Spot on Chris! No different to job agencies as far as I can see though! Having experienced redundancy last year, I’ve had the horrific ordeal of being placed in some awful places! Sweat shops where bullying bosses are treating people like slaves! Workers ‘mostly foreign’ are being forced to endure disgusting conditions and endless pressure all in the name of making Ireland more competitive! Workers are being exploited like never before, and no one seems to care! I understand this isn’t exactly prostitution, but one wonders if people forced into this type of work just to survive might see prostitution as an easier alternative!

Agreed. My point was that the scatter gun approach taken by Gardai and police last week was wrong. It’s the equivalent of giving every motorist on the roads two penalty points in case they might be speeding. I would support any and all resources being put towards finding and getting criminal gangs who force girls into this and keep them trapped in it. But the media coverage and pointless columns like this one do nothing to address the issue. It’s just someone with an opinion and a pen plus access to the media spouting off. It’s easy for anyone to sit on their armchair talking while the actual issue runs on unabated. So what’s the point ??

An otherwise semi intelligent comment ruined by sexist drivel. Some women have more of a sex drive, some men have less. It’s really not determined by your gender, so the whole “feminists don’t understand how much men need sex” thing is ridiculous. I always assume men who say this tend to be the ones who have trouble finding partners.

I think you missed the point there Nick. No amount of legislation is going to curb anyone’s sex drive. Given the choice between the need for sex and facing a Judge, then the sex drive will nearly always win out. BTW I never said anything about “feminists don’t understand how much men need sex” so I would appreciate it if you didn’t ascribe that notion to my comment. What I said was ” Whoever came up with that idea obviously does not understand that strength of the male sex drive ” I mentioned no individual, organization or social ideal in anyway, as I don’t know who proposed the legislation or who supported it. I criticized what I think is a wrong piece of legislation is general terms.

You on the other hand seem to think that it is OK to attack me on a personal level by calling me “sexist” and assuming that I have a problem in finding a partner. You haven’t a clue who I am, what my background is, what my social ideals are and whether or not I have a partner. You have however (casting aside the slurs and insinuations) reinforced some of the things that I pointed out. I called for a mature, calm and rational debate on the issue because ” Too often I have found that the very women who espouse equality of the sex’s sneerily dismiss my views on the subject because ” Shure you’re a man, you would say that!” and the first thing you do is call me sexist! I must admit I should have said “the very people” instead of “the very women” so I did err on that point however the point remains the same. Instead of a mature, calm and rational response to my comment you instead resorted to a personal attack upon my character. Very mature Nick, very mature indeed.

You say you want a calm, rational debate. A good way to start would be to drop the stupid strawman point about missionary position sex used for procreation only.

I don’t know you. But what you said was sexist, by saying: “Whoever came up with that idea obviously does not understand that strength of the male sex drive ”. Implying who, exactly, can’t understand the male sex drive? You’re backpedaling.

Sorry, are we so politically correct now that we can’t call sexism sexism? Oops. And you’re right, I don’t know you. But this seems to have hit a nerve…

“I always assume men who say this tend to be the ones who have trouble finding partners.” Assuming that is the case I don’t see the problem, provided there is mutual consent. Your profile says you are a disabled representative. A lot of disabled people use prostitutes because many are in exactly that position. So you should be supporting legalisation.

As I said, I have no problem with freely consenting women entering sex work. I just worry about the high levels of exploitation that I’ve personally seen amongst the women I work with (which I’ve admitted, it’s hard to know how much they represent the general population of sex workers.)

I admit, I’ve never had a disabled student share those experiences with me, but if it was a woman who had actually entered sex work with an informed choice (an actual choice, not one driven by addiction or force) and was working independently, I’d be fine with it.

Brilliant Brian…nothing I can add or subtract.

Nick Beard…don’t you think your attitude to women is becoming very paternalistic? We can define our own sex drives all by ourselves thank you.

…oh and most of us have evolved to the stage where we can make our own decisions too.

I totally agree about women and their sex drives, Elaine. What I object to is a broad generalised statement that men have different sex drives than women instead of recognising that there is as much differences within genders as between them.

And maybe it is paternalistic to think that we should provide support to women with substance abuse issues and prosecute rapes which happen to women within sex work. But if it is, I’m ok with that.

It’s funny, Eileen, on your Facebook stage, you cite an article saying that if you care about women in prostitution, you would be calling for exit resources. I absolutely agree that exit resources are far more important than legalisation or delegalisation.

