Tag Archives: sex trafficking

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: , , , , , , , , , ,

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: , , , , , , , , , , ,

BEST post ever on anti-sex work radfems’ tactics in silencing sex workers.

Feminist Ire

The feminist movement really is in a pickle these days. It used to be a given that things like prostitution, pornography and stripping were bad, but nowadays there’s some resistance to these time-honoured notions. Women are increasingly coming out as sex workers and demanding rights. As feminists seek to shut down strip bars and criminalise clients, those women are complaining not just that they’ll lose their livelihood, but that they’ll be at increased risk of abuse and violence if their industries go underground! You can’t let such trivial concerns get in the way of your crusade, so below are some handy tips for discrediting these pesky meddlers. Remember: being an actual sex worker doesn’t entitle her to speak about sex work!

I don’t believe you; you don’t realise the harm you’re doing to yourself

This is generally your starting point. There you are, explaining that no woman…

View original post 938 more words

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 25, 2012 in Feminism, Sex work


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

Why decriminalization is best for sex workers and society


This is the classic feminist stance – make all sex work a crime. Radical feminists were pushing for this in the 1970s and some feminists, such as SCASE, continue this fight today.

Illegalization is:

Good because it’d stop commercialisation and target all sex workers, not just streetwalkers as decriminalization currently does. It would target clients as well as sex workers so it’d stop the double standard of criminalizing sex workers and not clients.

No prostitution means women will not be objectified (not sure on this one, though – prostitution and objectification of women may not be linked. And what about men who are prostitutes?)

Bad because the police have to use unethical and questionable methods of entrapment to get prosecutions (e.g. America, where privacy and freedoms have been severely threatened, for example police breaking down doors to catch people having sex). This might actually do more harm than good for sex workers, women and society in general. Art 8 ECHR (right to private and family life) and its case law may preclude using these methods in Britain, because they may fail the two-prong test of being a proportionate response and legitimate in a democratic society.

Bad because illegalization stigmatises and criminalizes the already marginalized sex worker

Bad because prostitution would still exist, though there might be less of it. If sex work is a crime, it means that sex workes will not report rape, other violence, the behaviour of pimps, etc to the police. The policies of brothels (which are now called escort agencies/massage parlours etc, but might change in structure and operation after illegalization) could not be subject to scrutiny. Sex work would be invisible and harder for police to investigate. Sex workers would be more likely to experience rape and less able or willing to go to the authorities for help or escape the sex work criminal underworld,  which would likely be controlled by criminal gangs rather than exist as a cottage industry, as it does now (similar to other illegal things like drugs, guns, etc) . Trafficking would be more rife because of said criminals controlling sex work and less British women willing to do risk punishment by doing sex work. Sex workers charged by the police might lie that they were trafficked to avoid punishment or stop their children being taken away by Social Services. This is happening at this very minute across the pond, where it leads to innocent brothel managers being locked up for sex trafficking. The sex workers who can’t bring themselves to get their colleagues injustly imprisoned get their children taken away. Valuable taxpayer’s money and police time are thrown away tracking down and jailing sex workers and clients. This does not benefit sex workers, clients or society at all. Neither does the existence of a criminal-controlled prostitution underworld.

So, we can see that while illegalization does have its good points, ultimately it endangers sex workers and also our general individual freedom from state/police intervention. It gives nothing of benefit to society and harms society by hurting families, generating crime and trafficking, and wasting police resources that could be better used stopping murder, rape, etc.

Legalisation argument


Stops streetwalking, the most dangerous type of sex work, as workers can work in legal brothels (a la Nevada in America, Australia, Netherlands)

Stops the public nuisance aspect of streetwalking with red light districts/zones/designated sex work areas (Netherlands, zones in some Scottish cities such as by the docks in Leith, Edinburgh)

Safer, cleaner, better environment for sex workers because brothels will be registered with the state and subject to inspections. (I like to use the body modification or tattoo industry analogy here – licensing and inspections enforce safety).

Improves their rights

Health checkups to stop disease

Stops stigmatization/criminalization

It’s a useful social service for shy, disabled or lonely men

Can tax sex workers so the state earns money (ILO supports this as its good for poor countries)

Oldest profession/we must learn to accept it

Response to male needs

Just a job


Some workers prefer streetwalking as they choose their own clients and working hours, or aren’t organised enough to work in brothels, or have HIV and are rejected by brothels

Checkups usually only on sex workers not clients (though not in Australia where the client sticks his thing in the wall and it scans for diseases!)

Diseased or drug addicted women rejected by state brothels

Some people prefer to run illegal brothels so they will still exist

Sex workers who streetwalk or are unregistered/working in illegal brothels are criminalized even more than in the present decriminalized approach in the UK

Workers in illegal brothels or streetwalkers fear to report violence as they would be charged with being a non-registered sex worker (the illegalization problem again)

Sex workers’ rights not always protected

Environments are worse as they cannot choose own clients

Many clients married, not shy or disabled

The oldest profession argument is fatalistic/defeatist (Matthews)

Natural response to male needs argument stops discussion of female needs (McIntosh)

Supports double standard (Jeffreys)

Reinforces patriarchal male dominance (Schoular)

Assumes all laws are bad, ignores the way they protect women from exploitation

Checkups historically only on women and forced, doesn’t protect them from clients

Liberals depict women doing it because they enjoy it or find it empowering however many are coerced into it or forced to do sex work because of poverty (Doezema). The image of the ‘happy hooker’ may be true for educated women such as students (the ‘Belle du Jour’ experience)  – who usually work off the street – but not for working class women especially streetwalkers. Most become sex workers before the age of 18 – are they really magically consenting as soon as they turn 18?

