Author Archives: Kalika Gold: VirginWhore

About Kalika Gold: VirginWhore

I'm blogging to document my experience selling my virginity. The blog is also a liberal feminist blog for the promotion of sexual freedom. I'm currently working with author Ruth Jacobs and writer Slutocrat to get the Merseyside model implemented across all UK police forces. I'm also doing a postgrad and have a part-time job in a cafe.

My disturbed childhood, or, did slutshaming lead me to sex work?


I had what anyone else would see as a very disturbed childhood. Luckily, my family was always there for me. There were lies against me and my family from when I was a young child to when I was a teenager. I loved it. The thrill of the battle was something I learned from a very, very young age. I can’t write any more because of anonymity and libel laws, but even if it wasn’t for that I still couldn’t write everything. You’d never believe me and besides it’d take up an entire book. I’ve seen things you wouldn’t believe. Nithing physical or sexual, but probably even more unbelievable because there isn’t the simple motive behind the behaviour. But there was another thing, and this thing I think damaged me; I’d punish myself for accidentally annoying people or for saying something wrong. You see, as a kid I hardly ever did anything wrong – I had the rules worked out when I was about five. But I said things wrong.

So, growing up in this situation I saw the world as dangerous and life as a game. I was much more confident than my peers and very afraid of criticism; I saw the aim of life as being to challenge bad people. (And I still do.) I was distrustful and revengeful, and interested in the way I could influence people and events. I learned how to lie from those who bullied me and lied about me. I studied their tactics with admiration and a fierce desire to become as skilled as them. Meanwhile I was constantly being emotionally abused, so I would be either very happy and confident or suddenly plunged into feeling empty and worthless. I’d hate myself at times.

I wished to be loved unconditionally, though now I’m afraid of love.

I believed that this unhappy part of me was not real and I only became ‘integrated’ through talking about this with Kane, a polyamorous Dom I met on a fetish site. He wanted me to go to America to be with him, then dumped me because I wasn’t looking for stability shortly after the creation of this blog. (I blogged about it at the time.) Him dumping me did not upset me at all because I was not emotionally invested in him, and at the time I never had more than lust for anyone. Talk of an emotional side to sex or of sex being somehow ‘meaningful’ always baffled me. I could understand sex as an art form or a means to an end or even an experiment, but I couldn’t understand it in those terms. I was not to have a serious crush on anyone until Lynne several months later.

Anyway, I realised that I no longer have the either really happy or really sad thing. I’m much more balanced now and I haven’t felt anxious (by which I mean a non-specific anxiety or paranoia over anonymity) for months now. I’m not the happiest that I’ve been in months, but I’m definitely the most emotionally healthy that I’ve been ever. And it’s great.

Oh, and here’s something you might enjoy: The lies against me were mostly about me having learning disabilities, no social skills and autism but included lies that I had an “immoral lifestyle” and inappropriate sexual boundaries/sexualised behaviour. Well, I’m showing them how Kalika does an immoral lifestyle! I don’t know what exactly they meant by all that, but one thing I do know is that they could never have imagined I would sell my virginity.

The truth is often stranger than fiction.

Kali xx



Merseyside Model Petition – Sign & Make a Difference


Merseyside model petition & interview with Jayne Rogers

The Merseyside model petition is up! The petition aims to extend the Merseyside Police’s strategy (declaring all crimes against sex workers hate crimes and working in partnership with sex workers’ organisations to catch violent criminals) to all UK police forces. You can sign it here:

The petition isn’t in my name because for Government petitions, a legal name and current address are required. The name is visible on the petition and being a sex worker you risk being fired if you out yourself. Although I’m currently still studying, I’m worried that future employers might discriminate against me when I graduate and enter the job market. I’m not trying to say that most employers are bigots – I’m sure most of them are perfectly nice, decent human beings – but you never know. So this requirement is yet another obstacle to sex workers campaigning for basic rights and equality with those in other careers. I could have done a petition, but a Government petition would have more chance of success because if we get 100,000 signatures by 22 October 2013, the petition will have to be discussed in Parliament.

So, mental health professional Jayne Rogers created the petition out of a text that I drafted (the text is written to appeal to antis and feminists as well, which is why the term “prostitution” appears alongside “sex work”.) Jayne Rogers is neither a sex worker nor an anti. I interviewed her so you can all see where she’s coming from:

Interview with Jayne Rogers

Although the Merseyside model can be supported by everyone, it would be interessting to know your personal opinion of sex work?

I hold no hard & fast views on the rights of an individual to sell what is theirs to sell. I don’t come from a moralistic viewpoint. I believe people should be given information to make decisions for themselves & assistance to get out of situations that are damaging to them. I don’t believe people should be abused for the financial benefit of others. I have concerns about sex workers becoming hidden from sight & beyond the reach of  assistance if abolition became law.

What is your opinion of the Nordic/Swedish Model?

I’m not sure that the UK is culturally fit to receive this model, there is too much social deprivation which is set to get worse in the presence of increased unemployment which we know hits women & men from deprived social backgrounds hardest.
It would be great if no one had to sell sex against their will to survive but we’re not in that place yet.

Now that your name’s on this petition, What do you hope it achieves?

Merseyside model & Ugly Mugs scheme have shown an increase in prosecutions & reporting for attacks against sex workers. Training a select group of police who are empathic & targeted to understand the issues at stake to engender the trust & goodwill of sex workers is essential. Attitudinal change in public perception should follow if the police are engaged positively though there is a long way to go. The bottom line is that any sex worker should be able to report a crime against them without prejudice and as an equal citizen. It’s just not ok that anyone should be abused in any way, shape or form without recourse to justice.
Merseyside model is needed anyway to start a focus on the attitudinal change needed in the police force for sex workers to feel able to report crime, to know that it will be treated seriously & be treated with respect. It does not exclude the Nordic model but people need to feel & be safe now.
Sex workers need to have helpful no strings attached services available to let them work safely if that is what they wish to do or to have opportunity & support to exit with skills training, education, counselling, protection & housing.

Any other thoughts on these issues?

I really hope that people support this. I know there are differences in opinion about what model is the best way,  I am no expert but have been learning a lot from the opinions & blogs of exited & non exited women, one of whom has become a very close friend, I’ve learned a lot from her. It’s about time we made sex work & workers visible, listened to & treated as any other citizen deserves to be in pursuing their lives without prejudice.

Peek behind the scenes: I was curious about Jayne’s background in mental health and if anything she’d experienced or seen had made her care about sex workers’ issues. This is what she said:

I’ve worked with people who have severe & enduring mental health difficulties for many years starting off  like most health care workers of my generation working in the big bins. I started to get interested in the histories of very disturbed women clients who from early records of their illness had clearly come from a background of sexual abuse. The culture of the big bins allowed further abuse to women patients who would sell sexual favours to male patients, usually for one or two cigarettes. Nobody thought this was wrong or damaging, it was the way it was. There were some women who were more entrepreneurial who set up business as the hospital ‘slag’ usually raking in a better rate of cigarettes per sexual favour.  I came across a woman I knew well who was blown & past her prime at the bottom of the stairs one day in floods of tears. I asked her why she was upset, she said she’d had sex for cigarettes. I said ‘What’s new?’. She said ‘I fucked him for 10 fags, he took 5 away because I wasn’t good enough.’ The reality is that 50% of her income was at stake in a situation of dreadful social deprivation, she was robbed, she was abused. That exchange has stayed with me.