Nick, I have to go to work so I will address your points briefly.

I am not back pedalling when I say “whoever”. It implies no gender and assigns no gender to who came up with the Swedish legislation so how is that sexist? As for hitting a nerve, yes you are right I do get annoyed when people throw unwarranted slurs at me with no qualification whatsoever. I engaged in a rational debate and you attacked me and not my arguments. I’m sure if I started throwing personal insults without foundation at you , you would not be too pleased either. If you want to engage in a debate on this subject then fine but if you are going to reduce it to personal attacks then I have no interest in engaging with you. I can’t say fairer than that.

Your words were sexist (by implying that there is something different and unique about men’s sex drives, rather than accepting that women and men have unique sex drives, not particularly determined by gender) and reeked of men complaining in the pub about women. If you take a description of yourself as sexist (because your words certainly were) as offensive, perhaps it would be appropriate to consider not saying things that are sexist.

Nick, I really don’t understand your logic and reasoning on this one. The reason that I made the comment on men’s sex drives is because the vast majority of people who engage the services of women prostitutes are men! If you ask any person on the street “Who do you think use the services of women sex workers” at a guess I would say that 99% of the replies would be “men” so that is why I referred to men’s sex drives.

You ask the question “are we so politically correct now that we can’t call sexism sexism”. Well I would ask the question , are we so politically correct that even though only a very small minority use women sex workers we have to include them in a debate for fear of being called sexist!

So just to keep you happy Nick I will amend my previous comment to now state

“. Do they really think that this course of action will really work and that men’s,women/s LGBT’s sex drive will shut down? Seriously! Overnight every man, woman. LGBT who uses the services of sex workers will just go impotent at the thought of getting caught by the cops and getting fined. Whoever came up with that idea obviously does not understand that strength of the male, female, LGBT sex drive.”……..

I hope that this satisfies the criteria to be inclusive of all genders and restores me to a non sexist view point.

You’re right. Men do tend to use the services of sex workers, both female and male. What I object to is your oversimplistic analysis that this happens because “men have higher sex drives.” There’s as much discrepancy within genders as there is between them in this regard, so to oversimplify this as “men use sex workers because they have higher sex drives” is silly. Unless you have some academic research on this you’d like to point me to?

Ah Jesus Nick there you go again putting words into my mouth. I have reread my comment and at no point have I made any reference to to any differences between the male and female sex drives. It was in fact you who brought up this point and seem hung up on it for some reason. You quote me as saying “men have higher sex drives” again Nick I never said that. I really don’t know what your agenda or thought flow is here. So lets clear something up.

I never said..
1. “feminists don’t understand how much men need sex”
2. “men have higher sex drives.”
3. “men use sex workers because they have higher sex drives”
4. ” men have different sex drives than women” ( your reply to Eileen Lang)

It is you who have said all of these things and then saw fit to lecture me on human sexuality. I am well aware of how humans sexuality operates and well aware of the variances in the sex drives of males and females. I don’t know what sort of issues you have that make you see sexist slant to my comments and why you so hung up on male/female sex drives. You were the one who brought up the point about differing sex drives even though I at no stage either mentioned it or contested it. Anyone who knows anything about human sexuality will acknowledge that sex drives differ inter-sex and intra-sex so you a really only preaching to the choir. You get worked up because I only mention the male sex drive even though I was commenting on male clients only. Why would I include the female sex drive in relation to men when I am commenting on men exclusively?

You have misrepresented my comments as I outlined above and sought to put your words to my argument.
You have attacked me personally without foundation,provocation or qualification.
The sole points of your argument seems to be points that you brought up, falsely attributed to me and then attacked me and accused me of being sexist! Like I say , you obviously have issues in this area but that is for you to work out. I would ask you to point out where in my original comment I made the four points outlined above but your convoluted logic is simply just too confusing. No doubt any reply you make will either have another made up quote, a personal sleight or maybe even both.

Nick, there really are certain overall differences between male and female sex drives because of the biological imperatives, of course, within that framework, we are all very different and individual. Even so, the fact remains that is a woman, for whatever reason, finds herself in need of casual, “no strings”, “zipless” sex she is unlikely to have much difficulty finding a male volunteer, and man, however, usually finds himself in a very different situation, unless he is willing to hire a contractor.

That is not equality.

I have believed for more than 25 years that where a woman is driven to sell sex by economic imperatives coercing her out of sex work without even offering a realistic alternative is just barbaric and cruel, and society has no right to punish or impede her until it has done all it can to offer her a way out…in a neutral way that is not tied to the promotion of a specific ideology or agenda, with which she may have significant issues.

