claims to want to protect.
My opposition is based upon the fact that the Swedish model is flawed; on the negative impact of such criminalisation on existing sex workers, particularly in their ability to access health and criminal justice services; the fact such an approach ignores and thus fails to address limitations within the criminal justice system (and other agencies) to effectively address abuses; the negative influence it has on the broader narrative of human trafficking to the detriment of other kinds of trafficking and exploitation.
The law in Sweden criminalising buyers has not been successful. It was brought in based on very little evidence. According to Dr Laura Agustin, an expert on sex work and migration, one of its data sources was a survey of only 14 people - just 7 of whom were sex workers.
Statistics show Swedish men are not deterred by the law. Many go to Denmark and Germany where prostitution is legal. The demand has not dried up. The number of men in Sweden who have paid for sex is actually rising. The laws have proved unpopular. A recent newspaper survey found 63% of the population favoured abolishing the sex purchase ban. When the Justice Minister proposed increasing penalties, 88% of Swedes disagreed.
There are health and safety concerns about prohibition. Condom distribution and HIV prevention, “ugly mugs” schemes identifying violent punters, and exiting services show far lower uptake when prostitution is criminalised.
As Purchasing Sexual Services in Sweden and the Netherlands found, the impact of the law on sex workers was to make such work more dangerous; for example, by reducing the time available to sex workers to assess clients. [Purchasing Sexual Services in Sweden and the Netherlands, A Report by a Working Group on the legal regulation of the purchase of sexual services, 2004, p. 20]
Much is made in anti-trafficking discourse of the Swedish model based on the assertion that, by making the purchase of sex an offence, human trafficking declines. But as an example, a 2011 report found that:
This year UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, stated unequivocally that decriminalisation is the best strategy for both safety of sex workers and disease control. Swedish statistics in the 2012 UNAIDS progress report show Sweden has no data on whether HIV and safer sex programmes are reaching sex workers, or if sex workers are getting tested. This is a worrying development that could lead to an Aids timebomb. Such things are already happening in countries like Cambodia, where abusive and violent police enforcement of anti-sex work laws has led to decreased use of prophylactics, fewer people coming forward for STI testing, etc.
Close reading of the Swedish publications on the topic make it clear that UNAIDS is correct in their interpretation. For example, the report claims “it is reasonable to assume that the reduction in street prostitution in Sweden is a direct result of criminalisation” and “The overall picture we have obtained is that, while there has been an increase in prostitution in our neighbouring Nordic countries in the last decade, as far as we can see, prostitution has at least not increased in Sweden” (p. 36).
The language reveals that Sweden has no data and is simply pulling numbers out of thin air. As such, we argue that the Swedish model should be more carefully considered, especially in relation to its alleged ‘success’, and its applicability to Scotland. Criminalising sex work makes prostitutes more vulnerable to violence.
The UNAIDS report notes “In Sweden, sex workers who were unable to work indoors were left on the street with the most dangerous clients and little choice but to accept them.” This has also been the case in reports focusing on human rights in countries like Cambodia, where efforts to reduce prostitution have had a significant harmful effect.
By contrast, decriminalisation has been beneficial in terms of welfare of women. In 2003, New Zealand opted to overturn their laws that criminalised prostitution in favour of regulation. The people most visibly affected by the law were streetwalkers in larger cities like Auckland, where in 2003 about 360 girls were estimated by police to be working. Streetwalkers represent about 11% of the total number of prostitutes in the country. ["Big Increase of Sex Workers a Myth: Latest Research". Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences. 2006-09-12] An evaluation of available data shows that the number of sex workers changed very little – and in some places, the numbers of them on the streets actually decreased – compared to before sex work was legal.
In Auckland, the estimated number of girls working the streets decreased significantly, from 360 to 106. People working in massage parlours and other establishments expressed a desire to stay in the work because of the financial rewards. [Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003. Available online at: http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy-and-consultation/legislation/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrc-report/report-of-the-prostitution-law-review-committee-on-the-operation-of-the-prostitution-reform-act-2003] In 2010, interviews with over 700 sex workers in New Zealand were published. [G Abel, L Fitzgerald, C Healy, (eds). Taking the crime out of sex work: New Zealand sex workers' fight for decriminalisation. Policy Press 2010] The number of interviews represents almost 12% of the estimated 5932 prostitutes in the country, a far higher proportion than in virtually any other qualitative study of sex workers ever conducted.
It concluded that the majority entered and stayed in the sex trade for financial reasons, that they felt the new laws gave them more protection, and that the result was positive changes overall for safety and health. As a result of the legislation they had become more willing (and able) to report crimes to the police - surely a victory for women’s safety.
We have a relevant and recent Scottish example with Aberdeen. From 2001 onward, the city had an established tolerance zone for sex workers around the harbour. That ended with passage of the Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Act in 2007. In the following months the city centre experienced an influx of streetwalkers and an increase in petty crimes. Quay Services, which operates a drop-in centre for streetwalkers, reported that sex workers became more afraid to seek assistance and the number of women coming to the centre dropped to “just a handful”. [M Horne. “Safety tips texted to prostitutes after tolerance zone ends.” The Scotsman, 08 June 2008.] There was also evidence that displacing sex workers led to more activity in the sex trade, not less – convictions for solicitation tripled. [K Keane, 18 November 2008. “Prostitution 'forced into city'.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7734480.stm]
To give a more specific example – when I lived in Sheffield in the early 2000s I saw firsthand the tragic effects of driving sex work away from well-trafficked, well-watched areas. At one point a de facto ‘tolerance’ area of streetwalkers had existed around the St George’s area of the city. It was fairly central, well lighted with CCTV, and police went through the area regularly. The streetwalkers I saw there (for I lived in a flat nearby) all seemed confident and in control. The interactions I saw with them and punters, and them and police, did not appear strained or overtly dangerous.
This changed when the crackdown came. Bollards went up to prevent kerb crawling. Women were pushed out to less populated, more industrial, less policed areas. It happened at that time I was a student, working in the city’s Medico Legal Centre.
One day I was called down to look at a postmortem. The mortuary was a rectangular room, with parallel stations set up for performing autopsies. That particular morning, there was one case I remember in excruciating detail. A young woman had been stabbed in a frenzied attack out past the dark underpasses of the Wicker, not far from Corporation Street. She died in hospital. The victim was just 25 years old. I had turned 25 the night she died.
[Name Redacted] was picked up by someone unknown, stabbed 19 times, and dumped in a lot. She lived long enough to give a partial description of her attacker, but died in hospital. I remember the dark hair, the pathologist methodically recording the position and appearance of each place the knife entered. I remember the stuffed teddy bear with a little red heart someone brought to the centre for her. Later I heard she had a 7-year-old son. Her killer has never been found.