In more recent times working in community care in deprived inner city areas has made me acutely aware of vulnerable women having even less protection than there was in hospitals.  I regularly saw trafficked women on the street, sometimes being slapped & beaten in full public view with no-one giving a damn or picking up their mobile to call the police. In my job I saw women in regular danger of trafficking.


Posted by on April 22, 2013 in Sex work


Tags: , , , ,

What if radfems spanked sex workers, why I fancy Thatcher’s grandson and how I almost deleted this blog

I have so much to tell you. I’m negotiating with 1 guy and have been contacted by 1 couple to sell virginity, and The One’s just texted me. I also have to tell you why my name won’t be on the Merseyside petition and the next campaign that’s on the horizon. And on the 17th I decided to do a blog called “All My (blonde) Loves: how blonde Americans are all out to screw me (but sadly not literally” which will cover the years from 2001 to the present. I wanted to offer something un-Thatcher-related that’s a sort of pisstake of me from pre-puberty to now and how, though I have a thing for black-haired boys, I never learn that blondes are all jinxed for me. I’m not going to reveal my age, but I’m probably younger than some of you might think.

I’ve had emails from a couple of people, including a girl around my age whose experience of trying to sell virginity I totally get. (No – I am not the only VirginWhore around). People think I’m everything from brave to disgusting to talented but really I’m just me.

I seriously considered deleting this blog and my Twitter. It just seemed like I’d failed – I hadn’t yet found a new buyer (I’ve got 2 possibles now) and the controversy over Ruth’s tweets was at its height. And then there was the other thing which I may or may not blog about. I mean I’ve touched on it in this post but not very explicitly. Though if I’m honest it was mainly this third thing that was bugging me. Anyway 2 of my friends told me not to delete it because the blog is interesting and deleting it or even just deleting Twitter would not solve anything for me. I think I might have deleted Twitter at least if it wasn’t for the Merseyside campaign. I thought I’d wait till the petition went up and had enough support and then delete Twitter, but of course that timespan is far longer than the time it took me to calm down and realise the pointlessness of such action. I’d thought to return to an offline life of normality and forget any of this blogging/Twitter/sex work stuff ever happened. I figured I’d had a good run and now it was time to go back to the real world. But as time went by I felt like I shouldn’t destroy or abandon all my work just because of this thing.

I keep meaning to blog stuff but selling virginity stuff sometimes takes up time and yesterday just as I was about to blog “All My (blonde) Loves”, my friend Renata was on the phone to me and going on about morals, how it’s better to be honest and charge for time instead of dating because you’ll get a great dinner or a fab holiday, or marrying for money. Anyway as she was describing having sex for a meal, I got totally turned on and I was giggling and being like “this is totally turning me on, wait, I have to hold something cold”. My airgun is usually on my desk so I reached across and grasped it as Renata continued with her story and we were both giggling. It was utterly surreal, me sitting at a desk with a phone clamped to my ear, wearing a brown and gold hoodie and leaning across to clutch an airgun.

Then I told her that on the 17th I realised I fancy Michael Thatcher, the good-looking blonde 24 year old grandson of Margaret. She laughed and said she couldn’t believe it. But the truth is, I do want him. I’d love to have sex with him just to piss off Margaret. If she’s watching from beyond the grave she would be so pissed. My superficial lust-based attraction to Michael has totally lifted the first serious crush I ever had, which was a MASSIVE relief. I hate being under the influence of another person and I don’t know how anyone can stand it. It is the ultimate insult to free will. I was always cynical about love and having that crush has only made me terrified of it. I hope to never again be subjected to feelings outwith my control. You know how in ‘The Portrait of Dorian Gray’ Basil describes being dominated by Dorian’s personality? I think even in the fascination there is still domination. The only way to respect yourself is to have casual sex where you don’t fancy them or only fancy them superficially. I might do a blog on this, actually. And change all the names of course.

We were talking for over an hour and later we somehow got to talking about a sex worker on Twitter and Renata said she’s really nice. Then I told Renata a really funny thing I said to her about someone else, which is hilarious: “I hope the radfems find her house and eat all of her ice cream and then spank her until she cries”. (By the way, I did add at the time that if they did it would be rape and I’d be “absolutely mad”. I also added that she could just buy more ice ceam and being spanked can’t really hurt you.)

Then I got interested in what it would look like. This is absolutely normal for me – I love to imagine the nuance of every scene and how everyone would react. So I said “I wonder what that would look like?” and Renata says “Now you’ve put it in my head! I can’t get that image out of my head now”. I begged her to describe it to me and she would only describe it a tiny bit, saying stuff like “spanking session” and “rather large radical feminists” and I was giggling and writing it down for wanking material. Renata said she wouldn’t describe it and I was like “PLEASE! I’ll do anything, I’ll do stuff I didn’t do with Roland” and we’re both in hysterics and she says she has some old erotic books she can give me.

I’m like, “Is she crying? In your head?”

Renata: “No, she was into it.”

Me: “Oh. I thought she’d be crying and it would be really painful.”

Her: “That was in YOUR head, not my head.”

You see why I get distracted from blogging.


I was 7 years old. It was the Nineties. The place was a shop in Oban. The thing that was to change my life was a small, flip-pad style notebook with a Highland cow on the front cover. My mum bought it for me without me asking her for it. I filled it up in a few weeks and asked for another one. As the years passed I went through many, many notebooks. I made my own little books. At age 9 I created my first illustrated BDSM stories and comics. At 12 I was filling multiple notebooks with stories and had one for erotic stories. I typed lots of stuff on a word processor from age 11 and at age 14 we got a desktop. All those years ago I started writing in that Highland Cow notebook and I haven’t stopped writing since.



Tags: , , ,

Rape victims get 50% of compensation cut for doing sex work

At the Sex Worker Open University (SWOU) event in Glasgow, the ECP revealed that after police failed to deal with a serial rapist, they funded a successful private prosecution. But the two women had their Criminal Injuries Compensation cut by 50% – because they sex workers.

Para 25 p11 of the Ministry of Justice’s Guidelines state that compensation can be cut for “conduct”:

An award may be withheld or reduced where the conduct of the applicant before,during or after the incident giving rise to the criminal injury makes it inappropriate to make an award or a full award.

Sex work was considered “conduct” which provoked the rape. No other job could be so willfully and openly punished, and no other rape victim would have been victim-blamed so much. If anyone was in doubt that sex workers are stigmatised, this is the final proof.

