From today's Sunday Times

[oddball]

Hadley Freeman
Let's stop pretending prostitution is 'work'

Paying for sex is abuse, and it's revolting to see men casually boast about it

For the past decade, activism on the
progressive left has consisted of
parroting entirely nonsensical slogans:
silence is violence! Trans women are
women! War is peace; freedom is
slavery; ignorance is strength! OK,
those last ones are from George
Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, but I
expect to see them trending on X né Twitter
any day. One of the best-known recent mantras
is "Sex work is work", which has been so
successful that everyone from the BBC to your
teenagers now uses the term "sex worker", and
the word "prostitute" Is seen as degrading.
I've never understood this, for two reasons.
The first is purely linguistic: the "description of
what job involves + worker" construction does
not strike me as a respectful way to describe a
profession; if it were, dentists would be "tooth
workers" and novelists "word workers".
Second, and hear me out here, maybe the
degrading thing about prostitution isn't the
name but the act of having sex with men — it is
almost entirely men who buy sex — who don't
see you as a human but as a hole, and one they
can buy and do with as they please.
For the past few years it has been verboten
to make this gum-bleedingly obvious statement
about prostitution. Oh no, you'd be told, sex
work is empowering and liberating and all sorts
of other zeitgeisty words. Sex work Is work!
Strangely, the sex-work-is-work crowd has
been very quiet since The Spectator published
a column last week by its massage parlour
correspondent and occasional theatre critic,
Lloyd Evans, which provides a very different
perspective on prostitution. In this, his — by my
count — second dispatch this year from a
massage parlour, Evans, presumably typing
with one hand, describes a recent trip to
Cambridge to attend a lecture, where he was so
turned on by the "beautiful historian" giving
the talk that he had no choice but to find a
prostitute afterwards. Perhaps you think I'm
exaggerating. In fact I'm playing it down. I
haven't mentioned, for instance, that Evans
refuses to pay the prostitute the price she
asks because it is "the same as the cost of my
overnight hotel", and clearly a woman's body is
worth less than a night in'a Premier Inn. So he
bargains her down by £20.
I used to wonder what men thought when
they bought sex. Did they convince themselves
that the prostitute was enjoying it? Did they get
off on the knowledge that she, or he, clearly
wasn't? But that question is naive: the men
don't think about the prostitute at all. Evans
doesn't care that she doesn't want to see him
again, or whether she might have been
trafficked, any more than he cares that the
prostitute has no desire for him to stick his
penis inside her. But he does it anyway. This is
true of all men who buy sex, and it's why I
think they are no better than rapists.
Am I being too blunt? Well, maybe more
bluntness is needed instead of the euphemisms
too many have used for too long in the deluded
belief they accord dignity to prostitutes, when
all they actually do is give cover to the men
who abuse them. It's because people aren't
honest about how degrading and — most of all
— dangerous prostitution actually is that we get
situations like what happened in 2021 when, in
response to an "emerging trend" of students
selling their bodies for sex, Durham University
offered sex work training to "ensure, students
can be safe and make Informed choices".
And who could blame those students for
seeing prostitution as a great little
moneyspinner on the side? After all, in British
theatres there are at present not one but two
musicals that present prostitution as a great
career path for women: Pretty Woman, the
ultimate prostitution PR story, and Moulin
Rouge!, in which the prostitute, Satine, dies
(spoiler!) but at least she finds true love on the
way. When The Guardian reviewed Moulin
Rouge! in 2022, the reviewer tutted at
the show's "sour portrayal of Satine's life as a sex
worker", noting that she seemed full of "shame
and self-disdain" for her work. "For an
establishment that exudes sexual freedom, this
seems strangely uptight," the reviewer wrote.
Yes, how uptight of that consumptive woman
working as a sex slave in a cabaret brothel to
not revel in her sexual freedom! At least Les
Misérables down the road has the courage to
tell the truth about prostitution through the
character of Fantine, who sells her hair, then
her teeth, then her body, and then dies. But
come on, Fantine, enjoy your sexual freedom!
People used to call me a "Swerf for saying
things like this, which stands for sex-worker-
exclusionary radical feminist. But I feel only
compassion for prostitutes. It's the men who
abuse them that, I absolutely believe, should
be publicly shamed and imprisoned.
And to all the people out there still bleating
that sex work is empowering, I presume
you'll be encouraging your daughters to pursue
that career path — arguing with dirty old
sociopaths over the price of a blow job. Sex
work is work!

