Corbyn - "I'm in favour of decriminalising the sex industry"

I'm not funded by a "pimp industry." By definition, pimps take money off prostitutes - they don't give it. I don't have a pimp.

My pay comes from my clients. I'm not "funded" to come on here and post any more than you are.

I've never been a part of any "we believe you" campaign. I don't campaign. I judge everything individually and Rosalie's blog doesn't add up. You say that that is how the majority of prostitutes in the UK live and that people like me are rare. I personally know many, many prostitutes like me and I am acquaintances with far more.

Rosalie describes working in a parlour - talking about working with other girls in "rooms" and it's a place where she is free to come and go as she goes to Uni. I know girls who work in parlours and have worked in parlours (I've worked in a British parlour and in another country). I know their complaints about them and why they choose to work in them or no longer want to work in them. I know the names of all the parlours in my city and many of them in other cities - I know what they're like and have a general idea what goes on in them. Never have I heard of a place where clients are allowed to hit the girls. Rosalie said that whoever runs the brothel dictates that she wear makeup and sexy clothes - but they don't mind cuts and bruises? That's absurd.

Being as charitable as I possibly can, I suppose Rosalie does work both in a brothel and arranges outcalls on her own and she has suffered from abuse since childhood and so thinks that it is inevitable that she has to go be alone with two men at once.

But I don't see how a university student who has access to social media and feels that she is being raped and abused is actually stuck in that situation. She is no less privileged than I am. I don't get beaten and I reject any booking that I don't think will be pleasant.

I have emailed my MSP and asked her to support the Nordic model and shown her Rosalie's blog. We all need to do this. TODAY

Are you accusing a woman of lying?? Misogynists. What happened to the "we believe you" campaign?

RosalieHaynes64 is how most prostituted women live, the happy hookers who come onto this thread are the rare privileged ones funded by the pimp industry.

We all need to share RosalieHaynes64's blog and Twitter account with everyone we can including our politicians (has that fucking Corbyn and that fucking MSP Jean Urquart seen her blog???). Men should read her blog. Men who visit (i.e., rape) prostitutes should all be shown her blog.

I read all of her blog and it didn't add up to me. I'm not going to declare someone a fake but it's not clear why she feels forced to endure frequent beatings. She claims to be in uni, and she's able to blog and tweet. So she's not physically captive. She can access help and has the mental and cultural acumen to do so.

She indicates that she works in a brothel where violence is frequent, and her pimp gets angry if she doesn't dress and look sexy. But this brothel tolerates bruises from violence? I'm not a fan of brothels and their rules, but I know that they all have security and don't tolerate violent clients. If there were a brothel this crazy, I would have heard of it.

Then she goes on an outcall to see two men, one of whom beats her for having not worn tights. Brothels with multiple rooms don't also offer outcalls, so is she doing outcall independently? Then why is she taking dodgy bookings and talking about them as if it is inevitable and normal?

I avoid these situations because I am picky and know that I don't have to tolerate it. A uni student who blogs and talks to people on Twitter isn't someone who doesn't have options.

I noticed that all of the comments on her blog were from people who utterly believe her, many praising her for telling the "truth." I think these are people with preconceived ideas and she's confirming them. It's like she's just saying all the lurid things some people imagine are true. Like The Awful Confessions of Maria Monk.

And I agree with her. RosalieHaynes64 is a fraud. She isn't the first, and I doubt she will be the last.

A sex worker on Twitter (a real one that actually has had experience selling sex btw) is accusing RosalieHaynes64 of being a fraud! oh my! (see screengrab)

"Isn't that good enough evidence?"

It isn't. It fails on multiple levels.

It fails the burden of proof of that is exists at all, much less that it is so common a practice to make risking rape and murder seem less risky.

It fails to support your alleged fear of arrest in a climate where johns frequently commit rapes and murders.

It fails to support your case for allowing women to prostitute collectively for "safety".

It fails to back up your claim you're, "I'm more interested in the circumstances and real world safety of sex workers," when you locate the source of harm in police officers without proof that police officers in Nordic model countries are a primary source of harm.

It fails.

sillage - There aren't any statistics that I can find on exactly how many sex workers have been arrested for brothel-keeping. It doesn't seem anyone has published stats on it (that I can find in a google search anyway.)
I'm drawing on experience as a sex worker and from talking to other sex workers locally. Isn't that good enough evidence? Or are you calling us liars?

To answer your other points:

1.) It's not about the 'abusers' (I prefer to call them clients, as the majority are not abusive, unless you see sex as being inherently abusive towards women?)
I'm more interested in the circumstances and real world safety of sex workers, than I am interested in launching an idealogical attack on men who exchange money for sexual services.
That in no way means I'm victim-blaming.

2.) I do think it's worth mentioning sometimes that, while most sex workers are women, there are also men and trans-women in the industry. And they do experience the same safety issues as women in the industry do... sometimes with extra layers of homophobia or transphobia (and we're talking real transphobia here, not the new brand of 'boohoo, talking about periods is transphobic' transphobia.)
It helps to remember that the safety of all sex workers, should trump feminist idealism. This is people's lives we're talking about.