But I also believe that society should leave people free to make their own choices about sex work, whether as customer or contractor.

Ah, Brian, that’s the difference between me and you. As Al Mar noted, you insult people (and said I had issues). I laughed it off. If you get offended by minor comments, wouldn’t recommend doing a lot of commenting on here. I’m sorry if you “have issues” around thinking that all women want sex less than men. I only assumed your opinions came from life experience. Heh.

Nick you are obviously reading a different website to me seeing as you say that Al Mar said that I insult people. Here is the original comment “You say you want a calm, rational debate. A good way to start would be to drop the stupid strawman point about missionary position sex used for procreation only.” Where is the word insult? So you are now ascribing comments not just to me but to other commentators also!

And then surprise, surprise. ”
” I’m sorry if you “have issues” around thinking that all women want sex less than men.” ( another made up quote) “I only assumed your opinions came from life experience.” (, a personal sleight) or maybe both as predicted. I don’t get offended by minor comments, I get offend by slurs without foundation. If there was a basis for saying that I had made a sexist statement then I would have addressed it but you have provided no foundation whatsoever for your arguments. In fact like I have already stated you are the one who have brought up those arguments not me. How you can equate “having issues” with “sexist” is beyond me! Everybody has issues with one thing or another but not everyone is sexist. I wouldn’t mind if you had given one decent, reasoned argument against something that I directly said ( not what you made up in your own mind ) and put it to me. Instead, and I say this with as much honesty and respect as I can, based on your previous posts and your approach to debate, it’s like having an argument with a 14 year old teenager. What has astounded me is that you are doing a Phd in Law. I would have thought that given your background you would have had a much better approach to this debate, really I am genuinely baffled. Anyway I’ve wasted enough time on this subject so I’m off out for a pint or some tea with bromide depending on the state of my libido!

Well said Patrick, much better put than that silly column

Yes , that bank guarantee is just like having some one have sex with you so you can eat, where something in your life has gone so wrong that you must sell your body to some hard up “punter”! Next time you think of it, look at someone in the street paying you or a relative you love, to have sex, them breathing on you and worse, and tell me that you really believe its a viable career choice, an alternative to a traditional job! When people see or know their family are doing this their opinions probably change drastically!!

Right on, Patrick!

Brendan, it’s really not all that easy. It’s most definitely a viable career choice for some people who don’t have a problem with having sex with strangers, especially when the money is good. If you’re going to chose between breaking your back in a crappy “traditional” job all day and still not have enough to pay rent and bills etc, or a job where you do a couple of hours a day and have more than you’d have made in a week in a traditional job, which would you chose?

It’d come down to notions of safety and your own morals.

Now, in an ideal world, sex workers would be seen as the same as everyone else and “punters” would be screened to make sure they are safe, and sex workers could have security and feel safe calling the gardai if something happened. We could all respect each other and everyone would be better off.

This isn’t the same as people putting their lives and health (mental health too) in danger because they’re being forced into the situation by others or because of economic reasons. People should never have to go to those extremes, but fixing that has more to do with creating good jobs and support networks within our society to take care of vulnerable people. Not sex work.

True and fair eleen! I still have reservations about it! Like the author said there is plenty of sex freely available out there so you would have to question who pays for it and why? Total respect to anyone working in the trade though, and they do need more protection and to feel free to contact the guards!

The reasons people pay for sex is more interesting to ponder anyway ^_^

I think the more research I do into it the more I’m surprised by the answers! I think there’s still a lot of taboo around sex, some people may have kinks or are curious about things that they would be shy to express to actual partners, others may not have the time for a relationship, others might use it for therapy, some are just lonely. Each to their own, I think as long as the person paying is considerate and respectful – and doesn’t do it to get a kick off some sort of weird power trip – then I wouldn’t have a problem whatsoever.

Personally though, I don’t think I would ever pay for it either, I’d feel too bad. But then again, I feel bad for waiters at restaurants etc. lol.

True Eleen, you’ll never figure out why people do what they do! Once the workers are protected and safe!! But I am wondering about refunds and complaint procedures!

Pretty awkward to sort either of them out I’d imagine, heh.

Toby – we are all forced to live by somebody’s morals every day on pretty much every issue. It’s called the law. The alternative is anarchy.

i dont know! consenting adults and that, can hardly be healthy, mentally pyshically emotionally etc the risks for your current or future partners etc!