Such a terrible, violent murder is only one tragedy. Many murders go unsolved every year. But the connection between what happened to [Redacted] and where she was working seemed clear to me. The more I learned, the more the effects of “zero tolerance” policing seemed partly responsible for her untimely death. This would not have happened if she had been on the streets near St George’s, with loads of walk-by traffic and well-lit corners. This crime could only have happened away from prying eyes, where anyone alerted to [Redacted]’s distress would not have been able to save her. Where there were no witnesses.
There is growing evidence that moving prostitutes into the darkened industrial outskirts of cities makes their lives more dangerous. [Redacted] is just one victim of a policy that is more concerned with exploiting prostitution myths and preserving a façade of public order than it is about benefitting women.
Perhaps rather than assuming these women are targeted because they are prostitutes, we should consider that they may be targeted because of message society is sending about their value as humans. Gary Ridgway, also known as the Green River killer, murdered 48 women in America in the early 1980s. He later talked about why most of his victims were streetwalkers: "I picked prostitutes as victims because they were easy to pick up without being noticed. I knew they would not be reported missing right away and might never be reported missing. I thought I could kill as many of them as I wanted without getting caught.” [EW Hickey. Serial Murderers and Their Victims (5th edition). Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010. P. 25.] It wasn’t the commercial sex angle that was attractive to him, but the convenience.
Many such killers are opportunists; they not only target shamed outsiders like prostitutes, but also hitchhikers and people travelling alone. People whose whereabouts are not exactly known at any given time. And yet no one would endorse a law criminalising solo travel under the rubric of “protecting” holidaymakers – that would be ludicrous.
Q3: Are you aware of any unintended consequences or loopholes caused by the offence? Please provide evidence to support your answer.
The unintended consequences of such a law would be greater personal risk for the people who sell sex, including both criminal danger, risk of attack, and exposure to sexually transmitted infections as detailed in the evidence for my answers given above. Attacking sex workers or their clients is not successful in changing behaviour. Prohibition in general tends to backfire.
We all know how badly alcohol prohibition in the US went and the frightening criminal implications of the ongoing “War on Drugs”. Instead of addressing the underlying social issues that might have been leading to unwelcome behaviours, it simply gives criminals a far greater hold on the industry than they would have otherwise. It does nothing to solve any actual family or societal problems. The government policy of the last several decades against sex workers has failed. No matter what deterrents are applied it always continues.
Even the Swedish government admits sex work advertising has increased on the internet – in other words, the trade has disappeared from public spaces but it has not gone away at all. What has happened is that sex workers have gone underground. This makes them more vulnerable, not less, to attack and abuse. It makes them more vulnerable to criminal gangs.
It is worth noting that Sweden’s largest trafficking prosecutions have all happened since the criminalisation law came into being – criminalisation makes trafficking worse, not better. If was as a society are serious about protecting women then we should rethink the current approach. The only country in the world that has put safety of women and men in sex work above subjective moral ideals is New Zealand. Their decriminalisation of sex work over ten years ago has been a great success.
Q4: What are the advantages or disadvantages in using the definitions outlined above?
“80. I want to ensure that the proposed legislation avoids any potential loopholes where a purchaser could avoid prosecution by means of non-cash payment.”
“82. I intend to pursue this approach as it would mean that the offence would not be limited to sexual intercourse or oral sex but could potentially include a wider variety of sexual activity.”
So that’ll be everything from marriage to dating websites to flirting made illegal, then. The section relevant to this question makes clear that the intent of the bill is not simply the question of sex work, but policing any gendered or sexual interactions and behaviour with ill-defined parameters that make virtually all human relationships susceptible to prosecution. This is relevant to Q3 as the unintended consequences of such a law are potentially limitless.
Q5: What do you think the appropriate penalty should be for the offence? Please provide reasons for your answer.
I do not believe the consensual sexual activities of adults, monetised or not, should be in any way criminalised or subject to penalty. There are already laws in place to rightly prosecute those who engage in forced labour practices, abuse of children, rape and sexual assault and these should continue to be enforced robustly.
The consultation is low on information about what sex workers’ lives are really like, and seems informed mainly by skewed sources and dodgy assumptions. Since no space in the questions has been allocated to dispute these dangerous stereotypes, I’d like to use this opportunity to provide some data. When researchers allow sex workers to tell their experiences in a way that does not prejudge the outcome, the results reveal things that are well-known to those in the work, but still news to people on the outside.
A 2009 study polling sex workers is an excellent case in point. Beyond Gender: An examination of exploitation in sex work by Suzanne Jenkins of Keele University (2009) revealed the results of detailed interviews with 440 sex workers. Not simply street-based women, either, but women, men, and transgendered sex workers in all areas of the business. Over half were from the UK; the rest were based in western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand.
The results turn almost everything we think we know about sex work on its head. Is paid sex all about clients dominating sex workers? No. Less than 7% of the women interviewed thought that paying for sex gives the client power over the escort. 26.2% thought paying makes clients vulnerable, while the majority, 54.5%, said that 'commercial sexual transactions are relationships of equality'.
People generally think that clients get whatever they want from sex workers, abusing and taking advantage of them. But when asked 'in your escort interactions who normally takes overall control of the encounter?' 78.7% said they always or they usually did. 22.3% said it varies, and only 0.7% said the client decides.
Sex work is often characterised as brutal, with abuse a commonplace and even usual outcome. But when asked if they have ever felt physically threatened, only 25% of women and 18.7% of men said yes. 77% of women said they felt clients treated them respectfully; the same percentage said they respected their clients. When asked "how much longer do you plan to do escort work for?” " I have no plans to stop escort work‟ was joint first choice of answer for women along with "one-five more years" (both receiving 35.3%). Only 3.2% said they planned to stop in less than three months.
In many ways, this reflects a pragmatism and familiar to anyone with a more ‘traditional’ career. Sex workers are often stereotyped as very young and naive, unaware of the dangers of the choices they are making. But the age data do not suggest the field is populated with teenage runaways and naive youngsters: Almost 85% of the women were aged 26 or older, and 19% of them were over 40.
Sex work is frequently assumed to be a choice suitable only for the uneducated. But 35.3 % of the men held degrees, whereas for women, it was 32.9%. More than a third of the total were degree-educated, and over 18% held post-graduate qualifications. Only 6.5% had no formal educational qualifications. When asked what things they like about the work, 2 in 3 respondents in the Keele study reported 'like meeting people'. 75% of women and 50% of men reported 'flexibility of working hours' as an aspect they enjoy. 72% of women cited 'independence'.
