Category Archives: current affairs

current affairs, sexuality

On Sex Work

The latest New Scientist (dated 6 July 2013) carries a short but interesting article under the headline “One minute with … Laura Agustín”. Her thesis is that banning prostitution does not make women safer, in fact it does exactly the opposite.

As New Scientist is behind a paywall, I’m naughtily going to reproduce the complete item here as I believe Agustín’s ideas should have a wider audience before our politicians make ever more hasty and ill-considered rules. And because I happen to agree with her.

Most of what we think we know about sex trafficking is wrong, says Laura Agustín, who has spent 20 years investigating the sex industry

There is a proposal in the UK to clamp down on prostitution by criminalising the purchase of sex. Why do you object?
Millions of people around the world make a living selling sex, for many different reasons. What are they expected to do? This would take away their livelihoods. Selling sex may be their preference out of a limited range of options. In the UK, migrants may have paid thousands of pounds to get here. This debt has to be paid off somehow, whether it is by working in the back of a restaurant or selling sex. Migrants who sell sex can pay off the debt much faster.

But prostitution is dangerous, especially for those who work on the street …
Women who work on the street are a small proportion of all the people who sell sex. Many more work through escort agencies, brothels or independently from home.

It is disrespectful to treat them all like victims who have been duped into what they are doing. In the UK, there are thousands of articulate sex workers who say, “Leave me alone, I did know what I was getting into and I’m okay doing it.”

Isn’t the “happy hooker” a myth? Doesn’t research show it is a miserable existence?
Given the millions of people selling sex in the world, generalisations are impossible. Much research has been done at medical clinics or shelters for victims. If you go to a trauma centre, you meet traumatised people. When people tell me they have never met anyone who wanted to be selling sex, I ask where they did their research.

Why do you think anti-prostitution laws can make life more dangerous for sex workers?
If you think what sex workers do is dangerous, why insist they do it alone? It is legal in the UK for individuals to sell sex, but they may not work with companions or employ security guards. Brothels are illegal. If you prohibit businesses but people run them anyway – which they do – then workers must please bosses no matter what they ask. That is why this is a labour issue. Also, targeting kerb-crawlers makes things more dangerous since sex workers may have to jump in cars without getting a good sense of the driver.

What about trafficking of unwilling victims?
The numbers of trafficking victims reproduced by the media have no basis in fact. There is no way to count undocumented people working in underground economies. Investigations showed that one big UK police operation failed to find any traffickers who had forced people into prostitution. Most migrants who sell sex know a good deal about what they are getting into.

If there is no proof it is common, why is there widespread belief in sex-slave trafficking?
Why do moral panics take off? Focusing on trafficking gives governments excuses to keep borders closed. Perhaps it is easier to campaign moralistically against prostitution than to deal with the real problems: dysfunctional migration and labour policies that keep large numbers of people in precarious situations.

There are other augments too. By legalising sex work, as the Dutch have done, means it can be regulated, the workers given regular health checks, and also have their income taxed. It takes sex work out of the grey economy, whereas criminalisation pushes it ever further into the murky depths of the blackest of black economies.

Laura Agustín studies gender, migration and trafficking. She is the author of Sex at the Margins (Zed Books, 2007) and blogs as The Naked Anthropologist at lauraagustin.com

beliefs, current affairs, ramblings

In which I worry about Bishops …

… or more precisely, retired Archbishops.

The BBC reported a few days ago that according to Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, allowing Gay marriage “paves way for polygamy”.

In an article for the think tank Civitas, Lord Carey … argues that the government is effectively seeking to change the definition of marriage to “a long-term commitment between two people of any sex, in which gender and procreation are irrelevant”.

He says he does not want to be “alarmist”, but that could logically be extended to “say, two sisters bringing up children together” or “multiple relationships, such as two women and one man”.