Almar, I really do not think the only alternative to arbtrary and invasive law is anarchy…Carlsberg do seem to have provided a third alternative in this instance, it is called:
“Common Sense”

Anarchy or Self Determination?
Do we really need a Govt to tell us what is right and wrong?
A Govt with very questionable morals in the first place.
I would much rather make my own decisions and live by the consequences. Once my decisions don’t impact negatively then what’s the problem. Personal Freedom is so alien to us in this Country that we balk at the idea when we are given the opportunity to think for ourselves or take responsibility for our own actions. Most people would rather live their life as sheep allowing the Govt to take more and more control over their daily lives.

Truth can be so very simple, can’t it Eamonn?

They all forget, the rape law we all fought for pivots on the concept of informed, conscious, intellectual consent.

“But your honour, the victim wanted it” is now a non starter as a defence in a rape trial. Call a sex worker a rape victim because she does not consent out of genuine desire and the whole concept of sexual consent goes up in the air…and there is no guarantee that it will land in a good place.

Besides the double standard apparent in what you’ve said (women give it away, do they? While men do what exactly?) I think this makes a point for a lot of us who are quite torn on the issue. I have no problem with someone who genuinely makes an informed decision to work as a sex worker, but have a big problem with exploitation of women (which from my experiences working with helping prostitutes access substance abuse services, exploitation at street level seems rampant.)

How can we help women who are or feel exploited while listening to women who freely consent? It’s a bit of a dilemma.

And I have seen a lot of academic criticism of the New Zealand model (complete decriminalisation). I am actually quite educated about this issues and in my opinion, all of the models have problems and none work perfectly. I would argue that less important than legalisation or delegalisation is support for health service and where necessary, substance abuse services for sex workers are more important, as well as pursuing convictions for rapes of sex workers.

AKA decriminalised sex work is fine as long as it can be exploited by the NGO sector to milk even more funds out of the state.

I’m sorry you feel that rape crisis centres, drug and alcohol services and domestic violence refuges are milking money out of the state. Thank goodness you admit you only speak for yourself and not women who have had wonderful experiences with counselling that the government doesn’t always provide.

Nick, when you say you have seen “academic criticism” of the New Zealand model (which isn’t actually complete decriminalisation, BTW, though it’s pretty close), which studies are you referring to?

Hi, Wendy, I’m talking about the work done by the University of Otago on the effects of the Prostitution Reform Act. Which noted that there had been positive improvements once there was decriminalisation, but also noted there was still violence against sex workers, particularly at street level and that there was a lot of concern with children’s involvement (which they seem to be prioritising as an issue, which is great).

As I’ve said several times, I’m really torn on this issue, due to the high rates of sexual violence that we’ve encountered amongst street level sex workers in the organisation I work for. I absolutely admit there are some women who have freely chosen sex work, but I’m not sure that any model seems to really work in ending sexual violence against sex workers or helping women who are quite exploited.

Which is why personally my priority would be on ending stigma against women involved and providing services.

Sorry Nick, but I have seen evidence of “rape crisis centres, drug and alcohol services and domestic violence refuges” and many others, prioritizing high salaries and milking money from the state over the needs of their user groups.

That is not my fault, that is their choice.

Whatever about some young, idealist frontline workers the executive ethos today seems to be to work out what you would gain most by doing to other people’s lives then reinvent your user group to fit it…without a care in the world for who they really are, what they really need, or how much harm that will do.

If any of these organisations really cared about sex workers in any way they would be supporting them in fighting to keep the livelihood they need, through the recession, not fighting to take it away.

Well, then, I really need to get paid more. You know, as I’m trying to rip off the state with my subsidence level salary.

I did not say you were, but unfortunately, there is a high probability that the people above you in the organisation into which you are putting all your effort and sincerity are.

I am sorry, that is just the way the world really is, and anyone vulnerable or disadvantaged only gets to deal with the world as it really is, not a fantasy of the way we would like it to be.

:o(

Thanks Nick. I think it’s unfair to describe the University of Otago’s research as criticism of the model. In fact, its overall disposition toward the model is positive, as can be seen from the fact that the chief researcher, Gillian Abel, went on to base her PhD dissertation on it under the title “Decriminalisation: A harm minimisation and human rights approach to regulating sex work”. The findings that you highlight are acknowledgments that the model doesn’t resolve all problems that sex workers face (did anyone suggest it would?) rather than criticisms that the model itself is problematic. Certainly they aren’t calling for a different model to be considered.