Happily, the problem is easy to remedy. Para 25 goes on to say “For this purpose, conduct does not include intoxication through alcohol or drugs to the extent that such intoxication made the applicant morevulnerable to becoming a victim of a crime of violence.” So all that is needed is for the words “choice of career”, “work”, “sex work” or similar before or after the line about intoxication.

As Irish Law student  @belowcontempt noted, the Irish Criminal Compensation laws are even more far-reaching, though they also do not specify rape or sex work.

Compensation was witheld – for both rape and murder – in Australia in 2006. The judge reportedly made shocking comments like “this wasn’t a woman waiting at home for her husband.”

Women are being reduced to their job – sex work. They aren’t human beings, they’re commodities. This is also insulying to men because it imples that rape is simply a risk of the job, that all clients are potential rapists.

The targetting of sex workers raises a number of philosophical conundrums: would compensation be cut if a sex worker is raped while not doing sex work, for example if she is raped by her husband? What if a man is raped one hour before exiting the sex industry? Or if, an hour after being raped, a woman joins becomes a sex worker (and how would the start time be calculated, anyway? Her first phone call to the escort agency, or when she sees her first client?) Gaye Dalton (@mechanima) raised an interesting question: where would I fit? How would they see my conduct? Are all sex workers equally culpable in their own rapes, or are VirginWhores less fallen so maybe should only have their compensation cut by a third instead of by half? Or is selling virginity even more reprehensible to men who literally reward (with compensation) sexual inexperience in women and punish experience?

This is disgusting. A century ago, rape wasn’t recognised as rape if the victim was not a virgin. And it looks like nowadays, rape isn’t really rape if the victim is not a non-sex worker. The Criminal Compensation Scheme is literally ascribing more value to ‘good women’ than to sex workers.

And even in its misogyny, it fails. Because non-sexworkers can be “sluts” and they won’t even require payment for doing it. At least sex workers only do it for work. And as I pointed out above, it seems to be a lottery of when you get raped – if you haven’t stopped or started sex work yet, you get double the compensation.

Government incentives to keep the women of Britain pure and under control.

Ministry of Justice Criminal Injuries Compensation Guidelines:

The Irish Department of Justice’s guidelines:


Posted by on April 8, 2013 in Sex work


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

Selling virginity: it’s sex work with a difference

In this post, I’m going to explore how and why I and other virginity sellers are different – and the same – as other sexworkers.

Why I’m Different

In this blog, I’ve been calling myself a sexworker so it might surprise you that I’m suddenly claiming to be different. And I am. But I don’t think I’m different because I’m ‘only’ selling to one person, so I’m ‘less bad’ than ‘real prostitutes’. -Not that such a line of thinking makes any logical sense outside of the conservative-patriarchal framework, anyway!

But I’m different because I’ll be judged less. Plenty of people DO subscribe to the ‘selling once is less bad’ idea. And Rhoda Grant’s Bill is only going to affect me up until I sell it. I also won’t have the same experiences as someone whose career is sex work; for me, it’s a game. I’ve admitted that over and over again, and I’ll admit it once more: it’s a thrill, it’s a game I am playing with life itself. For other sex workers, it’s work while for me it’s play. Ironically, the glamour and fun that so many attribute to sex work is probably more true of virginity sellers or newbie sex workers. For us, it’s all novel and we’re less likely to know other sexworkers. For ordinary sexworkers, it’s just work.

This is what differentiates me from other sex workers. You cannot compare someone who has built up their skills, business and reputation for years – perhaps decades- and whose earnings depend on their work, with someone who’s having a bit of fun for a few months. I’m never going to feel the same way about the Nordic model or potential violence from clients or social stigma as other sex workers. This is why I won’t do any media work unless it’s in the context of selling virginity or unusual approaches to sex work. I’m not entitled to speak for other sex workers except on issues which affect me too, such as safety.

Why I’m Not

Catarina Migliorini, who is selling her virginity as part of a documentary,  said “I do not consider myself to be a prostitute.” She used the analogy that taking one great photo in your life doesn’t make you a photographer. However, as one internet comment pointed out, committiing one murder makes you a murderer. And anyway, paid-for sex is prostitution. So you are a prostitute for the duration of selling sex, however short that may be and however you wish to calculate the start and end times of that duration. I suspect that Migliorini, as well as some students who have sugar daddies, do not wish to call themselves prostitutes because of social stigma. They have good self-esteem, so refuse to call themselves by a name which indicates worthlessness. I wonder if Migliorini knew the term ‘sex worker’, would she be willing to call herself that?

So, though we face different challenges to “regular” sexworkers, there is no getting round the fact that us virginity sellers are sexworkers.

Why It Should Suck But Doesn’t

As I’ve said above, we virginity sellers (all six or so of us who’ve been documented) have it easy regarding social stigma (and possibly hate by antis and radfems). But we also have to negotiate an industry we know nothing about, usually isolated from other sex workers and ignorant of websites and organisations that could help us. Because, like most sexworkers, we work/play/whatever in secrecy, it could be hard to find someone to talk to about it.

I was lucky. My friends Lochlan and Leanne were open-minded about it. Then after blogging for a couple of months, I joined Twitter and found other sexworkers on there. I was really irritated by Roland’s contract-breaking and although I knew I should be ringing escort agencies or starting an auction or joining sugar daddy sites, I just couldn’t seem to get motivated. I’ve always had a fear of failure, criticism and rejection, and this was public. I’d never seriously imagined Roland would break the contract, and since I wanted to retain my anonymity (as well as not having the money) there was no way I could legally enforce the contract. (Which is impossible anyway, as it would be rape to compel Roland to fulfil it. I would only get damages for breach of contract.)

Luckily, there were 2 or 3 people on Twitter who I could offload all these sadfeelz onto, and they gave me great advice as well about how to proceed with finding a new buyer. I think that if someone is a sex worker or has done sex work at some point, they get it. I was quite ashamed about my personal failure, but they helped me see that I could so easily bounce back and continue with what I was doing, and that it wasn’t anything to be embarassed about.

So, from what I’ve experienced and what I know others have experienced, the sex worker community is a great source of support and I learned basically everything I know about staying anonymous online and negotiating with clients from other sex workers (both directly, through them tweeting links at me or DM’ing me, and indirectly through reading their blogs and tweets.)

As for the (online) sex worker community itself, it seems much more inclusive than other groups or movements such as feminism. Nobody’s ever said I’m not a real sex worker since I’m just selling virginity, or that I don’t ‘get’ stuff like they do because of my difference. Or that the Nordic Model won’t affect me because I won’t be selling sex by the time it’s implemented (not that it will be).

Interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be the fragmentation in the sex worker community as there is in other groups such as anarchists or feminists. All sex workers seem to agree on most things, as do I. This whole selling virginity journey has been like coming home.

