Monthly Archives: January 2013

I blog something Roland told me not to, and whine about abolitionists silencing me

Roland says I’m not allowed to blog about our last phone conversation, but I’m pretty pissed off with him now so I’m totally going to do it (well, I’m going to report 3 things he said – not the whole conversation, because I actually respect people’s wishes unlike Roland.)

Why I’m pissed off with him is that for reasons I’m not allowed to reveal, he’s making me wait ages; he has to, and I don’t mind this. What I do mind is that he doesn’t contact me to establish some sort of plan for how we are going to rethink this and some kind of date/timeframe. Yet, he says he does want to carry on with this, which means I’m not free to seek a contract with anyone else, but must carry on waiting for him to tell me when he’ll be ready to fulfil his part of the deal.

He totally knows that I expected it to be over in the summer, because in the Tower restaurant where we made the arrangement I was hesitant about my avaiaibility after the consummation, saying I might be travelling. So although our contract did not specify a time frame, he is still sort-of in breach of contract.

I’d sue him for breach of contract but I don’t have the money and verbal contracts are hard to argue over.

I don’t like admitting that I’m having these obstacles to my plan, but this blog is, after all, a documentary (one much more organic and real than the sexual attitudes documentary programme which involved the virginity auction of Catarina Migliorini and that guy who was bought by a woman called Nene B.) So I must only write the truth.

I apologise for my absence from the blogosphere; Tor (an anonymizing browser) doesn’t work since WordPress began changing a couple months ago. I’m now using a VPN thanks to a link by The Slutocrat who blogs over at . (It appears I can’t add links while using a VPN and Ghostery.)

Anyways, I really wanted to post this stuff Roland says, so here goes. I mean what’s he gonna do, sue me for libel? But he can’t cos it’s all TRUE! He really is a disgusting pervert! I told him this once and he seemed flattered; he said sex is all in the mind and that’s why I feel that he’s slutty and therefore special and desirable compared to other men.

You know, as a kid I loved the thought of suing – to me it was funny, and a just thing you did in revenge to nasty bullies who were hurting you and who deserved it. But now I concur with a tweet I saw an hour ago (I’m writing this in the middle of the night, to be scheduled for the evening) that the libel system is fucked up. I’ve said this before to someone – that even if you win a libel case, you’ve still spent loads on your defence so really it’s a great way for the rich to harass the not so rich. And there’s no Legal Aid for most non-family Law civil lawsuits so if you can’t afford a defence, you’re screwed. If you win, you gain absolutely nothing and will have lost loads defending it.

I unknowingly put myself in danger of being sued on the internet. Not for libel or anything bad, but for something I didn’t know was sue-able. Of course, I can’t be sued since I’m anonymous, which looks like a blessing but really it’s not because it would mean that I could be outed and sued simultaneously. The person who would have sued me is a well off middle aged misogynistic religious type, and that is all I can say without being sued. So I’ve spent time thinking about what would have happened. By the way, from the would-be suer’s point of view (had this person known) it was a very ironic situation of the person he would’ve hated most (if he knows about her) indirectly helping him by stopping me doing the thing that would have been bad for him and given him the ground to sue me.

I did not reveal much about this before because the person who stopped me putting myself in danger told me something in confidence and I was afraid that by telling this story, people might guess the secret or guess her identity. (Which of course is extremely unlikely if I didn’t say precisely what she told me – unless they were watching Twitter like a hawk-, but I’m paranoid when it comes to stuff like this. Though I’m pretty lax about my own security as I’ve blabbed all sorts of details on this blog.) Anyway she’s said it publically now so that’s ok.

The other reason was I didn’t want to create another thing that radfems could criticise the person who helped me for. Because they seem determined to make accusations against her on the basis of a single sentence or retweet, and I’m sure they could turn a good deed into something to criticise, maybe saying that she’s protecting a misogynist or maybe the opposite, that she told me how to harm someone without being caught. (I’m following so many on Twitter now that for the 10 people I actually want to follow, I have to go to their profile page. So, I see all the radfems’ tweets on this person’s profile page, and it’s really annoying reading even though it’s not aimed at me.)