Also worth noting are the LASH reports that have come out of Australia recently, comparing the New South Wales (decriminalisation), Victoria (legalisation) and Western Australia (criminalisation) models. While there is no “perfect” model, NSW was found to be by far the best in terms of health and human rights promotion.

Sounds promising, Wendy. I hope we all take a leaf out of their book in that case!

This is key Wendy:
“The findings that you highlight are acknowledgments that the model doesn’t resolve all problems that sex workers face”

…and nothing ever will, I can promise you that…but that must not be taken as a cue to throw sex workers to the wolves instead, as seems to be happening.

When we seek to influence other people’s lives we need to be sure we have our priorities straight.

In the UK there is now nothing unusual about people being left with no source of income at all for months, quite arbitrarily. Regardless of whether they are fit to work, even regardless of the fact that there *is* no work. When that happens, sex work is one of their very few, realistic, options (the others are mostly hard crime). In circumstances like that sex work can be an agonising decision, and one that you will perhaps never recover from having to make, but at least it *is* an option, and taking that option away will only leave you destitute and desperate…it will not force a new solution that the feminist backlash are more comfortable with to suddenly appear.

Under those circumstances the risk of sexual violence is very low in your list of priorities indeed, protecting and or supporting you in regard to sexual violence will not put a roof over your head or food on the table.

Nobody has the right to decide that someone else should be left destitute to protect them from the risk of comparatively minor trauma…that is completely insane…yet it is the basis of most prohibitionist campaigns.

On the other side of the coin, elective sex workers are intelligent adults, who were perfectly capable of taking the minor risk of sexual violence into account for themselves when they opted for sex work, and, in many cases, develop their own support systems, independent of existing services. They may need support if violence occurs, but they certainly do not need their livelihood taking away to punish them in case it does.

While I think we can have a legitimate discussion as to whether legal prostitution contributes to violence against women, I am always wary of rape statistics. It can be interpreted as more rapes happen in Sweden OR that Sweden is a place where more people feel comfortable reporting their partner rapes to the police. It’s really hard to read in to these without context, as is noted in the article. After all, according to the UN, Somalia has one of the lowest rates of rape in the world, if you look at their reported statistics.

I also hope you’re not implying that people rape if they don’t have access to sex workers. That’s fairly insulting, particularly to men.

Ruhama’s trustees are the Sisters of Charity and the Sisters of Mercy. These 2 organisations ran Magdalene Launderies. Is this there way or trying to kill two birds with the one stone: simultaneously returning to the sexually-repressive yesteryear, while posing as converts to women’s rights?

Ok, but that’s a different conversation altogether about their motivations. I don’t know enough about that in particular to comment on that.

What I do know is a lot of feminist organisations which provide services to sex workers are opposed to legalisation. Admittedly, it’s because the women who come in for our services are more likely to be raped or have serious substance abuse issues (I know I only meet women who say they freely chose prostitution through activism work rather than through services), but just because some Catholics are opposed to legalisation doesn’t mean that everyone who is opposed is religiously motivated.

Again, I work for a feminist organisation (which is not Ruhama) and we deal with sex workers who want to access drug and alcohol services or domestic violence refuges. It’s ridiculous how many some services are uncomfortable providing support to sex workers and so we work to encourage better access. There’s also a Sexual Violence Advocate I know who works exclusively with rape survivors who are sex workers and considers it to be quite exploitative because obviously, she only meets women who were raped in the course of their work.

What we’re discussing here isn’t the specifics of Ruhama. I’m not involved with them and so can’t speak for them, but the fact that those of us who work with women do note a lot of exploitation. I’m glad if that’s something you haven’t seen a lot of, it’s something that shouldn’t exist for women.

You and I have no disagreement as to the fact that services for these women should be the priority and your mention of abusive spouses and the lack of help from women’s refuges does strike a chord with me, absolutely.

But I am very torn on legalisation because I see a lot of problems with all the current models. But if you mobilise people to secure better services for sex workers, as well as a recognition that sexual violence against sex workers is a horrible thing that should not happen, I will be right on the street protesting with you.

Sorry Nick, for other reasons there is literally no power on this earth that could make me campaign for more funding to *ANY* NGO for *ANY* reason at this stage…because the problem, across the entire NGO sector, is not insufficient funds, it is abuse of funds, often in combination with the expliotation of the target group, and that is a situation that needs shaking up until it is solved. So far I have not discovered one single exception to that.

The best NGO money can buy appears to be one that hasn’t done much actual harm lately.