It’s just diluted sex work, and also much more than sex work

There’s also a certain novelty about exploring this corner of sexwork. This is probably the world’s first selling virginity blog (given the relative youth of blogging as a mainstream activity) just as the documentary Migliorini has yet to participate in and the American live streaming of a cam girl losing virginity are world firsts. This means that some of the posts I make about selling virginity are the first (documented, online) thoughts on the issue.

Selling virginity can be made into an art form (e.g. the live streaming) an experiment, documentary, or political statement. Sex work has largely lost that power through its ever-present existence in societies for thousands of years. Though sex work can still be explored in the same ways as selling virginity through new technologies (eg documentaries, fiction, blogs) these mediums have, at this stage, been exhausted to the point where little novelty remains and every angle has been looked at (with certain perceptions of sex work getting much more attention than others.)

The juxtaposition of the virgin and whore has been entrenched in social morality, media portrayals and art for centuries, and doubtless it will continue to fascinate.


Tags: , , ,

Goodbye Roland, and hello to the jungle

I’m ditching Roland as he’s abroad and not responding to my messages. I’m going to find someone else to sell my virginity to, and I’m not going to reveal where I’m looking. I’ve got to be careful soo I get paid, otherwise I’d look stupid on the internet, and we can’t have that, can we? I guard my online reputation with my life. Or at least my fingers.

While the taste of failure is obviously, um, unpalatable? See what I did there? – it feels kind of good to be out on the prowl again, hunting down the guy who’s going to help me achieve the biggest thrill of my life. The man (or possibly woman, but I’ve got a very strong preference for men) who is going to be given a starring role in this blog. He must be a pervert, and a kinky one.

I don’t see this as a failure, but as an opportunity to get more than £8k. And there is one person I’ve got my eye on, though it’s a long shot – a really long one. More of a fantasy, really.

One thing is for sure: now that I’ve experienced the thrill and pleasure of selling sexual services, and planned to sell my virginity, I can’t just lose it to some random person in a boring way. It would be the mother of all anticlimaxes and I would feel ashamed to write it here. So even if I don’t sell it, I must lose it in a spectacular way.

Oh, and another thing is for sure – I love my Kalika Gold identity too much to just let it fade away after I sell my virginity. I’m going to stick around – as a sex blogger, erotic writer, who knows? This blog will finish after the “consummation” as Roland called it, but Kalika will still be very much alive.

The jungle

As a kid, I thought that laws controlled the world and the time of survival of the fittest or free-for-all was long past. But clearly that’s only true for the priveleged in the developed world. And it’s far from true for sex bloggers or sex workers; the Sunday World outed a sex worker for…well, being a sex worker, and posted a YouTube video calling her “Scary Poppins” (she also worled as a nanny and as a cleaner). Thhey ruined her attempt to exit the sex industry and preyed on her just because she’s a part of a marginalised, stigmatised community. And of course anonymous bloggers – whether they’re blogging about sex work or not – get outed. Roland was a bit paranoid and successfully instilled the fear of the media in me, for good reason. He sees blogging and tweeting as dangerous in themselves.

Another threat is lawsuits, and those of you who follow me on Twitter may have noticed that II outed myself as the Rhoda Grant MSP parody because otherwise someone else would have been sued for doing the parody. I asked Rhoda Grant and Ruhama Agency how they would rate my parody of them, but they haven’t replied. This wasn’t just for fun, it was so they would know that I’m behind the parody; there is little point ‘coming out’ to sex workers and sex worker allies when the would-be suers are unaware that I’ve come out.

So, this is my life. A lone slut just trying to sell her virginity while living in fear of the media and radfems, as the attempts to criminalise sex work and endanger sex workers pile up, and the Merseyside model must be campaigned for even as both sides rage at each other over the Bills in Scotland, N Ireland and (since yesterday) the Republic of Ireland.

It’s hard, and sometimes it’s scary, and I hate seeing people I care about being bullied and even outed by the antis I’ve got to work with to achieve the Merseyside model. Knowing that I could be outed by antis or a journalist is scary, but it’s the life I’m choosing. The jungle is alive and it’s full of beautiful majestic animals, yet also crawling with vermin. It’s the jungle, full of excitement and lurking danger and pedators. I think I’m going to like it here.


Tags: ,

Police Chiefs tell all UK forces to spy on sexworkers, sabotage their ads & stop people entering sex work

While researching for the Merseyside Model campaign, The Slutocrat came across the ACPO (National Association of Chief Police Officers) Guidelines on Policing Prostitution and Sexual Exploitation Strategy (yes, they have tied the two together because obviously sex work and trafficking are all the same thing). I don’t even think exploitation, rape and trafficking are the same thing – they’re all vile, but they’re different and you can be exploited without being raped or trafficked.

I thought tweeting some of the bad stuff would be enough, (I did that yesterday) but the more I read, the more I realised I had to do a blog on it. I’m not going to mention the good stuff that was in it, because The Slutocrat is going to do that (because we’re trying to publicise the Merseyside model and some feminists won’t click into my blog because it has the word ‘whore’ in the title – though apparently having ‘slut’ in the title is fine).

The guidelines themselves do make limited use of the term sex worker, and do acknowledge that sex work has a long tradition in human society. Sadly, the text of the guidelines seem to confuse sex work with exploitation and blur both with trafficking, and use of the term “prostitution” instead of sex work is consistent throughout. The focus on interfering in sex workers’ lives and trying to make them exit the industry is especially worrying, as even if the police do consider someone to be exploited, they could help them find non-exploitative roles in the sex industry. The police are told to treat all migrant sex workers as trafficking victims until they prove they know they haven’t been trafficked (p8) which is nonsensical at best, and ‘othering’ or disscriminatory at worst (from the point of view of migrant sex workers).

The guidelines refer to sex workers’ cards in phone booths and the sight of sex workers and clients as “visual pollution” and claims that the presence of sex workers is risky for “the vulnerable” (p9). It also seems to assume that all (not just some) sex workers are exploited: “People who use the services of sex workers may not consider themselves to be exploiters, but it is the sex workers’ loss of self-esteem (and/or drug dependency, poverty, etc.) that is often being exploited.” (p10)

The Guidelines state “A key aim must be to ensure that individuals donot become involved in prostitution in the first place” (p7) – apparently freedom of choice and the choosing of one’s career are unimportant in modern police-work.

And what about “Creating a bespoke intelligence “picture” for each local area of active sex workers, which includes new sex workers to the area, kerb-crawlers and exploiters/coercers” (p8) and building intelligence on clients, whom they call “users and abusers” (p10)? This might be a good thing to protect vulnerable street workers, but are workers in any other field of employment spied on by the State like this?

The police also admit to colluding with BT to remove sex workers’ cards from phone booths (p10).

Prostitution is victim-centred, not victim-less” they state on p5 – and they obviously mean ALL sex work, not just some…looks like the radfems have sunk their claws into our police now. Which begs the question of what a radfem state would look like.

