RSS

Tag Archives: sex work

My reply to Richard Lucas

So, the Bill fell. And I’m getting a lot of responses to my Adultwork profile. Life is good. I might post some of my emails to Kane, the poly dom. I saw them again today and got a bit of a shock. Howl! Seven days to the wolves! (copyright Nightwish – it’s a great song, by the way.) A she-wolf meant a prostitute and of course there’s my Seven Nights stories and fantasy…But before I blog the good stuff, here’s my hilarious (even if I do say so myself) missive to our friend Richard Lucas, a homophobic anti-abortion abolitionist who debated Laura Lee and Douglas Fox. You can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzgc4PoBfWY I’ve got a reason to dislike -maybe hate – the guy. I don’t usually hate people I’ve never met, but this guy…he’s worse than Ann Widdecombe. And what he said…and my other reason for hating him, which only a couple of people know. This blog would be so much more interesting if I could just tell you. I guess I can say that he made me powerless and uncomfortable, even though I maintained control of the situation. He also defamed people, and I really have a thing about lies.

Anyway, Lucas was giving his usual whorephobia/pro-full criminalisation moralising to Scot-PEP, and Glasgow Sex Worker, who was Facebooking for Scot-Pep at the time, replied. So did Gaye Dalton and Matty King, and Lucas was of course steadfastly maintaining his position and questioning someone’s story of abuse in their childhood. (He also pointed out his views differ from Grant’s – yes, they’re WORSE!)

Here’s my incredibly long reply:

Oh Richard. Truly it is a privelege – nay, an honour – to meet such a uniquely arrogant moralist-driven oppressor as yourself. I bow to an inflated pride far greater than my own. Your sense of entitlement to govern the careers and bodies of your fellow humans is indeed a wonder to behold. Oh Lord Richard, I am so angry right now that I’m aroused and could hatefuck you – but all in its own time. For now, to work:

Okay: So, what you haven’t addressed is what gives you the right to moralise. Yes, you say you evaluate sex work “on its own basis” but you’re candid about your religious beliefs – for which I do genuinely respect you. So, what if Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Wiccans, Hindus and Mormons all got their way with the law? Every religion as a different view. Why is Christianity the chosen superior religion that should rule the masses? In 2013, should Britain turn from a democracy into a theocracy? When laws are based on religion, that is theocracy; so you are prepared to condemn these sceptered isles to a future of theocratic control? And come to that; why is YOUR brand of Christianity the supreme truth over Catholicism, Rastafarianism, Jehovah’s Winess(ism?) and those loonies who cast out demons? You want full criminalisation, and that results in murder, rape, increased trafficking and sex workers being arrested and so unable to exit the industry because employers wont hire criminals.

Their children get stolen by the state just because the mum or dad is working in the sex industry. You have children, oh Richard the Saviour of All the Unsaved. Imagine if social workers snatched your sons just because you’re a minister. Imagine losing custody battles, being imprisoned, being outed in the press, just because of your job. Sex work isn’t my career, unlike other sex workers you’ve debated. I’m not representative. But I still fear being outed. I know 5 people on Twitter who have been outed, as were Laura Lee and Douglas Fox. (I believe LL was outed twice- once in the 1990s and once more recently.) You cannot comprehend how much I wish I could say this with my real name. But so many people get fired for past sex work, even if it was 10 or 20 years ago, that I cannot risk it. Though it’s not my career, my blog’s existence and its explicitness put me at more risk of discrimination than the few other virginity sellers who’ve been documented. So, Oh Prophet Mine, the question is: are you really going to have women and men murdered, raped, mugged, exploited, fired, outed, separated from their children, stigmatised, discriminated against by potential employers, and saddled with criminal records JUST TO SATISFY YOUR MORALISM? Will you do that? If you are against prostitution then criminalisation – whether full crim or criminalising the buyer – works AGAINST you. It stops sex workers finding jobs in other industries and keeps them doing sex work. One woman was fired after her boss found out she acted in a porn film several years ago. She ended up going back to sex work for five years – the very job that her boss hated! Besides, other industries cause much more harm than sex work. We’re killing people in other countries. They are starving right now because we have to have nice clothes and drink at Starbucks and buy cheap jewellery. We’re killing animals. We get fat stuffing ourselves with chocolate and the farmers don’t get a fair price; their kids never get an education or enough food. This laptop was probably made by children working 14 hour shifts, or it’d have cost thousands of pounds.

Richard, if you’d like to buy my virginity, DM me on Twitter (@KalikaGold) Offers over £12,000 considered. I’m a Masters student, young, 22D, 5″6. Photos on request. I’m a bit bi so could do your wife as well or any grown-up children you may have (I could do you a family discount). (My original client went AWOL after I sold sexual services twice for £2,000).

 

Tags: , , , ,

Why sex worker activists should support the decriminalisation of street work

First published on Harlot’s Parlour.