Jenkins noted: “an appreciation of flexible working hours and independence were factors that were valuable to women generally, not only mothers. The benefits of greater independence and flexible working hours were not just about the demands of parenting - they were often about time provided for other, non parenting-related pursuits.”
Q6: How should a new offence provision be enforced? Are there any techniques which might be used or obstacles which might need to be overcome?
I do not believe this should become an offence and therefore my opinion on how it should be enforced is irrelevant, except to say: not at all.
We can see that Denmark have recently rejected a similar bill that would have criminalized the purchase of sex and their reasons for doing so are worth considering carefully. The Justice Minister was of the opinion that such a law would be both illegal and unfeasible. Manu Sareen, the Danish gender equality minister, said during last year's election he wanted to ban the sex trade because it exploited women, but last month said he was not sure a ban was the best solution. The government is expected to offer counselling and other support programs to prostitutes. This is a far better use of human and financial resources.
Without engaging in the debate as to whether women (and indeed men and transgender individuals) willingly sell sex or are victims forced by circumstance to undertake this activity due to a lack of other income generating opportunities, there is nothing within this Bill or the accompanying consultation document as to the services and ‘help’ that will be provided to this group.
If the Scotland decides to criminalise the purchase of sex, and thereby seriously undermine the livelihood of sex workers, then they must acknowledge the need to provide alternative employment options and that this will require organisation and funding - both of which have been notably underfunded to date. Spend the money on services and support, not on policing victimless crimes.
Q7: What is your assessment of the likely financial implications of the proposed Bill to you or your organisation; if possible please provide evidence to support your view? What (if any) other significant financial implications are likely to arise?
As a former sex worker and advocate of sex workers’ interests I know firsthand from friends and family in countries where sex work is illegal what the financial implications of this bill would be to the people involved. Imagine for a moment a downward spiral where someone who turns to sex work as a quick financial fix finds themselves in increased danger. There is also the question of how much money the government are going to waste on endless consultations for a law that will not work.
In times of financial austerity, throwing more money at unsuccessful policies is against the public interest and out of step with public opinion. Many opinion polls clearly show people support protecting the safety of sex workers and support decriminalisation. Criminalising consensual sexual activity between adults is expensive and dangerous.
Q8: Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative implications for equality? If it is likely to have a substantial negative implication, how might this be minimised or avoided?
This bill will have a substantial negative implication for equality. What the people who believe in such numbers fail to acknowledge is that the continued attitude towards sex workers of being “damaged” or “fallen” women who must be saved by white knights only serves to exacerbate many of their problems.
Consider, as an analogy, that in the past society used to think of homosexuality as a disease rather than a sexual preference. Reams of supposedly “scientific” evidence were produced in order to “prove” that homosexuals suffered from mental health problems. These issues faced by gay, lesbian, and bisexual people (including stress, depression, and addictive behavior) are now understood to be the result not of their sexual preferences, but of the stigma associated with them and the pervasively negative social messages about them.
The mental health problems associated with outsider status are well known. Social isolation increases the risk of violence, blackmail, and coercion. Stigma and fear of humiliation and prosecution exacerbates any existing mental health issues. The current policy therefore is responsible for many of the mental health issues associated with sex work.
The consultation document cites among its evidence studies conducted by Melissa Farley, whose opinions have been found to be of insufficiently high quality to be admitted as evidence in Canadian court [Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Bedford v Canada, 2010. “Conclusion: Expert Evidence” http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc4264/2010onsc4264.html#_Toc270411950], who has been the subject of serious ethical allegations to the APA from her colleagues [http://maggiemcneill.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/complaint-to-apa-re-melissa-farley.pdf], and who makes rape jokes about sex workers on her own website. [http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/WhyIMade.html] Her work is a prime example of the persistent, institutionalised hatred against sex workers and it has no place in any serious discussion of sex work and public policy.
There are some hopeful and encouraging things going on that actually could benefit sex workers and reduce their exposure to harm. In Liverpool, police adopted a policy that recognises violence against sex workers as a hate crime. The result is that they can approach the police and know that violence against them will be taken seriously. This has led to a dramatic increase in prosecutions and a decline in assaults. But it’s a model that has yet to be picked up anywhere else. In Aberdeen, police are working to build links with outreach workers and streetwalkers to identify and assist women who want to transition out of sex work.
To give a personal example, while my own experience of sex work is long in the past, as someone who is “out” as a former sex worker I am subjected to high levels of verbal abuse, harassment, and threats, be they over the internet, through the post, and even in person. This has ranged from written threats posted to my workplace, to harassing phone calls, to being harassed and accused of supporting paedophilia by members of the SSP during a public event, to a PCC complaint I filed against the Guardian in which they defended a comment on the site that stated I “should be dead in a ditch”. The PCC, by the way, sided with the newspaper. Imagine if anyone ever wrote about you on a national newspaper’s website that way. It is unpleasant to say the least.
The help of police in various areas when I report these things has been, shall we say, variable. Some are very helpful, some are not. This has affected things like where I have my post sent and whether to be listed in the phone directory. I have undertaken substantial legal efforts to keep the exact location of my home from being printed in the newspapers.
As a result of the amount of abuse and the threatening flavour of some of it I sadly have had to make the decision not to start a family. This is because I feel the risk of subjecting anyone else to the unfiltered hatred and threats I receive would be unacceptable. I feel lucky to have the strong support of family and friends which I do not take for granted. Even in my privileged position it is a constant struggle to “not let the bastards get me down”. It is easy to see how others without such support would fall into depression from constant abuse encouraged by our society. If you are okay with the fact this happens not only to me but to thousands of others every day, then by all means support this bill and keep the hatred going.
I do not believe however that people with empathy and compassion would want that to continue. There are many people who claim to support women’s rights yet deny the rights of large numbers of women whose lives they don’t approve of. Evidence shows that places where prostitution is tolerated or decriminalised produce better outcomes for the people involved.
Attacking visible signs of prostitution results in more criminality, not less. There is no such thing as “ending demand”. This is documented by research, by statistics. Anyone who supports criminalisation is basically saying to me and people like me, ‘women’s rights are important, except of course for women like you.’ They are endorsing the kind of attitudes that allow a national newspaper to defend the statement that I “should be dead in a ditch”. I reject such a stand as hypocritical and anti-women.
This substantial negative implication can only be avoided by rejecting the bill altogether.
Regards
Dr Brooke Magnanti
The response to the consultation that I have submitted to MSP Rhoda Grant is included below. It's long.
If you would like to make a last-minute submission, please consider the excellent template letters offered by SCOT-PEP. Please be sure to request anonymity if you want to do it privately, or consider signing with a pseudonym. You don't have to be in Scotland to reply.