Remember how the police raided sex work establishments in the run-up to the Olympics, forcing workers to be questioned while still in their work clothes and deporting a few women? (No trafficking victims were found). Well, it seems like all along the police knew that there wasn’t going to be trafficking in the run-up to the Games: “Concerns were raised in a Metropolitan Police Authority report, published in 2009, that sex trafficking may increase in the lead up to the 2012 Olympic Games. At present there is no intelligence to support that such a trend is occurring. During the run up to the Games, the Human Exploitation and Organised Crime Command (SCD9) of the Metropolitan Police Service is working to disrupt prostitution [not just trafficking, but all sex work/”prostitution”]and rescue victims, including victims of trafficking [“including victims of trafficking” – what other victims are there? Victims of sex work??], in the five Olympic London boroughs.”

If they knew trafficking wasn’t going on, then stopping trafficking couldn’t have been their motivation for the raids. So- what was their motivation?

On the whole, the use of language is offensive and very stigmatising of the sex industry as a whole, but hopefully we can use these guidelines for a good purpose – to back up the implementation of the Merseyside model.

The ACPO’s Guidelines on Policing Prostitution and Sexual Exploitation Strategy


Posted by on March 5, 2013 in Sex work


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

Let’s make all crimes against sex workers hate crimes

In Merseyside, Police have worked in partnership with sex worker organisations to catch serial rapists and declared all crimes against sex workers to be a hate crime. The police have now have achieved a 67% conviction rate for rape against sexworkers – the national average is just 6%. Article here:

After Jemima (@itsjustahobby) over at sent Ruth Jacobs (@RuthFJacobs) who blogs at the link to the article, Ruth has got an MP on board with this sex worker collaboration model. Ruth has asked me to work with her to get this model implemented in every police force across the UK.

Ruth’s focus – in her own words – has always been to protect women in prostitution, and since finding out about Merseyside she has decided that focussing her efforts in implementing this across the UK is the best way to realise this goal. I think that whether you’re a sex worker or an abolitionist, you can support this collaboration model. It is possible for us to work together on this while each side continues to fight the Nordic model and push for it respectively. Ruth will be using the term “prostitution” in her blog post, and I’ll be calling it “sex work”, and that doesn’t matter. We plan on creating a blog solely about the Merseyside/Sex worker collaboration/Hate Crime model. This site will further our cause and will be a place where both sex workers and abolitionists can feel at home, and the rest of sex work politics are put aside.

We’re also considering creating a petition. While crimes against sex workers are not a hate crime in national law, Merseyside Police have designated these as hate crimes and hate crimes should be dealt with in a standard way across all police forces. With the single police force coming soon in Scotland, this collaboration/hate crime model might be relatively easy to implement in Scotland.

I hope that you all choose to support me and Ruth in this. A truce in this matter should be workable, even if you’re against abolitionists about every other issue.

Kali xxx


Posted by on March 2, 2013 in Sex work


Tags: , , , ,

Padraig MacLochlainn makes political decision based on tweets, bullies public, and doesn’t deny pimp with 5 aliases gave evidence to Irish prostitution hearing

On 25/02/13, elected Irish politician Padraig MacLochlainn started hurling insults at the sex workers he is claiming to help. Padraig is the TD for Donegal North East and Sinn Féin’s 26 County Spokesperson on Justice, Equality and Defence. After insulting various members of the public including sex workers, bloggers, an Irish Law student and a parody account and ‘blocking’ most of them, MacLochlainn frther demonstrated his contempt for political debate and evidence-based policy by tweeting that he will now advise Sinn Fein to support Turn Off the Red Light – not because of evidence, but because he was feeling annoyed with the people he’d just mocked and blocked.

Turn Off the Red Light is an anti-prostitution organisation.


Padraig openly claimed that in “24 hours” he had made his decision (if not actually immediately due to tweets). This doesn’t sound like the thoghtful, evidence based conduct we would expect from politicians.

When tweeted a link to an article exposing the fact that one of anti-prostitution organisation Ruhama Agency’s witnesses, a prostitution “survivor”, is actually a convicted pimp with several aliases, Padraig did not deny this. He only said that other witnesses had used aliases – which entirely misses the point. Using aliases is normal within the sex worker community, because our sex-negative society forces sex workers to remain pseudonymous. But using multiple alias on different TV shows, at hearings and other public forums is creating a false impression to the electorate that many more “survivors” support the Swedish/Nordic model than is in fact the case. And if a sex worker is also a pimp, they need to admit this at the Irish prostituution hearing, because there could be a conflict of interest. There isn’t necessarily a conflict of interest, but there might be, because the fewer rights sex workers have, the more money pimps could make, just like any other labour relationship.


There’s no denial. Does Padraig MacLochlainn not care about the integrity of the Irish prostitution hearing? Or did he already know? I guess we’ll never know. Article here:

Padraig MacLochlainn also showed incredible disdain for sex workers (and everyone else who attempted to engage him in debate). He blocked people for sending him a single, polite, reasonable tweet. He replied to tweets with “zzz” a few tiimes, then called people  “arrogant” and “very sinister” simply for engaging in political debate. Padraig MacLoclainn also appeares to take issue with the fact that “many” of the random people who happened to tweet at him at that particular time were “from overseas” (i.e. Scotland – where the same attempt to force the Swedish model is being made right now -and England). Despite his public image of helping women in the sex industry, MacLochlainn insisted on calling sex workers “prostitutes”. Padraig MacLoclainn also called someone “pathetic” for “hiding behind a false name” despite his earlier  fierce defence of  using 5 aliases in public debate and hearings. The person in question was actually a parody account rather than a “fake persona” or “false name” as MacLochlainn alleged.

But don’t take my word for it:


Stand-up comic @BBWMelody’s plea for MacLochlainn not to keep blocking people and replying with “zzz” is seen by MacLochlainn as another opportunity to insult the general public.

MacLochlainn's Twitter timeline becomes a catalogue of his derision for anyone disagreeing with the Swedish model

MacLochlainn’s Twitter timeline becomes a catalogue of his derision for anyone disagreeing with the Swedish model



What a shining example of the Irish political process – if Sinn Fein really dies endorse Turn Off the Red Light, we’ll all know it was because one Padraig MacLochlainn decided to bully members of the public – including an Irish Law student and an Irish sex worker – then got in a bit of a huff after his blockfest.

Update: Sinn Fein has endorsed Turn Off The Red Light.


Posted by on February 26, 2013 in Feminism, Media, Sex work


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

Short post: Virginity auction and BDSM story published

I sent Roland a message saying that I’m going to do a virginity auction but would still consider waiting for him if he gives me a retaining fee. I didn’t spend time carefully composing the message like I usually do. I feel like it’s the right thing to do, and I’m confident in my decision. I told him that if he doesn’t reply by the 26th February, I will assume the contract is cancelled and I’m free to allow the auction to go live as scheduled.