I couldn't attach the photo I took so I used an OCR tool to pull the text and corrected what mistakes I spotted in the output, sorry if I missed any.

[FetishCherry]

The article presents a one-sided view on sex work and its impact, ultimately demonizing the entire industry and those who participate in it. Here are some reasons why the article's perspective is problematic and why a more nuanced understanding is essential:

1. **Lack of Respect for Autonomy**: The article fails to acknowledge the agency and autonomy of individuals who choose to engage in sex work. Many people enter the industry voluntarily and may find it empowering and fulfilling.

2. **Generalization and Stereotyping**: The article broadly categorizes all men who pay for sex as abusers and sex workers as victims. This generalization is not only unfair but also overlooks the complex and varied experiences within the sex work industry.

3. **Misrepresentation of Sex Work**: By depicting sex work as entirely degrading and dangerous, the article dismisses the valid experiences of sex workers who find empowerment and financial independence through their work.

4. **Lack of Support for Safety Measures**: The article criticizes initiatives like sex work training at universities, which aim to ensure the safety and well-being of sex workers. Providing resources and education is crucial to making the industry safer.

5. **Dismissive of Diverse Perspectives**: The article dismisses the perspectives of those who advocate for sex work as a legitimate form of labor. These perspectives often come from sex workers themselves, who are the most qualified to speak on the subject.

6. **Moralizing Tone**: The article's tone implies a moral superiority that can be counterproductive. Judging and shaming sex workers and their clients does not contribute to productive dialogue or solutions.

In conclusion, the article's approach to sex work is reductive and lacking in empathy for the diverse experiences within the industry. A more nuanced and respectful conversation is needed, one that centers the voices of sex workers themselves and addresses safety and autonomy.

[oddball]

One additional criticism I'd throw in is in her rush to moralize she put forward a very daft argument against the phrase "sex worker", apparently never having heard of "construction workers", "oil workers", "IT workers", "fast food workers", etc... as she fails to grasp it's seems it's generally sector, not specific job, + "workers", and I'm pretty sure dentists ("tooth workers") fall under "healthcare workers".

Can't yet give thanks to posts but would otherwise.

[FetishCherry]

One additional criticism I'd throw in is in her rush to moralize she put forward a very daft argument against the phrase "sex worker", apparently never having heard of "construction workers", "oil workers", "IT workers", "fast food workers", etc... as she fails to grasp it's seems it's generally sector, not specific job, + "workers", and I'm pretty sure dentists ("tooth workers") fall under "healthcare workers".

Can't yet give thanks to posts but would otherwise.

I didn't realize that a woman wrote the article. Now it makes sense why she has such a twisted view on sex work, lol. This type of woman is the reason their husbands visit us, lol. They're quick to judge and feel superior while ignoring what their men really want, acting like saints ) and denigrating others who choose to live their lives different

[MidlifeCrisis]

The article presents a one-sided view on sex work and its impact, ultimately demonizing the entire industry and those who participate in it. Here are some reasons why the article's perspective is problematic and why a more nuanced understanding is essential:

1. **Lack of Respect for Autonomy**: The article fails to acknowledge the agency and autonomy of individuals who choose to engage in sex work. Many people enter the industry voluntarily and may find it empowering and fulfilling.