This story of me being almost sued would make a great blog post as it’s dramatic and ironic, but I won’t do that because I think that even if I don’t post this person’s name, the radfems will feel brave enough to publicly infer her identity if I make it too obvious. For now, even if they guess who I’m talking about, it’s a bit of a stretch for them to claim an identity for this person.

Well, that was a huge tangent. But I do think of nearly being sued quite often. I hate the idea of losing money, especially to a nasty person like the would-be suer.Though obviously people get sued all the time with disastrous consequences, even if they win. Just saw a tweet that libel cases can bankrupt companies and someone lost their job. Roland’s company was sued and it was a million just to go to court.

Maybe I think of it because he would’ve been likely to sue, if he had been able to find my identity. He can pay for a private investigator, he’s from a sue-happy culture, and as a sex-positive female sexworker, I’m exactly the kind of person he hates. And maybe because I’d have been shocked to recieve a letter saying I was being sued. I’m already appealing against a government body and have been trying to sue a group for defamation/libel since I was still a kid; they’re powerful people. So I have enough of this court stuff to be getting on with, and if I was sued I might not be able to afford to sue those who libelled me for years.

Anyways, after that massive derailment, here’s what Roland said:

“We are potentially dealing with a lot of ignorance. I don’t want this to come back and bite me in the bloody arse” – that last bit TWICE! Dunno if he was purposefully fuelling my fantasies or not, but it worked!

I was going to blog a wonderful public humiliation anecdote, but I won’t to protect his identity.

I can’t do this. I might take all sorts of liberties with my own anonymity, but when it comes to his or anyone else’s I can’t. There is an abolitionist org with good reason to dislike me, and I’m painfully aware that Stella Marr outed a sexworker/sex activist blogger just for disagreeing with her online…and, like, I just wrote a post totally slamming Stella. Somehow I doubt they would go out of their way to spare Roland if they turned their technology on me – and, guys, the abolitionists have good tech which the Ruhama Agency used today to silence a parody Twitter account (@RescueIndustry) which tweeted against them. (The screenshot of individual tweets by the parody and Ruhama suddenly appearing as protected – something that should be impossible – was retweeted a few times). Not surprising really – they’re well funded by government, donations and American Christian organisations, so why wouldn’t they have techies on their staff or specialist software at their disposal? Strange that I now fear other ‘feminists’ more than journos, huh? I guess I’m learning. So I’ll just report other more boring stuff he said:

He asked if I’d give him the passwords to this blog and the Twitter account and I said yes; he said “And why would you give me them?” to which I replied “because you asked me to.”

Yeah, this post is boring, but it’s necessary to be vague right now because I know I have enemies among the abolitionists – I’m not being paranoid, they have tried to silence me a couple of times, though I can’t talk about that either without giving out more information about myself to them.

When you’re anonymous it’s hard to call out those who oppress or silence you. Though sometimes of course it’s easier, e.g. anonymous whistleblowing.

I should’ve written this blog as memoir not a diary. Diaries go off on tangents and anonymity is even more important. Memoirs can be zingy highlights of the most important bits.

Roland said “the internet is the ultimate blurring of fantasy and reality” but everything I post here is true. He says he thinks I’m not even doing it for the money any more, but for a fantasy. He thinks me tweeting and blogging is dangerous to our anonymity, and that I have fantasies of “public humiliation and to an extent exhibitionism” so that makes me flirt with the danger of having my identity revealed (which is absolutely true).

But apparently the danger is very very real, or so he says, and I know that now. I told him that if my identity was discovered and I was in a position to choose which of us would be outed, I’d have myself outed.

“But if that became necessary, it would mean we had failed,” he said.