In other news, an excerpt of one of the Kemet (Queen Tut) stories that I no longer have was published by the Chicago Spanking Review. Unlike the other 2 Queen Tut stories (in the fiction section of this blog), this excerpt was not entirely based on a dream. The Web-Ed illustrated it with one of my spanking drawings, though this drawing doesn’t show the two characters invollved. There isn’t much spanking in the excerpt, it’s more an exploration of gender roles and sexuality:


PHALLACY: The myth that prostitutes are ‘used’ by men

The idea that sex workers are ‘used’ or that their bodies are commodities is a fallacy. But many feminists use this argument to claim that sex work is degrading, anti feminist, commodifies women or is harmful to them. Moralists (who are sometimes indistinguishable from the radical feminists) use the argument to justify looking down on sex workers or pitying them because they’re “degraded”. The radfem myths of ‘false consciousness’ and sexworkers’ lack of agency are also  heavily dependent on seeing them as used bodies, as sex slaves.

But if you think that sex workers are used by clients, that idea is actually made up of several patriarchal ideas about gender and gender rules.

1) It means you think there aren’t male sex workers and that there aren’t female clients. So it’s a world where there are no LGBTQ people to sell sex or buy sex. It’s also a world where only men like sex and therefore pay for it; women are chaste so would never buy sex. They only provide it. They don’t have sex for pleasure. They only have sex for money, just like housewives or women who marry for money. The word “patriarchal” doesn’t quite cover it; words like heterosexist and double standard could be applied here, too. And of course it’s all about rigid gender norms and a non-fluid gender identity – as well as other things. So, this idea is clearly flawed because male sex workers and female buyers do exist. In the Irish Justice committee’s sex work hearing, Quinlan gave evidence that in Sweden twice as many men as women sell sex (to both women and men).

2) It means you believe in the economic model of sex. The economic model is the idea of sex which is the most misogynistic and the most harmful to women. The economic model says that women “give” sex for other things like money/financial security (i.e. housewives and prostitutes) or love. This also means that sex is something women ‘have’ that men “get”. So, a woman will always lose something (an unknown entity) through sex and the man will always gain something (sex) from the woman. This is exactly what radfems believe – that only men by sex, and they buy it from women; and that no woman would really ever choose to be a sexworker. Again, the double standard and rigid gender identities and gender norms are all connected with this, and again LGBTQ people are conspicuosly absent. Other models of sex are less misogynistic. For example the performance model would view women and men as equals, and focus on the act as “doing” rather than as one person “getting” something from the other (which makes absolutely no logical sense, anyway.) The economic model is flawed.

3) It means that you don’t believe women enjoy sex. Radfems think that no woman would choose to be a sex worker and so all sex workers are either trafficked or only doing it because they’ve got no other choice. Not some sex workers – all of them. But if women get pleasure from it, it would follow that some women would choose a job in the sex industry, or at least wouldn’t need rescuing by feminists.

4) It means you believe that women should be pure and that the sanctity of the female body isa real thing, and is precious. Or why else would uneducated women doing sex work to avoid being on benefits be such a tragedy? “Little girls don’t dream about being a prostitute,” they say. But little girls don’t dream about working in Tesco’s or Poundland or McDonald’s. They also don’t dream about doing boring jobs like being a wages clerk or hman resources personnel, but the reality of life is that many jobs are administrative and nonexciting. Most people don’t get to be princesses or astronauts or cowboys or pirates. But radfems act like women working in the sex industry is a tragedy, and seem to prefer women to be on the dole, barely able to eat and stigmatised as unemployed. Wouldn’t you rather be unreasonably stigmatised for working as a sex worker than be unreasonably stigmatised for not being able to work and being the poorest of the poor, while being harassed and bullied by the Jobcentre? Because that’s what Jobseeker’s Allowance amounts to. Radfems also only focuus on sex trafficking and talk about it as if it’s separate from all other labour trafficking/human trafficking, despite labour trafficking being a much bigger problem. So it seems that, for radfems,  if it involves sex – whether it’s a job or a crime – it’s infinitely worse.

5) You think sex is degrading. Or why would radfems think sex work is degrading, but give other jobs where you have to touch peoples’ bodies (doctor, masseuse, carer, midwife, gynecologist etc) a free pass? And lots of people are degraded and dehumanized while working as waitresses, shop assistants or in any kind of employment. Casual workers and low-wage workers are particularly vulnerable. I knew a school girl who worked part-time as a shop assistant who was forced to clean toilets by the boss who hated her. I had to tell my boss whenever I went to the toilet as a waitress; my boss frequently swore and shouted at me and once docked my pay.for telling a customer the wrong price. These stories aren’t unique; my co-workers were paid £3 per hour at one job, and knew a waiter who was only allowed noodles for lunch (he had to eat on the premises). I could tell more stories, and they’re all stuff that happened to me, my friends,acquaintances and co-workers. This was clearly exploitation, but we were too young to know it or too desperate for money to care. Some employers don’t register employees, especially students and pupils, which means that these teens and young people have no rights. You can be fired on a whim, which means you’ll do anything to keep your job, like changing the bins in the toilets or sitting through 20 minutes of yelling and criticism (both of which I have done at two different jobs). Yet radfems think that if it’s not sex, it’s not as bad – even though a sex worker earns £100-£200 per hour and we were paid the minimum wage or under it. So even if sexwork is degrading, at least you’re being paid a lot to be degraded; it’s better than being paid peanuts to be degraded. But again, without sex, it’s just ordinary exploitation and the radfems don’t care.



In conclusion, the myth that sex workers are used by clients does not hold together. It’s based on untrue facts (that sex workers are women and clients are men) and all the other component parts of the myth are flawed or illogical.


Posted by on February 19, 2013 in Sex work


Tags: , , , , ,

Pretty Woman and Belle de Jour: Are they happy hooker myths or the complete opposite?

“It’s not like Pretty woman, you know,” say the abolitionists whenever the issue of sex work (“prostitution”) comes up. They use this one-liner to justify criminalizing sexwork and pushing the Swedish or end demand model (which makes paying for any kind of sexual services a crime) on the rest of the country. At other times, a more 21st-century version of the old gem is used: “It’s not all Belle de Jour”.


1) “It’s not all Pretty Woman” is only a valid and relevant argument if Pretty Woman was designed as a documentary to speak for sex workers. It is meant to be fiction. We all know Hollywood gets it wrong, especially with regard to marginalized groups; they do this all the time.