(I’m not a sex worker activist and though I’ve been planning this post for months, I wasn’t sure if I should write it; if I’m not a sex worker activist, or even a representative sex worker, then how can I tell sex worker activists what to think? But after a  brief conversation on Twitter, I decided to finally post this. – K )

If you’re for sex workers’ rights then you have to be for street sex workers’ rights too. Otherwise you’re not standing for ALL sex workers. If you think that your brand of sex work, whatever it is, should be decriminalised and that you deserve rights but that street sex work should remain criminalised, then that’s elitism. You’re saying that you’re “better” than street workers, or that you’re different to them in a way that you aren’t different to other sex workers who work in different areas of the industry but not on the street.

And if you take the view that street sex work is dangerous and therefore should be criminalised – well. Doesn’t that sound familiar? It’s the antis’ argument against the entire sex industry (including the adult entertainment industry). So, basically, you’re an anti – just an anti who wants non-street work decriminalised but is still for the abolition of street work.

Finally, if you believed that street sex workers have agency and can choose to work, how could you deny them human and labour rights? So it’s clear that to be in support of criminalising street sex work, you have to see street workers as having no agency or in need of “rescuing” by sex worker activists. Again, this might sound all too familiar.

And let’s be practical – criminalising street sex work in the UK has been proven to create what academics call the “revolving door” effect: street workers are fined for soliciting and then have to do more sex work to pay off the fine. While working to pay off the fine, they’re arrested again and hit with another fine, and so on. Which actually stops them from “exiting” street work (oh, how I hate that phrase – for all other jobs we say “finding another job”.) So, if you’re eager to rescue street workers, criminalisation actually works against your objectives. Not to mention the fact that a woman or man with several soliciting offences on their criminal record is not going to find it easy to get employment in another industry.

The Merseyside model includes exiting strategies and only uses arrest as a last resort, though unfortunately the use of exiting strategies instead of fines is, in my view, just as intrusive and is also a harassment – not to mention insulting as it implies that street work is unacceptable and that the worker doesn’t have agency. (That’s the one bit of the Merseyside model that I would wish to see changed. I mean, if they’re so obsessed with rescuing, why not rescue street workers into another type of sex work, like indoor work or, if they fit agencies’ preferences (or there are ‘specialising’ agencies nearby), agency work?)) Not that I’m for rescuing anybody anywhere; it’s just an interesting question why the police feel that the entire sex industry is exploitative but other industries are totally fine.

The fact that street sex work is criminalised might be making it more dangerous. Since clients were criminalised for kerb-crawling, maybe the law looks more equal, but it might be having the effect of weeding out the clients who don’t want a criminal record, leaving only those who might already be known to the police. How are the workers and clients supposed to report any violence they witness or experience if they know they’ll get a court appearance and a criminal record? The clients know that the workers might not report violence so they might not be deterred by the possibility of police action. (This could also be true of the sex workers, who might be more prepared to perpetrate crimes against clients because they know the clients won’t report it.) I’m not just talking about violence here, but blackmail or theft as well.

Therefore, the more dangerous you think street sex work is, the more you should be in support of decriminalising it. While there is some evidence (in the Home Office report referred to below) that criminalising clients forces street workers to work indoors in relative safety, that was a small-scale study and it’s obvious that there are still street workers even though street work is criminalised in the UK.

References:

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 sex workers in all of Scotland who street walk OR work out of flats – meaning that less than 2,000 are street workers, as the number includes independent indoor workers.  Available at:http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/30859/0024989.pdf)

J. Phoenix (2000) “Prostitute Identities: Men, Money and Violence” British Journal of Criminology 40 (1) 37-55  (There is violence, but it’s not as bad as some NGO’s make it seem, and it’s hard to see how criminalization would enable these sex workers to report violence to the police or leave violent boyfriends. Oh, and non-sexworkers also experience domestic abuse, even rape.)

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

 
1 Comment

Posted by on June 18, 2013 in Sex work

 

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: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/victims-and-witnesses/cic-a/am-i-eligible/criminal-injuries-comp-scheme-2012.pdf

The Irish Department of Justice’s guidelines: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Criminal_Injuries_Compensation_Scheme

 
11 Comments

Posted by on April 8, 2013 in Sex work

 

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

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/crime/2011/20111102%20CBA%20Policing%20Prostitution%20and%20%20Sexual%20Exploitation%20Strategy_Website_October%202011.pdf

 
3 Comments

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: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/22/merseyside-police-sex-workers-protect

After Jemima (@itsjustahobby) over at itsjustahobby.wordpress.com sent Ruth Jacobs (@RuthFJacobs) who blogs at soul-destruction.com 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

 
5 Comments

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.

padraigtorlfull

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.

padraigdoesntdenyaliases

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: http://sexwork.ie/2013/02/24/false-witness/

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:

padraigbbwmelody

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

padraigmaggie

padraigturnoffrl

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.

 
12 Comments

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

 

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

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.

 

CONCLUSION

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.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on February 19, 2013 in Sex work

 

Tags: , , , , ,