I hope me blogging this makes him cancel the contract and then I can move on to a new client who won’t ignore me and leave me hanging for ages. Or maybe it’ll instead remind Roland that I exist. I really do not care. I sometimes question why I’m even doing this now, (since I’m no longer aiming to make this blog famous or be the next Belle, because even if I did get famous I’d be the first and only Kalika, as Belle isn’t a commodity or brand you can be, but a real actual person). Why did I even do his in the first place, anyway? It’s brought me nothing but surveillance, silencing and (possible) hacking by other “feminists”. I’ve tried to find out what exactly they’re doing but I’m useless at tech so I don’t know. What I do know is that due to their own unimaginativeness, they do not know my identity and are unlikely to ever find out. They’re barking up the wrong tree entirely, and I don’t think they are that interested in outing me, just silencing me.

Yeah, this is a negative post because it’s a diary not a memoir so it’s more raw (well that’s my interpretation, some memoirs are raw). Is sexwork a thing that makes you unhappy? Yes, when you’re constantly being silenced and maybe under threat of outing by feminists or journos! I’m even effectively silenced on my own blog because to tell you what happened would only let them know more about my identity – they know nothing so far – and would just make them more pissed off. Though I probably will give them good reason to be pissed off in the future anyway.

And I don’t really want Roland to go away, I think it’s just that I’ve been annoyed with him for a while and I’m scared right now. Not that I’ll be outed, but because I know what I’m up against and how far they’ll go.

Since I created this blog and started being active online about selling sex, feminists have: told me I’m a victim, stopped me from communicating twice, appear to be closely watching what I say, hacked or otherwise used technology to silence me and told me lies to get me to stop selling sex. Journos have been oblivious. Conservatives left exactly one comment. Seeing the shit that other sexworkers and sexworker allies take daily on Twitter is kind of depressing, too. Funnily enough, I’m left alone by the radfems on Twitter; they never bother me there at all.

On a more positive note, I don’t think the radfems and abolitionist orgs will ever succeed in silencing sexworkers, no matter how hard they try. They might be incredibly well funded, well staffed and well organised, and better able to speak as they’re not anonymous. But we have evidence and facts on our side.

And I do know why I’m doing this (selling virginity) – for me. For the experience, the unique experience of it all. So I can say I’ve done it. It’s something nobody can ever take away from me. This is worth everything.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Anti prostitution rhetoric is an agenda for mass irresponsibility (especially you, Stella Marr)

This post is not going to deal primarily with the harm that is being caused by criminalization (arrests of sexworkers, which occur even with the Swedish ‘end demand model’, state sexual assault framed as ‘evidence gathering’, civil liberties and police surveillance. I’ve written about this before. Instead, I’m going to focus on the irresponsibility of abolitionist logic and what they’re doing.

Stella Marr

Firstly, abolitionists do not accept responsibility for their own mistakes. Stella Marr is a wonderful example. She chose to enter the sex industry, but instead of admitting it was her own choice, she blames men/the patriarchy/the sex industry. Stella was a high-class escort in Manhattan, who eventually went to cohabit with one of her clients, a British professor, for two years. He gave her “a beautiful condominium across from the Lincoln center” which she sold and then went off to university where she met her life partner, the ‘beloved’ she’d been waiting for. (All this information is from Stella’s own blog).

So, she was actually much more fortunate than the other students. They were living on a tight budget, still relatively inexperienced with the opposite sex, vulnerable to being hurt by breakups and knowing that they have a lot of uni debts to pay back. But Stella had lots of money and was much less vulnerable to being coerced by boys or being hurt by breakups or regretting casual sex. She didn’t have to figure out relationships or worry about debts or what would happen if she didn’t get her degree; she had money so didn’t need a degree. She was living a dream student life – well, actually the life she was living wasn’t a student’s life at all, it was the life a well-off person.