There is also no evidence that most sex workers entered the sex industry before turning 18.
The study used to get the, frequently quoted, 'most sex workers entered the sex industry before turning 18' stat was a survey on young people under age 18.

3.) See point 2.
And, furthermore, what about women who choose to enter the industry? We're not all 'prostituted' by male pimps against our will. In fact, the majority of us aren't.

Brazen, in your next post please either provide one measly example of a prostituted woman being arrested for brothel-keeping or have the integrity to retract your unfounded assertion.

Let me explain how you are victim-blaming in simple steps.

"To completely erase sex work from society would mean erasing the problems and circumstances that lead women and men into sex work in the first place."

1. The phrase "erasing the problems and circumstances that lead" refers to the victims. It is about the problems of victims, and the circumstances of victims. It is not about the abusers. There is no referent at all about abusers and their "problems and circumstances".

1. The phrase "women and men" is a deliberate obfuscation of the extreme sex-skew in prostitution. It ignores a planet's worth of evidence about the majority of prostitutes were prostituted for the first time before they turned 18.

1. "in the first place" brushes aside the planet's worth of evidence about how the majority of prostitutes were prostituted for the 'first' time before they turned 18. Because truly, prostituted get prostituted "in the first place" by predatory men while the victims are mostly underage. Men's predation comes first.

To rewrite your sentence is a way that puts the blame where it deserves to go:

The societal problem and circumstance that lead men to seek prostituteded victims is predatory men enacting rape culture and getting away with it because of worldwide misogyny.

sillage - Honestly, are you huffing glue? At what point have I ever victim-blamed in this thread?

Yes, I did say: "To completely erase sex work from society would mean erasing the problems and circumstances that lead women and men into sex work in the first place."

That's not victim blaming at all. And if you think it is, you need to have a sit down and a

Punternet is dead. There was a spin-off of guys who got sick of the "quesily polite" set and started their own review forum. Meanwhile, Punternet's admin failed to keep up with various developments over the past several years and, as happens to most forums eventually, it has been in decline.

On the new spinoff review forum, you may actually see punters use a term like "wanksock." They're a particularly angry group of men who are regularly culled of anyone who doesn't espouse the same angry attitude.

The reason they are so angry is that they hate not having the control they believe they ought to have just because they are paying. They fear us and resent us and are obsessed with us. They're not your garden-variety punter: they're "hobbyists" and they don't like me at all. Doesn't impact my income one little bit, as there are a great many clients who don't think the way they do.

I've stumbled across even more horrible forums than that one (the one dedicated to seeking out unprotected sex comes to mind). I very rarely encounter horrible cretins in actual bookings, because I'm very good at screening them out. I do encounter them on the phone. I do not deny that there are some awful punters out there. However, I meet genuinely lovely men.

I do think that I am privileged in many ways. I had a stable family life, I'm educated and reasonably clever, and I have resources and options. I know that some women don't have them.

When I debate about prostitution I feel as if I am engaging in two debates. What usually tempts me to join in is when I read things like "99% of prostitutes in my city are on Class A drugs." (That was on AIBU) Broad generalisations that don't apply to me or any of my many friends get my back up. So, one debate is arguing that I am not being raped, etc.

Then there is the other debate over what to do about prostitutes that are vulnerable. I am actually happy with the current UK law criminalising brothels and streetwalking, although I would rather the onus was put on the punters over the prostitutes. It seems to me that it's absurd to say what I do with my own body in my own flat out of my own choice, but agree that pimps and predators prey on those lower down in the hierarchy. I must admit that my own self-interests are at play, here. The fewer massage parlours and pimped Eastern European prostitutes, the better the market is for me. But, I also would like to see women who are NOT happy hookers to get as much help as possible.

I don't think there will be any such help if the Nordic model is enacted here. We don't even take care of the mentally ill, the elderly, etc and benefits to the poor are being stripped away. The economic migrants will fuck off to a more tolerant country but those who are stuck here will just be worse off.

Looks like Brazen had no luck in their search for one prostituted woman in any Nordic model country who was arrested for brothel keeping when co-habiting for prostitution.

"To completely erase sex work from society would mean erasing the problems and circumstances that lead women and men into sex work in the first place."

Not really, and your victim-blaming assertion that prostitution results from the "problems and circumstances" of victims aside, your dogmatically strict adherence to the hyper-violent and misogynistic status quo is noted.

Prostitutes in poverty, with drug addictions, or trafficked across borders do not in any way cause punters to seek out prostitutes. It's the other way around.

Thanks to all the goddesses that feminists don't share your selfish, "I get what I want, social change is too hard, nothing ever changes, oh well." attitude.

It was clear.

Brazen made a joke about it so I doubt she was offended.

And I made a further post to make it crystal clear.

It ain't going to win a literary prize, but it was clearly a sentence about punters

It was a sentence about punters. But I'm afraid I agree it came across as in your voice rather than theirs. I can see why Brazen/Ophelia could take it the wrong way.