Prostitute identity inseparable from sense of self, unlike other jobs (Phoenix)

Trafficking increases with legalization

Red light zones are bad places for women to live as street harrassment increases a lot and crime tends to thrive once an area is designated.

So, legalization doesn’t protect streetwalkers or workers in illegal brothels and actually victimizes them more, similarly to illegalization. It is also bad for women who aren’t sex workers as they get harassed. Legalization may be good for non-streetwalkers, but it still comes with mixed blessings, such as forced sexual health checkups, mandatory registration of real identity with the state/less privacy and anonymity and being taxed on earnings, which may cause sex workers to increase their prices.

Decriminalisation argument

Decriminalization (the current UK situation) is:

Less hypocritical

Health/control disease by voluntary checkups

Allows welfare provision and exiting strategies as well as allowing freedom to be a sex worker at the same time, thus allowing sex workers to choose their destiny

Avoids stigmatisation by the criminal justice system and social attitudes

Sex work is not harmful/is consensual so law has no right to intervene

Laws protect workers from exploitation, unlike legalization

Sex workers can report violence to police without fear, so they are more safe

Trafficking rates low as British people willing to do sex work as it’s not a crime, they can choose how they work and they don’t have to register their legal name


The relationship may be unequal or coercive, not really consensual

May allow more profits to be made from prostitution/increased commercialization which is bad for sex workers’ rights

Legitimising prostitution only accentuates the double standard/polarised view of gender roles and sex, however not as much as legalizing it would do

Legitimising it increases harassment of women in red light districts and sexual assaults, but again not as much as legalization

So, decriminalization, while not without its problems, is the best for sex workers because it allows them freedom while simultaneously offering exiting help to those who want to leave the industry. Privacy and anonymity are protected and sex workers can choose whether they want to streetwalk, work from home or in a brothel. Although soliciting and kerb-crawling are crimes, this is necessary to stop public nuisance and is not punishable by jail time for either the sex worker or the client. Women are protected from the street harrassment common in legalization, and decriminalization does not support the double standard as much as legalization does.

This doesn’t mean that it all ends here and we can’t make changes within a decriminalization framework.

Roger Matthews argues that we need to move beyond existing approaches to decriminalization and legalization and construct an alternative, radical regulationism. He then outlines some general legislative routes through which this radical regulationism could be realised:

General deterrence – criminalize clients rather than focus on sex worker

Stop commercialization of sex work – allow sex workers to cohabit to a degree, to protect themselves; from dangerous clients or needing the protection of a pimp

Exploitation and corruption: harsher sentencing/longer prison sentence as it is a form of rape; current UK legislation can’t differentiate between friends and parasites or protect women from pimps. However, Matthews doesn’t discuss this or mention evidence, though it is true, it would just have been nice to see some discussion of this.

Disturbance/harassment/nuisance – criminalize and deter clients who are more easily deterred than sex workers (proven by the Home Office report that they are much more easily deterred).

Proof of annoyance should be required for conviction of either,  not just police evidence, treat both client and sex worker equally, respect for  their rights and civil liberties (how, Matthews? If they are not allowed to sell sex, isn’t that already a violation?)

Radical regulationism differs from the Wolfenden approach cos not liberal or focussed on public nuisance or public visibility of prostitution; however, Matthews’ radical regulationism does put a lot of importance on harassment/public nuisance; it is one of its 4 strands. The fact that he doesn’t want to illegalize it is still “liberal” – ie rejects New Right discourse of prostitution as dirty- just he sees commercialization as a bad thing, unlike liberal/libertarian perspectives which are neutral or see it as good, but that’s the only real difference between radical regulationism and the Wolfenden approach/current situation (especially since the 1985 and 2007 acts do criminalize clients).

(This view by an academic is an example of how things could be changed. Doubtless you have your own views. I included this view to show that, even while accepting decriminalization and not pushing for the other two options, real change can still be fought for. Realising the status quo is the best way doesn’t mean we can’t get radical.)

References/stuff you might like to read if you’re interested

R. Matthews (1986) “Beyond Wolfenden? Prostitution, Politics and the Law” in R. Matthews and J. Young (eds) Confronting Crime, London: Sage

R. Matthews (2008) “Prostitution, vulnerability and victimisation” in Prostitution, Politics and Policy, Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish

The Scottish Executive (2004) Being Outside: A Response to Street Prostitution (about exiting strategies and small red light zones in non-residential areas of cities. Proves that there’s only about 2,000 prostitutes in all of Scotland who streetwalk or work out of flats. However, this isn’t counting call girls and those who work in massage parlours/saunas so is an underestimation.) Available at:

J. Phoenix (2000) “Prostitute Identities: Men, Money and Violence” British Journal of Criminology 40 (1) 37-55

R. Matthews (1993) Kerb-Crawling, Prostitution and Multi-Agency Policing”, Police Research Group Paper 43, London: Home Office

For Scottish Government information on the regulation of prostitution in Scotland (including information on recent legislation) see:

Home Office (2004) Paying the Price: A Consultation Paper on Prostitution, London: Home Office (just Google it)


Posted by on August 5, 2012 in Feminism, Sex work


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