But Stella calls herself a “prostituted” woman as if she was trafficked, instead of choosing to go into sexwork. I feel genuinely bad for her that she regrets her choice of career. But we all make mistakes and we all have to own up to them. We can’t all blame men for that. It also seems ungrateful to her client to imply that he was bad for her. Women get beaten or raped by boyfriends and husbands, yet he was just her punter and he treated her better than many men treat their partners and lived with her like they were married. But no, Stella still thinks all this is legitimately something to whinge about. She should try being a battered wife, or a woman who is used by a man for sex and then dumped. Or me – Roland hasn’t given me a house. Huh.

Also, the fact that she tried to out a fellow sexworker, (@pastachips on Twitter who blogs over at on SCASE’s (an anti-sexwork group) very public Facebook page, is not very impressive. It is not very nice when the threat to your anonymity comes from a feminist, an ex-whore, who (in theory) should be one of your own. Not a journalist or a conservative, but someone who knows what it’s like to be you. I didn’t think about anonymity back then;  it was just more freeing writing such personal stuff under a pseudonym, and I’d actually thought about writing under my real identity. But I assumed people would respect your wish to remain anonymous unless you were trolling.

Stella Marr has 3 degrees; why can’t she think? She is now a well known abolitionist figure in some circles, and a public speaker; she gets fame and money to say this stuff. It’s incredible. And it looks like sexwork at least now has brought her a degree of fame, so it wasn’t all bad for her. At least she wasn’t outed like other sexworkers and sex bloggers;, or fired for previously being a call girl like American teacher Melissa Petro. She is accepted by society despite being an ex-sexworker because he is repentant; she bolsters the patriarchal ideas of women’s innate modesty by regretting sexwork and by claiming that no woman willingly sells sex. This soothes the fears of many a conservative.

Abolitionist rhetoric

The feminist orgs’ position that sexwork is violence against women is also promoting the refusal to accept responsibility for your own choices, but instead blame it on society and on men for demanding it. Yes, clients are part of the equation, but neither can the provider’s agency be denied. They are silencing sexworkers’ stories, confusing sex with rape and sexwork with trafficking, to the annoyance of real anti human trafficking organisations. They confuse the issue of human trafficking. This is also insulting to human trafficking and rape survivors, who did not consent and whose experiences were traumatic and violent, not just another day at work. They also bolster patriarchal norms of modest women, which promotes rigid gender norms and the sexual double standard.

Rhoda Grant MSP

If ignoring the existence of male sexworkers and female clients isn’t irresponsible, I don’t know what it. She’s a politician. She is prepared to drastically change the law while knowing nothing about the issue. She also presented misleading information in her consultation. Oh, and she’s pushing for a law that is very harmful to sexworkers.

In general

All of this is just holding back feminism. Men won’t take women seriously if we are seen not to admit our own mistakes. Teaching female children and young girls to be irresponsible and give others the blame for their mistakes is not a good example. Confusing sex and rape just plays into the hands of rape apologists and rape culture more generally.

Tackling human trafficking is very important, but by giving a separate designation to ‘sex trafficking’ instead of just leaving it in with human or labour trafficking, they are getting in the way of real human trafficking organisations. By vastly inflating sex trafficking figures, the abolitionist groups get funding which is not needed and which should be going to human trafficking groups who are struggling to raise awareness of labour trafficking which doesn’t involve the sex industry.

The rhetoric also begs the question whether sugar daddy relationships and sites like which pair up students with rich older men who give them a monthly allowance in exchange for a sexual relationship will be criminalized. This is clearly sexwork, but the radical feminists seem to define sexwork differently (though Grant’s consultation doesn’t define ‘sex’ or ‘money’, to stop people getting around it.) It also begs the question of whether pro dome, fetish and adult baby service providers are sexworkers and therefore whether their lients should be criminalised. (Grant’s consultation would probably catch all of these as well as anyone haing sex after dinner and a movie). Threatening so many of us with arrest, jail and a criminal record is clearly irresponsible.

British abolitionist groups are funded by right-wing American Christians, giving Americans too much influence over British politics and laws, now culminating in Rhoda Grant’s consultation.