Resources are desperately needed, but where the feck are you going to get them from?

A few more hundred millions worth of self congratulation societies and useless lipservice isn’t any use…and even if it was, where would the money come from? Essential services to sick children?

I will tell you one thing, the kind of women who turn to sex work would far rather go on selling sex and fending for themselves than take money like that. Because sex workers do have pride, integrity, self respect and opinions…and most of them prefer to support themselves by selling sex than to live on welfare handouts or charity.

So I do not quite know what to say on that score, except that services are desperately needed but I can see there is no realistic way they would ever be delivered.

This is the reality that some of us are living with, right now:
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/06/02/greek-crisis-spurs-epidemic-of-suicides-mental-illness/

…and it may only get worse. I cannot see where there is one iota of justification in taking anybody’s income away in that light.

As for sexual violence, to anyone, to me it is one of those things one automatically abhors, like cannibalism. But in order to truly address it, we must first define it accurately. Look at this, the Sexual abuse and Violence in Ireland Report 2002:
http://epubs.rcsi.ie/psycholrep/10/

Ruhama insisted that the researchers not approach sex workers directly and provided 8 workers (including volunteers) to guess on their behalf instead (if you think that is bad you should see how the mentally ill and intellectually disabled were treated), apparently, interviewed separately, the guesses were wildly disparate…but these remain the statistics upon which much of our perception of sexual violence to sex workers are based.

No seriously, there is nothing we can do until we have finally begun to treat sex workers as the intelligent human beings they are rather than stray dogs who need charity workers to speak and decide for them and ask them what they need, and before we can do that we must create a safe, non-hostile, non-destructive atmosphere in which they feel safe to engage at all.

Eileen, it’s really unhelpful to your case when all your arguments are against Ruhama. I really dislike the idea of treating sex workers as one homogenous group. If someone comes into a rape crisis centre and says they faced sexual violence as a sex worker, I believe them. If she says she’d like access to refuges or substance abuse centres, I would do everything I could to help her access them.

I think it’d dangerous for people, even you, to assume all sex workers agree on everything and have the same needs.

Nick, I would say that, in terms of whether they need to speak for themselves, or have Ruhama guess on their behalf, in their absence, sex workers probably *are* one homogenous group, wouldn’t you? Which, if you look is pretty much the only way I have ever suggested they are.

Ruhama (currently) say:

“Women sell sex because they have to, not because they want to” therefore we must “rescue” them by taking this desperately needed income away…

I say:
Some women sell sex because they have to, not because they want to, and, unless you really have something better to offer them, or are going to genuibely support them in that, they need you to leave them in peace to get on with it.
Other women sell sex because they choose to, why, and whether they enjoy it is absolutely none of your business because they are adults, and your equals, and you need to respect their autonomy and leave them in peace to make their own choices…oh, and by the way, due to the current economic downturn, they are unlikely to be able to find alternative employment to keep their lives going anyway…

Are you sure I am the one dismissing sex workers as one homogenous group here? Because I can’t see why.

What I am saying is that some sex workers are in desperate need of all kinds of help, but that doesn’t change that fact that the most of the voluntary and community sector is currently too much of an overpriced, self serving mess to have any real effective help to offer them, (or indeed anyone else). In fact the determined inadequacy of existing service provision within the voluntary and community is one of the greatest factors that drive women (and men) to sex work in the first place. More of the same useless, self serving lip service is no good to them at all.

Crisis and survival sex workers are a special group among the disadvantaged, because, whatever the problem, they are using the high, readily available income from sex work to help themselves cope with or overcome it. Legislation aimed at denying them access to that degree of self reliance, swiftly followed by demands for increased funding to NGOs who do not know, or care, what kind of help they need, let alone have it available to offer, is just callous and destructive.

Eileen, I am really, really sorry that you had a bad experience with an organisation which states that it represents you. I can’t imagine how frustrating that would be and you should absolutely be able to share them.

I don’t work for Ruhama, I’m not associated with them and when I speak about services, it’s NOT Ruhama I’m necessarily referring to (I just don’t know any specifics about them.) But to say that since Ruhama is a problem, all services are, isn’t necessarily true. I really wish we could step away from Ruhama in this discussion, as I have made it clear numerous times I am NOT speaking about them nor do they have an influence on my opinions.

Sadly Nick, whatever applies to Ruhama applies equally to any service or resource signed up to “Turn Off the Red Light” so that, in effect the campaign effectively excludes sex workers from resources and services.