2. **Generalization and Stereotyping**: The article broadly categorizes all men who pay for sex as abusers and sex workers as victims. This generalization is not only unfair but also overlooks the complex and varied experiences within the sex work industry.

3. **Misrepresentation of Sex Work**: By depicting sex work as entirely degrading and dangerous, the article dismisses the valid experiences of sex workers who find empowerment and financial independence through their work.

4. **Lack of Support for Safety Measures**: The article criticizes initiatives like sex work training at universities, which aim to ensure the safety and well-being of sex workers. Providing resources and education is crucial to making the industry safer.

5. **Dismissive of Diverse Perspectives**: The article dismisses the perspectives of those who advocate for sex work as a legitimate form of labor. These perspectives often come from sex workers themselves, who are the most qualified to speak on the subject.

6. **Moralizing Tone**: The article's tone implies a moral superiority that can be counterproductive. Judging and shaming sex workers and their clients does not contribute to productive dialogue or solutions.

In conclusion, the article's approach to sex work is reductive and lacking in empathy for the diverse experiences within the industry. A more nuanced and respectful conversation is needed, one that centers the voices of sex workers themselves and addresses safety and autonomy.

An excellent rebuttal, Cherry! I would not have been as polite about her sermon. I suspect that she reached her conclusions by pure thought - ie without talking to any sex workers or clients - otherwise she could not possibly have reached such one-dimensional conclusions.

[FetishCherry]

An excellent rebuttal, Cherry! I would not have been as polite about her sermon. I suspect that she reached her conclusions by pure thought - ie without talking to any sex workers or clients - otherwise she could not possibly have reached such one-dimensional conclusions.

Before expressing an opinion, she should research the topic and engage with people in the field to gain a fuller understanding. This would help her avoid reaching one-dimensional conclusions driven by prejudice.

Clients are not abusers!! They are the ones who pay our bills at the end of the day ! How many times have I heard from my clients that they like women who are in control? How am I a victim when he wants me to be in control for the whole session? It's just logical! To take cases of human trafficking and generalize by saying that the entire industry, all women, are victims is absurd and illogical. You must be quite ignorant to believe this, to be honest.

[MistressMonique]

Another woman who believes sex is love and only happens in the missionary position with the lights off after marriage... How could a SW possibly enjoy what she does ...I'm not apologising for anal making me squirt yeah I do what I do cos I enjoy it

[AngelsFan]

I think both Hadley Freeman and Lloyd Evans whose article inspired her rant are both very unlikeable people.
She's the worst sort of rad fem swerf and he's a smug Tory wanker of a client.

Troll gets thrown around a lot on this forum. Mostly at me whenever I disagree with the status quo


I think Lloyd Evans was trolling and everyone fell for it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dai...r-Lea-Ypi.html

" The 61-year-old claimed he had lost control of his 'lunatic libido' after seeing the London School of Economics professor's 'blonde hair spilling over her shoulders', before going on to sleep with a Chinese prostitute

Asked if he had any regrets over the article, Mr Evans replied: 'It's a bit unfortunate, I have had people calling me a sex pervert on Twitter which I think is strange.

'So this person, a complete stranger, has read about my romantic life in a magazine and has then made a public effort to notify me that he considered me as sex pervert.

'Well my message to him is get out of the basement and get a bit of action, even if you have to pay for it.'




I think his naming of the Cambridge professor was vile, and he seems well up his own arse.
Also "romantic life" ?

I didn't find the particular article referenced but here is some of his previous work.


https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...ing-a-massage/

[InsidiousCid]

Hadley Freeman
Let's stop pretending prostitution is 'work'

Paying for sex is abuse, and it's revolting to see men casually boast about it

For the past decade, activism on the progressive left has consisted of parroting entirely nonsensical slogans: silence is violence! Trans women are women! War is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength! OK, those last ones are from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, but I expect to see them trending on X né Twitter any day. One of the best-known recent mantras is "Sex work is work", which has been so successful that everyone from the BBC to your teenagers now uses the term "sex worker", and the word "prostitute" Is seen as degrading. I've never understood this, for two reasons.