All this leads to increased policing and moralizing attitudes which push sexworkers, especislly street workers, out into dark, secluded areas where they might experience violence. Some died because policing forced them away from well lit areas. In other countries where criminalization holds sway, rape by clients and abuse by police as well as trafficking has increased. It’s very ironic and sad that people are being murdered and raped because of criminalization which is supposed to ‘help’ them – a ‘help’ they never asked for and are doing their best to fight.

Rhoda – misleading information in Consultation:

Feminists’ tactics to silence sexworkers, by Nine on the Feminist Ire blog. (She’s @supernowescna on Twitter):

Letter from an Irish sexworker about feminist organizations oppressing sexworkers and lack of representation of sexworkes at a hearing about criminalization:

A woman died when increased policing forced her to do street sexwork away from the city:

These links are sources for what I’ve said in this post, but I’ve left out all the sources about criminalization etc because they are in my other posts here:

Why I think sex trafficking should be  lumped in with labour trafficking, and more sources:

My response to Rhoda Grant’s consultation:

UPDATE: Stella Marr links (wasn’t going to post these, but understandably you might appreciate some evidence that I’m not just making stuff up):

The Stella Marr v Glasgow Sex Worker fiasco:

They disagreed and had a simple and civil debate —-> possibly to do with/escalated by this stuff:

Then Stella doxed GSW and attempted to out GSW on SCASE’S Facebook page —>

Stella Marr’s blog:

1 Comment

Posted by on January 12, 2013 in Feminism, Sex work


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Sex trafficking is labour trafficking – and that’s what we should call it

Sex trafficking is just one form of labour trafficking. The phrase “sex trafficking” is as redundant as saying “cleaning trafficking”, “personal assistant trafficking” or “farm trafficking” to describe the trafficking of cleaners, servants and farm workers. We don’t call the ancestors of many African Americans “victims of fieldwork trafficking”, do we? The issue of people being trafficked into sex work should be handled in the same way as the issue of people trafficked into any other kind of work. The sex industry isn’t magically different from any other industry; all work requires the use of the body in the same way, whether it’s hitting keys with your fingertips, thrusting your elbow into a shit-filled pipe, gyrating your body (ballet dancer to lapdancer) or touching someone else’s naked body (doctor, sexworker, actor, masseuse).

But they aren’t being treated the same way. Millions of pounds and dollars are poured down the drain in pursuit of traffickers that don’t exist while labour trafficking by comparison is virtually ignored by governments, and police – even though millions more people are victims of labour trafficking than sex trafficking. (See The Sex Myth, which I promised myself I wouldn’t promote again, but it’s the most accessible source for someone who’s just looking to get a bit more info and doesn’t want to end up waist deep in academic articles and politics. You could also try the list of references/further reading below).

The problem with designating sex trafficking as different from labour trafficking is that it creates a very fictional and arbitrary distinction. There is no logic to this distinction. It creates more othering and stigma of sexwork and the sex industry. When the issue of sex trafficking is hijacked by radical feminists or moralists trying to criminalize sexwork under the guise of feminism, the distinction can be used to brand all sexworkers as “trafficked” and create a stereotype of the underage, female trafficked victim and the coerced, unhappy female sexworker. Boys and men are often ignored as if they simply don’t exist or are unworthy of the recognition or protection given to their sisters. And female sexwokers are branded as little different from trafficked women – often leading to laws and policies which criminalize sexwork or sex purchase in the name of feminism and lead to increased trafficking and violence against sexworkers. Male sexworkers and female sex buyers are usually ignored and forgotten during these struggles over criminalization. Sexworkers’ voices are also usually ignored by politicians, NGOs and the general public.