My response:
First off, I would like to address to comments Trish Godman MSP made at the Conference Against Human Trafficking in October this year that “Belle” does not exist and is not happy. I am Belle de Jour, I do exist, and please thank Ms Godman for being so concerned about my feelings – I am happy.
QUESTIONS Q1: Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill? Please indicate “yes/no/undecided” and explain the reasons for your response.
No, I do not support the general aim of the bill.
If the current laws are not working, as you claim, what makes you think new, badly thought out laws would work better? Or is this another 'send a message' law? Passing laws is easy. Passing a law which actually works in the way intended, is enforceable and has no harmful unforeseen consequences is far more difficult.
Such a law as proposed here will not affect whether or not prostitution happens: it will simply affect the conditions under which it takes place to the harm of sex workers. The question is, do you care about those conditions? I do. My priority is access for sex workers to the services they need to preserve or improve their circumstances.
The criminalisation of the purchase of sex in other countries has been shown not to be a successful approach in either helping sex workers or stopping the phenomenon of paying for sex. The extensive evidence for this position is outlined in the replies to the following questions.
Q2: What do you believe would be the effects of legislating to criminalise the purchase of sex (as outlined above)? Please provide evidence to support your answer.
The effects of criminalising the purchase of sex would be increased danger for the people involved in selling sex and no reduction in demand. It is neither the logical response to sex work nor is it the compassionate one.
It has been reported that at a meeting in London at the House of Commons in November, Rhoda Grant said that harm or attacks that might be suffered by sex workers as the result of this bill was a “price worth paying”. How easy to say when other people are the ones paying the price! This shows me the bill is putting ideology above people’s lives. That the desire to punish sex workers and their clients matters more to her than women’s safety. It is horrifying. [Alex Bryce, ” A Regressive Move Which Would Further Stigmatise and Endanger Sex Workers”. Huffington Post, 28 November 2012]
Legislators who care about lives should focus on the provision of essential support services first and foremost. There is ample evidence to suggest that introducing criminalisation as well as spending valuable time and police resources would be to the detriment of the sex workers this Bill claims to want to protect.
My opposition is based upon the fact that the Swedish model is flawed; on the negative impact of such criminalisation on existing sex workers, particularly in their ability to access health and criminal justice services; the fact such an approach ignores and thus fails to address limitations within the criminal justice system (and other agencies) to effectively address abuses; the negative influence it has on the broader narrative of human trafficking to the detriment of other kinds of trafficking and exploitation.
The law in Sweden criminalising buyers has not been successful. It was brought in based on very little evidence. According to Dr Laura Agustin, an expert on sex work and migration, one of its data sources was a survey of only 14 people - just 7 of whom were sex workers.
Statistics show Swedish men are not deterred by the law. Many go to Denmark and Germany where prostitution is legal. The demand has not dried up. The number of men in Sweden who have paid for sex is actually rising. The laws have proved unpopular. A recent newspaper survey found 63% of the population favoured abolishing the sex purchase ban. When the Justice Minister proposed increasing penalties, 88% of Swedes disagreed.
There are health and safety concerns about prohibition. Condom distribution and HIV prevention, “ugly mugs” schemes identifying violent punters, and exiting services show far lower uptake when prostitution is criminalised.
As Purchasing Sexual Services in Sweden and the Netherlands found, the impact of the law on sex workers was to make such work more dangerous; for example, by reducing the time available to sex workers to assess clients. [Purchasing Sexual Services in Sweden and the Netherlands, A Report by a Working Group on the legal regulation of the purchase of sexual services, 2004, p. 20]
Much is made in anti-trafficking discourse of the Swedish model based on the assertion that, by making the purchase of sex an offence, human trafficking declines. But as an example, a 2011 report found that:
[W]hen reviewing the research and reports available, it becomes clear that the Sex Purchase Act cannot be said to have decreased prostitution, trafficking for sexual purposes, or had a deterrent effect on clients to the extent claimed. Nor is it possible to claim that public attitudes towards prostitution have changed significantly in the desired radical feminist direction or that there has been a similar increased support of the ban. We have also found reports of serious adverse effects of the Sex Purchase Act – especially concerning the health and well-being of sex workers – in spite of the fact that the lawmakers stressed that the ban was not to have a detrimental effect on people in prostitution.[The Swedish Sex Purchase Act: Claimed Success and Documented Effects, Susanne Dodillet and Petra Östergren, Conference paper presented at the International Workshop: Decriminalising Prostitution and Beyond: Practical Experiences and Challenges. The Hague, March 3 and 4, 2011, p.3.]
This year UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, stated unequivocally that decriminalisation is the best strategy for both safety of sex workers and disease control. Swedish statistics in the 2012 UNAIDS progress report show Sweden has no data on whether HIV and safer sex programmes are reaching sex workers, or if sex workers are getting tested. This is a worrying development that could lead to an Aids timebomb. Such things are already happening in countries like Cambodia, where abusive and violent police enforcement of anti-sex work laws has led to decreased use of prophylactics, fewer people coming forward for STI testing, etc.
Close reading of the Swedish publications on the topic make it clear that UNAIDS is correct in their interpretation. For example, the report claims “it is reasonable to assume that the reduction in street prostitution in Sweden is a direct result of criminalisation” and “The overall picture we have obtained is that, while there has been an increase in prostitution in our neighbouring Nordic countries in the last decade, as far as we can see, prostitution has at least not increased in Sweden” (p. 36).
The language reveals that Sweden has no data and is simply pulling numbers out of thin air. As such, we argue that the Swedish model should be more carefully considered, especially in relation to its alleged ‘success’, and its applicability to Scotland. Criminalising sex work makes prostitutes more vulnerable to violence.
The UNAIDS report notes “In Sweden, sex workers who were unable to work indoors were left on the street with the most dangerous clients and little choice but to accept them.” This has also been the case in reports focusing on human rights in countries like Cambodia, where efforts to reduce prostitution have had a significant harmful effect.
By contrast, decriminalisation has been beneficial in terms of welfare of women. In 2003, New Zealand opted to overturn their laws that criminalised prostitution in favour of regulation. The people most visibly affected by the law were streetwalkers in larger cities like Auckland, where in 2003 about 360 girls were estimated by police to be working. Streetwalkers represent about 11% of the total number of prostitutes in the country. ["Big Increase of Sex Workers a Myth: Latest Research". Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences. 2006-09-12] An evaluation of available data shows that the number of sex workers changed very little – and in some places, the numbers of them on the streets actually decreased – compared to before sex work was legal.