2) “It’s not all Belle de Jour” also makes no sense; the books do not claim to speak for all sex workers; the blog called itself “Diary of a call girl” – i.e. the diary of a specific individual; the books were called the “intimate adventures” of a call girl; again, a single individual. They were not academic articles or textbooks. Why do abolitionists persevere in thinking that Belle was speaking for anyone other than herself? And with lots of sex worker and sex activists out there, they choose Belle to focus on – feminism, or jealousy because the others aren’t famous? Hmmm…

3) You can’t call a real story unrealistic

4) Pretty Woman represents a street sex worker, not the majority of sex workers

5) Abolitionists and the feminists who side with them use criticism of Pretty Woman and Belle de Jour interchangeably, not realising that they’re not the same or even similar things, and it’s not ethical or logical to think of them as similar. To elaborate: when you say you hate a film, that’s OK. You’re criticizing the scriptwriters, actors, director, producer – everyone and every thing that holds a movie together. (Note that feminists use the title oof the film when they criticise it). But when you say you hate a memoir, you’re saying something againsst the person – not the author (because its not fiction) but the person (because it’s a memoir). Saying a film script isn’t realistic doesn’t hurt anyone; films exist to make big bucks for the studio and they’re multi-person projects as well as completely fictitious. But saying a memoir isn’t realistic is different. (Note that the so-called feminists don’t use the book’s or TV series’ name here, they use the writer’s name). And these two cultural phenomena are totally different: one’s a multi-million dollar project started by studio execs, made by celebrities and created as fiction. The other is the un-funded true story of a year-and-a-bit in the life of a migrant student, as told in her own words.

Am I suggesting the feminists shouldn’t criticise the blog, books or TV series? YES. No. I mean, we dish it to them, too; and free speech for one and all, right? I’m just suggesting that they see Pretty Woman and Secret Diary of A London Call Girl as separate, very different entities, and think more carefully about which of the two to criticise in any argument, and what point they’re trying to make by bringing it up.

6) The other Belle de Jour book and film, which Brooke Magnanti named herself after. (“It’s not all Belle de Jour! I mean the first Belle de Jour!”)



What they allege – with no evidence – is that Pretty Woman is not an accurate portrayal of sex workers (or, in their lingo, ‘prostituted women’). And actually I agree – but for the opposite reasons. The character in Pretty Woman is a street sex worker. Street workers make up only about 10% of sex workers in the UK, so the film is not relevant to the UK sex industry (and it was made in the USA, not UK). I’d heard all about how the movie unrealistically glamourises sex work, so when I watched it on TV I got a shock. It seemed as if the film had been written and performed to stigmatise sex workers and the sex industry.

And far from glamourising prostitution, the film actually stigmatises and stereotypes sex workers. Vivian dresses in a revealing outfit, has never seen an elevator or been inside a nice hotel, is awed by the size of a small room, is emotional, is unable to even shop for a dress without the help of others, and charges $300 per hour yet is stupid enough to stay an entire week for $3,000 which really would only be the price for 10 hours. I mean, yeah, I get it that if you use more of a service or buy in bulk you get discounts – but that discount seems a bit much.

Vivian also feels upset that her client told his friend she is a sex worker, and decides to leave without taking the payment for the services she has sold. This is stereotyping sex workers as ashamed of their careers, as if all sex workers are slut-shamers and furthermore have internalised that slut-shaming and turned it on themselves.

Vivian is portrayed as uneducated; her friend appears to be struggling with money.

Vivian then falls in love with Edward (after only knowing him for a few days). She decides to leave the sex industry (suggesting sex workers are unhappy and want to leave.)

This quote from Wikipedia says it all:

His leaping from the white limousine, and then climbing the outside ladder and steps, is a visual urban metaphor for the knight on white horse rescuing the “princess” from the tower, a childhood fantasy Vivian told him about. The film ends as the two of them kiss on the fire escape.

The whore has redeemed herself by love and monogamy with the kind of alpha male that would return in two decades’ time in the form of Christian Grey.

Conclusion: Not happy hooker! Instead, its a radfem’s wet dream, and pure hollywood from start to finish.



I’ve only read a bit of the first book, but it’s obvious that this is more than antis have read, so that’s why I feel qualified enough to comment on it. I will also be using stuff like logic and actual reference to the text instead of huge sweeping statements about Pornstitution or Moral Decay or the State of The Country Today And Why Feminism No Not Your Feminism But My Slut Bashing Feminism Is The One True Way.

There is nothing “glamourising” about the book. In fact, sex bloggers right here on WordPress glamourise sex far more than Belle ever did. Her books are not explicit; they cover many aspects of her life including relationships with family, friends and The Boy. The whole point of the award-winning blog was that the sex work narrative got entangled with everything else – and maybe that’s one reason why the blog/books were successful. A description of one sexual act after another with no exploration of relationships and emotions may not be destined for success except as erotica or porn. I was surprised at the lack of explicit detail in the book, that summer day in 2011 or 2010. I remember reading “..and a bit of (very light) torture” and being slightly irritated with the author (who I only knew as ‘Belle’, unaware her identity had been revealed a year earlier), like, ‘I want the juicy juicy details!!!’

Does Belle de Jour glamourise sex work as much as E.L. James glamourises monogamy or marriage? Brand-names and helicopters don’t feature in Belle’s work. Or, for that matter, does it glamourise sex work as much as James Bond glamourises spying (and murdering)?

When you consider other published memoirs such as Sarah K’s BDSM memoir or the sex blogging of Zoe Margolis, the “glamourising” charge becomes even more problematic.

I’m no literary critic, but I’d say that the theme of Belle de Jour is one person trying to live her life; it has been said that recurring themes are loneliness, self-sufficiency and independence, though personally I’m unconvinced about the loneliness. But this blog – the Diary category – probably ‘glamourises’ sex work even more. I write in a sexually explicit way, being careful not to omit a single detail. Recurring themes are thrills, experience and sexual fantasy. The joy experienced by selling sex is repeatedly stated. My blog is not only memoir, but also (arguably) sex blogging – something Belle de Jour (arguably) never was explicit enough to be.

So why is it okay for sex bloggers to glamourise sex? Because they’re glamourising unpaid sex?

Antis feel sorry for me, and annoy me but they don’t say I’m glamourising prostitution…which may prove that instead of being about feminism or morality, they discredit people based on good old fashioned envy of fame and (in this case, percieved) material wealth.

The TV series was about a sex worker quitting sex work but finding out that it’s not as easy as it seems (this was the series’ tagline) – again, stereotyping sex workers as not enjoying their job. How is this glamourising? It is clearly showing the sex industry in a negative light, and the sex worker as having little agency and control over her own life and being unable to exit the industry.

Another criticism abolitionists and radfems make of the Belle books is that they’re unrealistic. But “Belle” was a real person who had really worked as a sex worker – her testimony is as real as the stories of the few prostitution survivors who are used by abolitionists to speak for their cause.

Abolitionists also haven’t figured out the main difference between Vivian and Belle: one isn’t real, the other is a real person deserving of respect like all human beings. There’s a reason why, when Belle had full editorial control (her blog) sex work was not portrayed negatively (or at least not more so than many other jobs) but in the TV series and in Pretty Woman it was portrayed as an industry the sex worker wanted to leave.

Conclusion: Belle de Jour is realistic because it is a memoir and you don’t get any more realistic than that. It has equal legitimacy with, (and represents the experiences of sexworkers much more closely than) the stories of the women who call themselves survivors. It does not glamourise sex work; it only tells a true story and is less glamourising of sex work than sex bloggers are of sex.