We are clearly unable, as a society, to be trusted to think about anything to do with sex in a calm, mature way. From jailing people for consensual BDSM (the UK Spanner case in the 1990s) to all the 2012 political disasters regarding abortion, abstinence, contraception and rape in both the UK and USA, we clearly seem conditioned to treat anything remotely sex-related (or related to women’s bodies) very differently from issues which do not immediately appear to be sex-related (or women’s body-related). The above issues are of course as much related to men’s bodies – and many other things such as health, culture and the economy for a start- but we perceive them as relating to slutty, slutty women. It’s the same with sex trafficking – control of women’s bodies permeates the whole criminalization agenda.

So, I think we should stop using the phrase “sex trafficking”. We should include sex trafficking in labour trafficking. If we do this:

1) The multimillionaire right-wing Christians in America might stop giving so much funding to dubious organisations in the UK and Ireland which campaign for criminalization on the basis of lies, and by denying real sexworkers’ lived experiences. A major player is the Ruhama Agency which ran Ireland’s Magdalene laundries where unmarried mothers were tortured until 1998. Now that their whole abusing girls thing has collapsed, their interest in ‘fallen women’ is now turned on sexworkers. They, who abused vulnerable, stigmatised young women now want to criminalze sexwork to ‘protect’ sexworkers from their clients and escort agencies. And of course it was conservative attitudes that landed the girls in the laundries in the first place, instead of their unmarried motherhood being accepted by their families.

2) Politicians will not be able to co-opt feminism to trick people into supporting criminalization, because we don’t have a labour trafficking stereotype of the young female.

3)Without the word “sex” in it, governments might actually be able to think more calmly and clearly about the issue and not waste our money hunting for victims and criminals who don’t exist (and arresting or deporting innocent sexworkers in the process.)

4) The sex industry will not be singled out and ‘othered’ and sexworkers will not be stigmatised as ‘the other’ or stereotyped  as sad, helpless  victims with no agency. Sex purchasers won’t be stigmatised as rapists. Rape will not be confused with consensual sex (which is an insult to actual rape victims, rape survivors and trafficked people).

5) We won’t have ridiculous laws which define all migrant sexworkers as “trafficked”, because defining all migrant labourers as trafficked would be seen as stupid. (See how smart we are when the ‘S’ word isn’t there?)

In conclusion, I think we should entirely abandon the phrase “sex trafficking” in favour of “labour trafficking” and/or “human trafficking”. After all, every other industry doesn’t get a trafficking term for itself; why is the sex industry so special?

References/further reading (Dr Magnanti’s response to the Rhoda Grant consultation( the attempt to criminalise sexwork in Scotland). Similar to the last two chapters of her book The Sex Myth, so it’s a good option if you don’t want to buy the book.  Feminist blog (sexwork category) (You can just Google the Magdalen laundries, but here Dr Brooke Magnanti does that for you, in a sexwork/rescue industry context.)

Obviously I could put more sources, but if you’re approaching the issue with no prior knowledge, Brooke’s stuff tends to be the most clear, and I think these dources are the most relevant to the content of this particular post.

Twitter: Don’t feel like reading? Great people to follow on Twitter are: Gaye Dalton, Sarah Woolley, Carol Fenton, Feckn Voters, Maggie McNeill, SexworkIE, Red Umbrella Fund, PastaChips, Laura Agustin, GlasgaeLauraLee, Banjaxed Brehon, Rene Ross, ElrondMiddleEngland, Dave Lohan, Darby Hickey, Madam Becky Adams, Nine, Petite Jasmine, Wendy Lyon, Slutocracy, Thomas Larson and Sex Workers.

Please note that for some of the people I’ve mentioned, I’ve only seen a few of their tweets. I don’t necessarily agree with these people’s views, I’m just mentioning them because they tweet stuff that is relevant to this particular blog post. Also, nearly all of these people have blogs which you can click to from their Twitter profile. I’ve made these suggestions because it seems to me to be a better idea than just listing lots of academic material that is boring reading and that you might have to pay to access. If you would like to see academic material, you can check out my response to the Rhoda Grant’s consultation:


Posted by on January 6, 2013 in Sex work


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Turning bisexual isn’t a big deal: identity, sexuality and the gay – straight divide

I know that being queer is supposed to be a big deal, right? Our society makes much of the issue of sexuality and we draw very clear dividing lines around sexual orientation (as well as all aspects of sexuality and family form, usually resulting in discrimination against sexual minorities and minority family forms).