In Auckland, the estimated number of girls working the streets decreased significantly, from 360 to 106. People working in massage parlours and other establishments expressed a desire to stay in the work because of the financial rewards. [Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003. Available online at: http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy-and-consultation/legislation/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrc-report/report-of-the-prostitution-law-review-committee-on-the-operation-of-the-prostitution-reform-act-2003] In 2010, interviews with over 700 sex workers in New Zealand were published. [G Abel, L Fitzgerald, C Healy, (eds). Taking the crime out of sex work: New Zealand sex workers' fight for decriminalisation. Policy Press 2010] The number of interviews represents almost 12% of the estimated 5932 prostitutes in the country, a far higher proportion than in virtually any other qualitative study of sex workers ever conducted.
It concluded that the majority entered and stayed in the sex trade for financial reasons, that they felt the new laws gave them more protection, and that the result was positive changes overall for safety and health. As a result of the legislation they had become more willing (and able) to report crimes to the police - surely a victory for women’s safety.
We have a relevant and recent Scottish example with Aberdeen. From 2001 onward, the city had an established tolerance zone for sex workers around the harbour. That ended with passage of the Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Act in 2007. In the following months the city centre experienced an influx of streetwalkers and an increase in petty crimes. Quay Services, which operates a drop-in centre for streetwalkers, reported that sex workers became more afraid to seek assistance and the number of women coming to the centre dropped to “just a handful”. [M Horne. “Safety tips texted to prostitutes after tolerance zone ends.” The Scotsman, 08 June 2008.] There was also evidence that displacing sex workers led to more activity in the sex trade, not less – convictions for solicitation tripled. [K Keane, 18 November 2008. “Prostitution 'forced into city'.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7734480.stm]
To give a more specific example – when I lived in Sheffield in the early 2000s I saw firsthand the tragic effects of driving sex work away from well-trafficked, well-watched areas. At one point a de facto ‘tolerance’ area of streetwalkers had existed around the St George’s area of the city. It was fairly central, well lighted with CCTV, and police went through the area regularly. The streetwalkers I saw there (for I lived in a flat nearby) all seemed confident and in control. The interactions I saw with them and punters, and them and police, did not appear strained or overtly dangerous.
This changed when the crackdown came. Bollards went up to prevent kerb crawling. Women were pushed out to less populated, more industrial, less policed areas. It happened at that time I was a student, working in the city’s Medico Legal Centre.
One day I was called down to look at a postmortem. The mortuary was a rectangular room, with parallel stations set up for performing autopsies. That particular morning, there was one case I remember in excruciating detail. A young woman had been stabbed in a frenzied attack out past the dark underpasses of the Wicker, not far from Corporation Street. She died in hospital. The victim was just 25 years old. I had turned 25 the night she died.
[Name Redacted] was picked up by someone unknown, stabbed 19 times, and dumped in a lot. She lived long enough to give a partial description of her attacker, but died in hospital. I remember the dark hair, the pathologist methodically recording the position and appearance of each place the knife entered. I remember the stuffed teddy bear with a little red heart someone brought to the centre for her. Later I heard she had a 7-year-old son. Her killer has never been found.
Such a terrible, violent murder is only one tragedy. Many murders go unsolved every year. But the connection between what happened to [Redacted] and where she was working seemed clear to me. The more I learned, the more the effects of “zero tolerance” policing seemed partly responsible for her untimely death. This would not have happened if she had been on the streets near St George’s, with loads of walk-by traffic and well-lit corners. This crime could only have happened away from prying eyes, where anyone alerted to [Redacted]’s distress would not have been able to save her. Where there were no witnesses.
There is growing evidence that moving prostitutes into the darkened industrial outskirts of cities makes their lives more dangerous. [Redacted] is just one victim of a policy that is more concerned with exploiting prostitution myths and preserving a façade of public order than it is about benefitting women.
Perhaps rather than assuming these women are targeted because they are prostitutes, we should consider that they may be targeted because of message society is sending about their value as humans. Gary Ridgway, also known as the Green River killer, murdered 48 women in America in the early 1980s. He later talked about why most of his victims were streetwalkers: "I picked prostitutes as victims because they were easy to pick up without being noticed. I knew they would not be reported missing right away and might never be reported missing. I thought I could kill as many of them as I wanted without getting caught.” [EW Hickey. Serial Murderers and Their Victims (5th edition). Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010. P. 25.] It wasn’t the commercial sex angle that was attractive to him, but the convenience.
Many such killers are opportunists; they not only target shamed outsiders like prostitutes, but also hitchhikers and people travelling alone. People whose whereabouts are not exactly known at any given time. And yet no one would endorse a law criminalising solo travel under the rubric of “protecting” holidaymakers – that would be ludicrous.
Q3: Are you aware of any unintended consequences or loopholes caused by the offence? Please provide evidence to support your answer.
The unintended consequences of such a law would be greater personal risk for the people who sell sex, including both criminal danger, risk of attack, and exposure to sexually transmitted infections as detailed in the evidence for my answers given above. Attacking sex workers or their clients is not successful in changing behaviour. Prohibition in general tends to backfire.
We all know how badly alcohol prohibition in the US went and the frightening criminal implications of the ongoing “War on Drugs”. Instead of addressing the underlying social issues that might have been leading to unwelcome behaviours, it simply gives criminals a far greater hold on the industry than they would have otherwise. It does nothing to solve any actual family or societal problems. The government policy of the last several decades against sex workers has failed. No matter what deterrents are applied it always continues.
Even the Swedish government admits sex work advertising has increased on the internet – in other words, the trade has disappeared from public spaces but it has not gone away at all. What has happened is that sex workers have gone underground. This makes them more vulnerable, not less, to attack and abuse. It makes them more vulnerable to criminal gangs.
It is worth noting that Sweden’s largest trafficking prosecutions have all happened since the criminalisation law came into being – criminalisation makes trafficking worse, not better. If was as a society are serious about protecting women then we should rethink the current approach. The only country in the world that has put safety of women and men in sex work above subjective moral ideals is New Zealand. Their decriminalisation of sex work over ten years ago has been a great success.
Q4: What are the advantages or disadvantages in using the definitions outlined above?
“80. I want to ensure that the proposed legislation avoids any potential loopholes where a purchaser could avoid prosecution by means of non-cash payment.”
“82. I intend to pursue this approach as it would mean that the offence would not be limited to sexual intercourse or oral sex but could potentially include a wider variety of sexual activity.”
So that’ll be everything from marriage to dating websites to flirting made illegal, then. The section relevant to this question makes clear that the intent of the bill is not simply the question of sex work, but policing any gendered or sexual interactions and behaviour with ill-defined parameters that make virtually all human relationships susceptible to prosecution. This is relevant to Q3 as the unintended consequences of such a law are potentially limitless.
Q5: What do you think the appropriate penalty should be for the offence? Please provide reasons for your answer.