It was supposed to be the men's voice but it's not an expression I can imagine a punter using. If nothing else don't they see using a prostitute as proper sex not masturbation?

On that awful punter net site they seem to veer from the queasily polite "lady/girl" to outright misogyny of "slut/bitch/ tart". I don't think metaphor or simile are much used.

So, 'wanksock' discussion aside... though it's hilarious

(thank you Strumpet for your posts. It's appreciated, and your posts on the thread in AIBU are brilliant too.)

Lass - I have respect for your position with this, though I do think it's idealistic. To completely erase sex work from society would mean erasing the problems and circumstances that lead women and men into sex work in the first place. It's a pretty steep hill to climb so I can't see that happening in our lifetimes.

The reasons I got into sex work were the ability to earn large sums of money, quickly, without qualifications, and with the ability to control my own work times/terms/conditions whilst doing something I love (I genuinely enjoy the time spent with most of my clients.)

Would I still be doing sex work if there were another form of work that also ticked those boxes? Perhaps not.

But there isn't, and there won't be. This is why I, and many others, will continue in sex work regardless of which legal model is used.
This is why it's important to pick the one that will best protect us.

Yeah, it would have made sense. It also made sense as I wrote it.

It ain't going to win a literary prize, but it was clearly a sentence about punters.

Barefoot your sentence would have made just as much sense if you had said "rent women's orifices".

And, generally, when people are told their behaviour now breaks the law, that behaviour reduces. Employers now mostly pay the minimum wage, for example

The smoking ban. It's unthinkable now of what life was like pre-smoking ban. We have a whole generation coming up who can't believe we used to have to share planes, cinemas , pubs, offices etc with smokers

It's the first two words in my post - MEN CONSIDERING. Men are the clear target of my post. Did you read the whole sentence?

Men considering they have the right to buy consent, to rent women's orifices as wanksocks and to complain afterwards if said woman didn't seem enthusiastic enough about it, seems the very definition of a set of patriarchal actions.

Again, brazen understood it wasn't directed at her, hence her wink; my post after that was just to make very sure that my clear post was clear.

Once more, for the cheap seats;

I
Judge
Punters
Not
Prostitutes.

I saw your later explanation of why you used the term. But when you first used it came across as your own voice. Perhaps you framed it badly. And I still think that you used it to try and hurt Brazen. To make her feel bad - like she's just a wanksock to her clients. Just because you are hurling the words of others at a target doesn't mean you're not attacking.

And this one from me:

As is, I hope, obvious to anyone who hasn't got a vested interest in twisting my words, I do not think of prostitutes as wanksocks.

Punters do, and worse, and that's why I despise punters.

And brazen herself understood that, as per her post:

Also, the 'wanksock' comment in my last post was meant in a light-hearted way. I honestly wasn't attempting to twist your words.

We are on p10. These posts were on p9. Not far to check back.

08/03/2016 18:40 BarefootAcrossHotLegoPieces

"Prostitution does not damage women. Prostitutes do not damage other women. Patriarchy damages women. Can't feminists stick together on that?"

Men considering they have the right to buy consent, to rent women's orifices as wanksocks and to complain afterwards if said woman didn't seem enthusiastic enough about it, seems the very definition of a set of patriarchal actions.

08/03/2016 18:41 BarefootAcrossHotLegoPieces

"Blaming prostitutes for men using prostitutes doesn't get anyone very far"

I don't blame prostitutes, I blame punters and want punters criminalised.

I used the phrase wanksock as an example of punter mindset. I categorically did not call brazen a wanksock. Please do not misrepresent me.

I had to go back and look - I did have Sillage conflated with the other poster who called Brazen a "wanksock" and another who said that she would feel no sympathy if we had to see a less desirable class of punters under the Nordic model. There is a somewhat nasty, hostile tone towards us as people as much as towards our opinions permeating this thread. If we are not poor, vulnerable victims in need of help by women who assume they know what is best for us, then we are attacked as people.

And Sillage does seem exceptionally hostile, to the point where she's not really making entirely rational arguments.

"I really get the feeling from the tone in which you are addressing us that you would be happy if we were attacked. "

That's an utterly unfair misrepresentation of her position.

What is the significance of whether or not we've come to the aid of another prostitute being attacked? I haven't, either. I suppose that that is because the knowledge that there are other people in the premises is a deterrent to a fair number of would-be trouble-makers so it's perhaps less common.

The stories I have heard about unhelpful law enforcement, health care professionals, social workers, etc. have all been from prostitutes.

You seem to be implying that we are lying or something. You are very hostile in your tone. To be honest, when you first used the word "wanksock" I did think that you were using it, yourself, personally rather than trying to illustrate what you assume our clients call us. It sounded as if you meant to be spiteful, like it was coming from a place of anger.

I don't know you at all, but I really get the feeling from the tone in which you are addressing us that you would be happy if we were attacked. I get the feeling that you think we deserve it because we aren't being properly vulnerable and grateful for your professed desire to help. I think you are very angry with us for not going along with what you want.