Turning bisexual (or discovering I am bisexual) shortly before the failed Mayan apocalypse doesn’t mean anything to me. Maybe it’s because I suspeced I have bi tendencies, or have always wished to be bisexual? I don’t know. All I know is that this isn’t a big part of my identity. I feel no wish to identify as bi or queer. Being kinky and having sold sex (I am not using the phrase ‘being a sexworker’ because Roland and I are having to rethink how we’re doing this, for a reason he’s not allowing me to say. However in a couple of weeks I’m going to start calling myself a sexworker again) are much bigger parts of my identity. Incidentally, they are also bigger parts of my identity than race or religion.

I didn’t choose to be bi, it just happened over 4 days. I have a crush on Lynne, one of Twitter followers (the geniuses amongst you will have realised that Lynne is of course a pseudonym, as is every single name on this blog, bar public figures and politicians etc.)

I’ve always liked what she says but now it’s more of a crush than a girlcrush. Though it does seem to be receding now, perhaps because I tend to lose interest in crushes quickly, unless it is a mild crush, which can last up to a year. Lynne is also pretty inaccessible. She is my first ideas-based crush; previously I was attracted to boys who look good. Though Lynne is definitely very pretty. But that is completely secondary to me. I know I’ll never have her, for reasons I can’t really say in case she reads this. I don’t think she reads my blog often – if at all – but you never know, because if she follows me then she might because this blog posts to Twitter. I don’t think I’ll ever tell her; my friend Lochlan says I shouldn’t, and I think there’s no point telling her because it might just creep her out. And she’s not going to drop a long-term relationship for some random young girl who can’t promise commitment. I mean, I’d like her forever as a friend, but I’d be unlikely to be able to do the whole living together or monogamous lifestyle for very long. I’d be more likely to mess up her life than bring anything good to it, and she has enough shit thrown at her already without me adding to the pile.

I think I could love her, but probably not forever. And I’d never want anyone to leave their partner for me. I wish she was in an open relationship or poly. She might be; I dunno.

I think I also like Lynne for her ethics, integrity and how she cares about people and is never out for herself. She seems to me to be very ‘real’ and there is no agenda or motives behind anything she does or says. She’s always just being herself.

This episode has taught me that being queer doesn’t have to be a big part of your identity or the thing that defines you. Being kinky will be my identity forever, and being a sexworker will be my identity until we finally get to do it. (Roland frustrates me so much, and I was going to call it off with him and find someone else, but I’m giving him a second chance because I know he’s not doing this on purpose. However he is ruining my Twitter account and this blog, cos there is now lack of virginity-selling updates.)

Question: Why does ‘sexual identity’ usually mean ‘sexuality’? Why is the difference between straight or bisexual more important than the distinction between vanilla and kinky or mono and poly? Or ‘slutty’ and abstinent? I feel that my sexual identity is kinky, poly and slutty more than I feel that being bi is my sexual identity.

And the whole ‘coming out’ thing? I think my family and friends would be more shocked about me coming out as selling virginity than they would be about me being bisexual. And for me, it would mean more to me for them to know I’m kinky and what my main kinks are, and it means less to me to tell them about selling virginity or being bisexual.

For a woman who is bisexual yet leans far more towards men, the impact on her family is much less than a lesbian* or 50/50 bisexual woman. My parents aren’t going to worry much that I won’t give them grandkids, because I’d be unlikely to go for long with female-only contact; and in my (immediate) family, marrying a woman isn’t a biggie. Actually, neither are grandchildren. But kinks are something they wouldn’t understand and sexwork goes against their conservatism, though it is a very mild conservatism and they would never treat sexworkers differently r look down on them.

*If both are in similar family situations.