I do not believe the consensual sexual activities of adults, monetised or not, should be in any way criminalised or subject to penalty. There are already laws in place to rightly prosecute those who engage in forced labour practices, abuse of children, rape and sexual assault and these should continue to be enforced robustly.
The consultation is low on information about what sex workers’ lives are really like, and seems informed mainly by skewed sources and dodgy assumptions. Since no space in the questions has been allocated to dispute these dangerous stereotypes, I’d like to use this opportunity to provide some data. When researchers allow sex workers to tell their experiences in a way that does not prejudge the outcome, the results reveal things that are well-known to those in the work, but still news to people on the outside.
A 2009 study polling sex workers is an excellent case in point. Beyond Gender: An examination of exploitation in sex work by Suzanne Jenkins of Keele University (2009) revealed the results of detailed interviews with 440 sex workers. Not simply street-based women, either, but women, men, and transgendered sex workers in all areas of the business. Over half were from the UK; the rest were based in western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand.
The results turn almost everything we think we know about sex work on its head. Is paid sex all about clients dominating sex workers? No. Less than 7% of the women interviewed thought that paying for sex gives the client power over the escort. 26.2% thought paying makes clients vulnerable, while the majority, 54.5%, said that 'commercial sexual transactions are relationships of equality'.
People generally think that clients get whatever they want from sex workers, abusing and taking advantage of them. But when asked 'in your escort interactions who normally takes overall control of the encounter?' 78.7% said they always or they usually did. 22.3% said it varies, and only 0.7% said the client decides.
Sex work is often characterised as brutal, with abuse a commonplace and even usual outcome. But when asked if they have ever felt physically threatened, only 25% of women and 18.7% of men said yes. 77% of women said they felt clients treated them respectfully; the same percentage said they respected their clients. When asked "how much longer do you plan to do escort work for?” " I have no plans to stop escort work‟ was joint first choice of answer for women along with "one-five more years" (both receiving 35.3%). Only 3.2% said they planned to stop in less than three months.
In many ways, this reflects a pragmatism and familiar to anyone with a more ‘traditional’ career. Sex workers are often stereotyped as very young and naive, unaware of the dangers of the choices they are making. But the age data do not suggest the field is populated with teenage runaways and naive youngsters: Almost 85% of the women were aged 26 or older, and 19% of them were over 40.
Sex work is frequently assumed to be a choice suitable only for the uneducated. But 35.3 % of the men held degrees, whereas for women, it was 32.9%. More than a third of the total were degree-educated, and over 18% held post-graduate qualifications. Only 6.5% had no formal educational qualifications. When asked what things they like about the work, 2 in 3 respondents in the Keele study reported 'like meeting people'. 75% of women and 50% of men reported 'flexibility of working hours' as an aspect they enjoy. 72% of women cited 'independence'.
Jenkins noted: “an appreciation of flexible working hours and independence were factors that were valuable to women generally, not only mothers. The benefits of greater independence and flexible working hours were not just about the demands of parenting - they were often about time provided for other, non parenting-related pursuits.”
Q6: How should a new offence provision be enforced? Are there any techniques which might be used or obstacles which might need to be overcome?
I do not believe this should become an offence and therefore my opinion on how it should be enforced is irrelevant, except to say: not at all.
We can see that Denmark have recently rejected a similar bill that would have criminalized the purchase of sex and their reasons for doing so are worth considering carefully. The Justice Minister was of the opinion that such a law would be both illegal and unfeasible. Manu Sareen, the Danish gender equality minister, said during last year's election he wanted to ban the sex trade because it exploited women, but last month said he was not sure a ban was the best solution. The government is expected to offer counselling and other support programs to prostitutes. This is a far better use of human and financial resources.
Without engaging in the debate as to whether women (and indeed men and transgender individuals) willingly sell sex or are victims forced by circumstance to undertake this activity due to a lack of other income generating opportunities, there is nothing within this Bill or the accompanying consultation document as to the services and ‘help’ that will be provided to this group.
If the Scotland decides to criminalise the purchase of sex, and thereby seriously undermine the livelihood of sex workers, then they must acknowledge the need to provide alternative employment options and that this will require organisation and funding - both of which have been notably underfunded to date. Spend the money on services and support, not on policing victimless crimes.
Q7: What is your assessment of the likely financial implications of the proposed Bill to you or your organisation; if possible please provide evidence to support your view? What (if any) other significant financial implications are likely to arise?
As a former sex worker and advocate of sex workers’ interests I know firsthand from friends and family in countries where sex work is illegal what the financial implications of this bill would be to the people involved. Imagine for a moment a downward spiral where someone who turns to sex work as a quick financial fix finds themselves in increased danger. There is also the question of how much money the government are going to waste on endless consultations for a law that will not work.
In times of financial austerity, throwing more money at unsuccessful policies is against the public interest and out of step with public opinion. Many opinion polls clearly show people support protecting the safety of sex workers and support decriminalisation. Criminalising consensual sexual activity between adults is expensive and dangerous.
Q8: Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative implications for equality? If it is likely to have a substantial negative implication, how might this be minimised or avoided?
This bill will have a substantial negative implication for equality. What the people who believe in such numbers fail to acknowledge is that the continued attitude towards sex workers of being “damaged” or “fallen” women who must be saved by white knights only serves to exacerbate many of their problems.
Consider, as an analogy, that in the past society used to think of homosexuality as a disease rather than a sexual preference. Reams of supposedly “scientific” evidence were produced in order to “prove” that homosexuals suffered from mental health problems. These issues faced by gay, lesbian, and bisexual people (including stress, depression, and addictive behavior) are now understood to be the result not of their sexual preferences, but of the stigma associated with them and the pervasively negative social messages about them.
The mental health problems associated with outsider status are well known. Social isolation increases the risk of violence, blackmail, and coercion. Stigma and fear of humiliation and prosecution exacerbates any existing mental health issues. The current policy therefore is responsible for many of the mental health issues associated with sex work.
The consultation document cites among its evidence studies conducted by Melissa Farley, whose opinions have been found to be of insufficiently high quality to be admitted as evidence in Canadian court [Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Bedford v Canada, 2010. “Conclusion: Expert Evidence” http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc4264/2010onsc4264.html#_Toc270411950], who has been the subject of serious ethical allegations to the APA from her colleagues [http://maggiemcneill.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/complaint-to-apa-re-melissa-farley.pdf], and who makes rape jokes about sex workers on her own website. [http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/WhyIMade.html] Her work is a prime example of the persistent, institutionalised hatred against sex workers and it has no place in any serious discussion of sex work and public policy.