The first is purely linguistic: the "description of what job involves + worker" construction does not strike me as a respectful way to describe a profession; if it were, dentists would be "tooth workers" and novelists "word workers".

Second, and hear me out here, maybe the degrading thing about prostitution isn't the name but the act of having sex with men — it is almost entirely men who buy sex — who don't see you as a human but as a hole, and one they can buy and do with as they please.

For the past few years it has been verboten to make this gum-bleedingly obvious statement about prostitution.
Oh no, you'd be told, sex work is empowering and liberating and all sorts of other zeitgeisty words.
Sex work Is work!

Strangely, the sex-work-is-work crowd has been very quiet since The Spectator published a column last week by its massage parlour correspondent and occasional theatre critic, Lloyd Evans, which provides a very different perspective on prostitution.
In this, his — by my count — second dispatch this year from a massage parlour, Evans, presumably typing with one hand, describes a recent trip to Cambridge to attend a lecture, where he was so turned on by the "beautiful historian" giving the talk that he had no choice but to find a prostitute afterwards.

Perhaps you think I'm exaggerating. In fact I'm playing it down. I haven't mentioned, for instance, that Evans refuses to pay the prostitute the price she asks because it is "the same as the cost of my overnight hotel", and clearly a woman's body is worth less than a night in'a Premier Inn.
So he bargains her down by £20.

I used to wonder what men thought when they bought sex. Did they convince themselves that the prostitute was enjoying it? Did they get off on the knowledge that she, or he, clearly wasn't? But that question is naive: the men don't think about the prostitute at all. Evans doesn't care that she doesn't want to see him again, or whether she might have been trafficked, any more than he cares that the prostitute has no desire for him to stick his penis inside her.

But he does it anyway.

This is true of all men who buy sex, and it's why I think they are no better than rapists.

Am I being too blunt? Well, maybe more bluntness is needed instead of the euphemisms too many have used for too long in the deluded belief they accord dignity to prostitutes, when all they actually do is give cover to the men who abuse them. It's because people aren't honest about how degrading and — most of all — dangerous prostitution actually is that we get situations like what happened in 2021 when, in response to an "emerging trend" of students selling their bodies for sex, Durham University offered sex work training to "ensure, students can be safe and make Informed choices".

And who could blame those students for seeing prostitution as a great little moneyspinner on the side? After all, in British theatres there are at present not one but two musicals that present prostitution as a great career path for women: Pretty Woman, the ultimate prostitution PR story, and Moulin Rouge!, in which the prostitute, Satine, dies (spoiler!) but at least she finds true love on the way.
When The Guardian reviewed Moulin Rouge! in 2022, the reviewer tutted at the show's "sour portrayal of Satine's life as a sex worker", noting that she seemed full of "shame and self-disdain" for her work. "For an establishment that exudes sexual freedom, this seems strangely uptight," the reviewer wrote.

Yes, how uptight of that consumptive woman working as a sex slave in a cabaret brothel to not revel in her sexual freedom! At least Les Misérables down the road has the courage to tell the truth about prostitution through the character of Fantine, who sells her hair, then her teeth, then her body, and then dies.
But come on, Fantine, enjoy your sexual freedom!

People used to call me a "Swerf for saying things like this, which stands for sex-worker- exclusionary radical feminist. But I feel only compassion for prostitutes.

It's the men who abuse them that, I absolutely believe, should be publicly shamed and imprisoned.

And to all the people out there still bleating that sex work is empowering, I presume you'll be encouraging your daughters to pursue that career path — arguing with dirty old sociopaths over the price of a blow job.

Sex work is work!

I had to paragraph that to make it through.

lol

Author:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Freeman



This interview was also released recently where I believe she discusses the above article.