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 8, 2013 in Film, Literature, Sex work


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

Ruhama Agency ran the Magdalene Laundries: Round 2 of abusing fallen women, or, how sex workers replaced Magdalenes

The government disappointed survivors and Justice For Magdalenes campaigners yesterday by not apologising for being complicit. Perhaps if more people realised that the Ruhama Agency which is currently advising the government on sex work is run by the same people who ran the Magdalene Laundries, they would be even more outraged. The Magdalene Laundries were started for sex workers, then later began preying on unmarried mothers as well, and on women who committed minor crimes like taking a night off work or not paying for a train ticket. Sex workers were abused and died in the laundries, and now those same people are advising the government on policy which directly affects sex workers. And sex workers weren’t allowed into the Dail hearing where Ruhama was giving evidence to the government.

The Ruhama Agency was started in 1989, and its trustees continued to run both Ruhama Agency and the laundries together, until the last Magdalene laundry closed in 1996. Ruhama have refused to meet with Magdalene Laundries survivors and say they can’t pay compensation. Allegedly, they’ve also silenced sex workers online by taking down sex worker rights ads and paying for Ruhama ads that intercept search engine terms used to find sex workers’ activism sites. They also allegedly censored tweets about Ruhama abusing girls from an abolitionist parody Twitter account, which was suspended three times until yesterday when the Magdalene Laundries report came out. On the day when Ruhama feared the parody account would tweet about the report (or that people would be more interested in the parody), the account was suspended for a fourth time. Ruhama also replied to tweets about abuse, saying they were “serious allegations” when we all know – and the Magdalene Laundries survivors know – that it was all too real.

The next sex work hearing will be secret and will not be streamed, according to Pat O’Neary, as reported by individuals who emailed and phoned him. This is wrong – all policy must be made in the open and sex workers must be included as they’re affected most of all.

The Ruhama Agency is still being listened to and valued by the government while survivors are ignored (the Magdalene Laundries investigation was only started because the UN Commiitee Against Torture required it) and sex workers are not allowed to influence policies which affect them the most out of everyone (or even witness the hearing).

Even now amid the Magdalene Laundries controversy, those responsible are still excercising their power over fallen women – just not confining themselves to a few thousand women in the laundries. This time, the whole of Ireland is their playground. There has been little change – this is just Round Two of their state-sponsored attack on fallen women. Only, now sex workers have replaced the mix of sex workers, unmarried mothers and minor criminals who made up the “magdalenes”, and instead of enslaving women in convents, they’re actually lawmakers now.

Ruhama are contributing to making laws about sex workers by advising government. And the law they’re pushing for is the Swedish model which will result in more rape, murder and trafficking in the sex industry and expose sex workers to unsafe working conditions, abuse by police and control by pimps.  And, funded and listened to by a state which excluded its victims from the hearing, they might just succeed.

Interested? Here’s more…

Ruhama won’t meet with survivors of the Magdalene Laundries and claim they can’t pay compensation – even though they’ve recieved over 14 million euros since 2006 from the Health Service Executive alone.

Media reports that Ruhama is run by those who ran the laundries, and is funded by TWO government depts!

A sex worker’s rights blog on how Ruhama are harming sex workers:

Ruhama does very little work; last year Ruhama only helped 241 women (some of whom were ongoing cases) and none of which were trafficking victims. (They say a few are “suspected” trafficking victims, but list no figure for women who said they were trafficked). Do they really need all that funding from taxpayers? And last year was already a large increase in the numbers!

Ruhama try to silence sex workers online by taking down sex worker rights ads:

Follow #sexworkhearing, #sexwork and #JusticeForMagdalenesNow on Twitter for live tweets of the hearing and more on Ruhama, the laundries and sex work politics.


Posted by on February 6, 2013 in Sex work


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

Are You Sluttier Than A Prostitute?: Sluts, sex workers, and why we’re all whores


This post will use conservative-moralist terms and rhetoric to better express the ideas contained within it. No part of this post should be construed as an endorsement of sex-negativity, misogyny or slutshaming, or any part of the radical feminist or conservative-moralist agendas.

Sex workers are stigmatised because of slut shaming, and society views sex wotkers as the ultimate sluts (because they fail to distinguish between sex for pleasure and sex for work). Though, with me, the two are combined because I’m doing this for a thrill and to fulfil a fantasy.

However, even if slut shaming or the idea of the “slut” was, like, actually real or logical or anything like that, I’m still not sure that sexworkers really would succeed in coming out on top as the Sluttiest of Them All.

Take my favourite Asian gay guy’s latest TV exploits. Gok Wan’s Gok’s Style Secrets involves picking a potential husband out of any reasonably good-looking guys in a bar. Quite apart from the fact that life partners shouldn’t be chosen on looks (or a lottery of who happens to be in the bar when you walk in), why is choosing a husband in this way any “better” (to use the conservative-moralist terminology) than paying a man for sex?

Go into any bar or club and you’ll find a man who will let you take him home and have sex with him for free. At least sexworkers will only do it for money. The word “easy”, literally referring to how easy it is to have sex with a woman, os bandied about a lot. But lots of women and men have one night stands, friends with benefits and sex with strangers. Some even advertise for casual sex, most commonly on Craigslist and sites like Many go out in killer outfits to snag some guy or girl to take home, walking the streets at night in search of sex with a stranger.

And this is better than prostitution? Why? Because they’ll do it without being paid? Because instead of phoning and making an appointment, or going through an email vetting process, or contacting an agency, they bought a girl a drink or slow-danced with a man? Seems like a lot of sexworkers are actually less easy than people who aren’t sexworkers. Some sexworkers won’t see you if you’ve missed one appointment or your email or text message contains text-speech or grammatical/spelling errors. Some will look up your name on websites set up by sexworkers which name and shame clients who don’t pay (which I would call rapists) or who are violent. With a lot of sex workers, you have to wait a couple of hours or days to see them and there are things they won’t do.

But people who aren’t sex workers will sleep with strangers immediately and without caring how their spelling is or knowing if they could turn violent.

My own experiences fit this model too. With Roland, I trialled him by going to a nude photoshoot to see if he seemed potentially dangerous and to test whether he would pay. We also sent messages a couple of times, then finalised the arrangement face to face. So, with sex work I seem to vet the client and it takes days before I’ll sell sexual services.

However with Donny, we just started spanking and touching each other suddenly, and he says “You could spend the night” and I’m like, “Yeah, great, I’ll just phone my mum and tell her I’m staying over at Kathy’s.” So I actually am more ‘easy’ when it’s not sex work, and the performing of sex is immediate.

I think this pretty much proves that the problem people have with sex work is the money – the fact that people want payment for something that is seen as too enjoyable to be work. Or perhaps because sex workers want payment for something everyone else ‘gives up’ for free.


Posted by on February 1, 2013 in Sex work


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

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: , , , , , , , , , ,