There are some hopeful and encouraging things going on that actually could benefit sex workers and reduce their exposure to harm. In Liverpool, police adopted a policy that recognises violence against sex workers as a hate crime. The result is that they can approach the police and know that violence against them will be taken seriously. This has led to a dramatic increase in prosecutions and a decline in assaults. But it’s a model that has yet to be picked up anywhere else. In Aberdeen, police are working to build links with outreach workers and streetwalkers to identify and assist women who want to transition out of sex work.
To give a personal example, while my own experience of sex work is long in the past, as someone who is “out” as a former sex worker I am subjected to high levels of verbal abuse, harassment, and threats, be they over the internet, through the post, and even in person. This has ranged from written threats posted to my workplace, to harassing phone calls, to being harassed and accused of supporting paedophilia by members of the SSP during a public event, to a PCC complaint I filed against the Guardian in which they defended a comment on the site that stated I “should be dead in a ditch”. The PCC, by the way, sided with the newspaper. Imagine if anyone ever wrote about you on a national newspaper’s website that way. It is unpleasant to say the least.
The help of police in various areas when I report these things has been, shall we say, variable. Some are very helpful, some are not. This has affected things like where I have my post sent and whether to be listed in the phone directory. I have undertaken substantial legal efforts to keep the exact location of my home from being printed in the newspapers.
As a result of the amount of abuse and the threatening flavour of some of it I sadly have had to make the decision not to start a family. This is because I feel the risk of subjecting anyone else to the unfiltered hatred and threats I receive would be unacceptable. I feel lucky to have the strong support of family and friends which I do not take for granted. Even in my privileged position it is a constant struggle to “not let the bastards get me down”. It is easy to see how others without such support would fall into depression from constant abuse encouraged by our society. If you are okay with the fact this happens not only to me but to thousands of others every day, then by all means support this bill and keep the hatred going.
I do not believe however that people with empathy and compassion would want that to continue. There are many people who claim to support women’s rights yet deny the rights of large numbers of women whose lives they don’t approve of. Evidence shows that places where prostitution is tolerated or decriminalised produce better outcomes for the people involved.
Attacking visible signs of prostitution results in more criminality, not less. There is no such thing as “ending demand”. This is documented by research, by statistics. Anyone who supports criminalisation is basically saying to me and people like me, ‘women’s rights are important, except of course for women like you.’ They are endorsing the kind of attitudes that allow a national newspaper to defend the statement that I “should be dead in a ditch”. I reject such a stand as hypocritical and anti-women.
This substantial negative implication can only be avoided by rejecting the bill altogether.
Regards
Dr Brooke Magnanti
Wednesday, 26 September 2012
When Help is Anything But
You may already be aware of the recent prostitution consultation in Ireland, which closed at the end of August. At the forefront of campaigning was 'prostitution and trafficking NGO' Ruhama, which produced their own submission to the process (a submission that was, incidentally, highly reliant on numbers created by Melissa Farley, whose testimony on similar issues has already been deemed not good enough for Canadian court).
Data aside, however, it is worth asking the question of who Ruhama actually are. It would seem they have form on wanting to "save" fallen women, for according to the Irish Times Ruhama is run by two of the orders involved in running the infamous Magdalene Laundries. (Here is their list of trustees and directors.) The Magdalene Laundries were institutions where women and girls were separated from their families, subjected to slave labour, mentally and physically tortured. Some even died unrecorded in their care.
Even decades after the worst of the Magdalene abuses, the scandal is still ongoing: a recent submission to the committee investigating the laundries includes some shocking facts.
JFM describes from testimony how the women suffered abuse of various kinds — their hair was forcibly cut, they were beaten with belts until they bled and once the door to the outside world was shut on them, they were referred to by number not by name ...Before you start imagining this is a tale from some sepia-tinted past, know that the last Magdalene laundry did not close until 1996. I have heard from people by email and Twitter about women being institutionalised in the 1970s. It is also interesting to read the Wikipedia talk page on the subject. The fallout from the fates of the estimated 30,000 women in Ireland subjected to this "help" is still a real wound. This all continued to happen well into living memory.
...the State used the laundries as a way of dealing with births outside marriage, poverty, homelessness, promiscuity, domestic and sexual abuse as well as youth crime and infanticide. It chose to enslave women with the nuns rather than develop a female borstal.
"It repeatedly sought to funnel diverse populations of women and girls to the Magdalene Laundries and in return, the religious orders obtained an entirely unpaid and literally captive workforce for their commercial laundry enterprises," they wrote.
Survivors and witnesses told JFM how the women washed, ironed and sewed from dawn to dusk, were regularly beaten, not allowed to talk to one another and punished if they laughed. There was no regard whatsoever for their health or medical needs. If they stepped out of line, they were "put down the hole".
"This was a four by four room… There was nothing in it, only a bench — no windows. You were put in there; your hair was cut, more or less off completely. Your hair was cut, and you were there all day without anything to eat," one woman recalled.
Now I do not doubt there will be people who say, well yes, but this was a different generation and things have changed. Have they? Have they really? Who has been held to account for the systematic abuse of thousands of women and girls with the tacit approval of the Church and the government?
Jane Fae over at Huffington Post makes an excellent point that in the Hillsborough tragedy, when we consider the scale of denial and coverup, simply saying 'it was a different generation' is not good enough.
Well the Magdalene Laundries were scandal on a scale far greater than the HIllsborough tragedy, for many more years. So I think the same arguments hold. The people who did this should not be in any way involved with women and young people, ever. Could you imagine if the South Yorkshire police branched out and started a private security firm specifically for football matches? They'd be laughed and shamed out of town. Carry that thinking through: we should be laughing and shaming Ruhama far, far away from anything to do with the welfare of vulnerable women and children.
We still do not know the truth about what happened in the Laundries, nor who exactly was responsible, how many families it affected. To even consider letting Ruhama be involved with the prostitution consultation, much less any policymaking or aid, should be scandalous.
And yet it somehow is not. Anyone wish to explain exactly why?
(mega hat tip to Wendy Lyon and FeministIre for bringing this to my attention in 2010.)
Sunday, 24 June 2012
The Economics of Hooker Books
One of the more persistent criticisms I get these days is that by
being public about my really rather normal experience of sex work, I am
"silencing" people who label themselves a victims.
I'm not going to rehash the particular arguments regarding Happy Hookers vs. Abused Victims here, in part because Maggie McNeill has already done it. Suffice it to say that people who have read my writing know my experience of sex work, while useful, positive, and not abusive, was not quite the shopping-and-shoe-buying fantasy critics paint it as. But then most people who think that about me have never encountered my writing firsthand and are instead basing their impressions off a half-remembered advert featuring Billie Piper's tits. I understand. It's easy to get confused.
But it did give me a moment of pause: is my writing crowding out other voices in the market? I decided to examine this further.
Since many people purport to tell the story of sex workers for them, I excluded books that were either not written by or not straight biographies of a particular sex worker. I also excluded all that were fiction (such as my own Playing the Game) or deal with post-sex work life (such as Lily Burana's I Love a Man in Uniform).
Anyway, here are the results:
As you can see, my books are outnumbered by hooker memoirs that predate mine (Tracy Quan and Xaviera Hollander in particular). Outspoken strippers also chalk up plenty of contributions to the genre.
But outnumbering all of us by far are the 'misery memoirs' about prostitution. (Don't get angry at me for the sweeping generalisation. That is what the genre actually is called.) There are, to use the technical term, fucking shedloads of these books. You'll notice more than a few bestsellers in that stack as well. These were just the ones I could fit into the graphic; there are dozens upon dozens more. Many if not most of which were published after my books first came out.
It's probably fair to conclude that not only has my writing not stopped others from contributing their experience to the general debate on sex work, but that you're actually more likely to get noticed if you're unhappy with prostitution than generally satisfied with it.
With the swirling vortex of Kristof/trafficking/concern porn making the rounds, in fact, now might just be the right time to do it. If you were of a mind to write a book like that.
I encourage people with real firsthand views on the topic, whatever they are, to write. In fact moreso if you are not white, or not a cis woman, or not from the US or Western Europe. Women who look and sound approximately like me are already pretty well represented in the hallowed halls of sex worker lit. Let's diversify it all over the damn place until the orientalists and anti-migration-disguised-as-anti-trafficking types have to eat every last one of their words.
Just so long as we all understand that there is no such thing as one story of sex work - they are as diverse as the people in it. My story is my story. Your story is your story. None of us speak for all sex workers. And be honest. As Bob Dylan memorably put it “If you live outside the law you must be honest.” So long as we are all on the level, then getting as many true voices out there as possible is no bad thing.
Now back to the critics...
For pity's sake don't come crying to me if you're not as popular as you like. As the objective evidence shows, it categorically is not down to me whether or not people want to read your writing.
As regards writing as a career, it is dangerous to assume I or anyone else is getting "vastly rich" off of writing (as one bitter soul recently accused). Many people seem to think that writing a book, even a bestselling one, is a ticket to financial freedom and nets far beyond what even your common-or-garden escort can potentially make. I hate to break it to the dreamers, but that is not so.
If it was, do you think I'd still be writing? Hell, no. I'd be kicking back with J.K. Rowling and E.L. James in our secret volcano fortress warming my toes on a fire built by our minions entirely out of £50 notes and cackling madly. As opposed to the reality - sitting in my home office in a very average house in one of the poorest areas of the country. I'm not bankrolled by any grant-grabbing NGOs, my personal appearances usually only cover expenses, and nuisance legal threats from people with a lot of time on their hands cost more than all my living expenses combined. I've done better than most by writing and am still a long way off being a millionaire.
As it turns out, I hear the person who made that accusation supposedly comes from family money herself and spends her time as a dilettante poetess. If that's true, well, good luck with that. Whatever works amirite?
Best of luck, former fellow hos. This is not exactly the road less traveled but is no less bumpy for it.
I'm not going to rehash the particular arguments regarding Happy Hookers vs. Abused Victims here, in part because Maggie McNeill has already done it. Suffice it to say that people who have read my writing know my experience of sex work, while useful, positive, and not abusive, was not quite the shopping-and-shoe-buying fantasy critics paint it as. But then most people who think that about me have never encountered my writing firsthand and are instead basing their impressions off a half-remembered advert featuring Billie Piper's tits. I understand. It's easy to get confused.
But it did give me a moment of pause: is my writing crowding out other voices in the market? I decided to examine this further.
Since many people purport to tell the story of sex workers for them, I excluded books that were either not written by or not straight biographies of a particular sex worker. I also excluded all that were fiction (such as my own Playing the Game) or deal with post-sex work life (such as Lily Burana's I Love a Man in Uniform).
Anyway, here are the results:
As you can see, my books are outnumbered by hooker memoirs that predate mine (Tracy Quan and Xaviera Hollander in particular). Outspoken strippers also chalk up plenty of contributions to the genre.
But outnumbering all of us by far are the 'misery memoirs' about prostitution. (Don't get angry at me for the sweeping generalisation. That is what the genre actually is called.) There are, to use the technical term, fucking shedloads of these books. You'll notice more than a few bestsellers in that stack as well. These were just the ones I could fit into the graphic; there are dozens upon dozens more. Many if not most of which were published after my books first came out.
It's probably fair to conclude that not only has my writing not stopped others from contributing their experience to the general debate on sex work, but that you're actually more likely to get noticed if you're unhappy with prostitution than generally satisfied with it.
With the swirling vortex of Kristof/trafficking/concern porn making the rounds, in fact, now might just be the right time to do it. If you were of a mind to write a book like that.
I encourage people with real firsthand views on the topic, whatever they are, to write. In fact moreso if you are not white, or not a cis woman, or not from the US or Western Europe. Women who look and sound approximately like me are already pretty well represented in the hallowed halls of sex worker lit. Let's diversify it all over the damn place until the orientalists and anti-migration-disguised-as-anti-trafficking types have to eat every last one of their words.
Just so long as we all understand that there is no such thing as one story of sex work - they are as diverse as the people in it. My story is my story. Your story is your story. None of us speak for all sex workers. And be honest. As Bob Dylan memorably put it “If you live outside the law you must be honest.” So long as we are all on the level, then getting as many true voices out there as possible is no bad thing.
Now back to the critics...
For pity's sake don't come crying to me if you're not as popular as you like. As the objective evidence shows, it categorically is not down to me whether or not people want to read your writing.
As regards writing as a career, it is dangerous to assume I or anyone else is getting "vastly rich" off of writing (as one bitter soul recently accused). Many people seem to think that writing a book, even a bestselling one, is a ticket to financial freedom and nets far beyond what even your common-or-garden escort can potentially make. I hate to break it to the dreamers, but that is not so.
If it was, do you think I'd still be writing? Hell, no. I'd be kicking back with J.K. Rowling and E.L. James in our secret volcano fortress warming my toes on a fire built by our minions entirely out of £50 notes and cackling madly. As opposed to the reality - sitting in my home office in a very average house in one of the poorest areas of the country. I'm not bankrolled by any grant-grabbing NGOs, my personal appearances usually only cover expenses, and nuisance legal threats from people with a lot of time on their hands cost more than all my living expenses combined. I've done better than most by writing and am still a long way off being a millionaire.
As it turns out, I hear the person who made that accusation supposedly comes from family money herself and spends her time as a dilettante poetess. If that's true, well, good luck with that. Whatever works amirite?
Best of luck, former fellow hos. This is not exactly the road less traveled but is no less bumpy for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)