Let’s just leaving aside the fact that this is an absolute load of old baloney — the relationships his Lordship cites have been happening since time immortal, so where’s the problem? But I do worry what school Lord Carey went to when he can clearly think that two women plus one man is two people. Do divines have different arithmetic rules to the rest of us? Or has he actually lost his marbles?

Fortunately others of Lord Carey’s colleagues are more sane:

[T]he Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt Rev Nicholas Holtham suggested in a letter to the Telegraph that it was time to “rethink” attitudes about same-sex marriage, as Christians had done with slavery and apartheid. “No one now supports either slavery or apartheid. The Biblical texts have not changed; our interpretation has.”

And in a brilliant response to Lord Carey …

Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill said: “This is regrettably hyperbolic shroud waving”.

You just have to love someone who can talk about “hyperbolic shroud waving”!

current affairs, freedom of speech

World Press Freedom Day

Friday 3 May is World Press Freedom Day, which celebrates the fundamental principles of press freedom; to evaluate press freedom around the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession.

Originally proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in 1993 it has been organised annually on 3 May by UNESCO.


World Press Freedom Day serves as an occasion to inform citizens of violations of press freedom: in dozens of countries around the world publications are censored, fined, suspended and closed down, while journalists, editors and publishers are harassed, attacked, detained and even murdered. It is a date to encourage and develop initiatives in favour of press freedom and to assess the state of press freedom worldwide. It also serves as a reminder to governments of the need to respect their commitment to press freedom.

There’s more on the UNESCO website at www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/events/prizes-and-celebrations/celebrations/international-days/world-press-freedom-day/.

beliefs, current affairs, nudism, ramblings

Kids and Nudity

I’m getting increasingly worried about society’s attitude towards children and nudity. Both allowing kids to see adults nude and adults to see children nude.

Neither is actually a problem, but society is making it into one.

There’s an interesting opinion piece by Laura over at Catharsis under the title Why NOT Being Naked In Front Of Your Kids Is Weird:

[A] single father, recently found himself under Child Protective Services investigation after some mothers of his 6-year-old son’s friends reported him for showering with his child.

These mothers apparently think because the dad showers with his son, he’s a pedophile. NOT because the kid reported his dad touched him inappropriately or because the kid reported his dad demanded to be touched inappropriately by his son.

Simply because the dad showered with his 6-year-old son. Period.

You know what I think about that? I think that’s bullshit. And I think anyone who takes an innocent act like being naked around a child to the level of pedophilia ought to be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

There are real cases of sexual abuse out there — cases of children being seriously harmed by the adults around them. THERE ARE REAL PREDATORY ABUSERS OUT THERE SCARRING CHILDREN PHYSICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY. Simply because a parent is naked in front of his children does NOT make him an abuser, and threatening a parent’s custody of his child with no evidence of such activity is both negligent and irresponsible.

(Emphasis in the original.)

Which, of course, is absolutely right.

OK, so that’s in America. But we’re very little different in this country.

I am concerned at the vilification of artist Graham Ovenden for his portrayal of naked children. OK, Ovenden has recently been convicted of inappropriate conduct with some girls many, many years ago. I don’t know how much abuse, if any, really did occur; I wasn’t there at the time, I wasn’t at the trial and I haven’t seen the evidence only some of the press reports. But the very fact that an artist can be pilloried in the way he has, so long after the event, and when he appears to have taken care that children he was drawing/painting were chaperoned, is deeply worrying. The fact that the charges relate to events 30-40 years ago, and in large part it seems to be the girls’ word against Ovenden’s, smacks of trumped up complaints and something which probably should never have got to court. Although as I say I’ve not followed the details closely, so I may be wrong. But it has been enough to set my alarm bells ringing.

That’s not to condone paedophilia; far from it. As Laura says (above) there are predatory abusers out there; and it is right that where there is sufficient evidence they are brought to justice. But I worry that we are straying into witch-hunt territory, where merely making an allegation is enough for a conviction and that having to provide evidence and to prove a case “beyond reasonable doubt” has gone by the board. This is gutter-press, mob justice.

Merely painting, drawing or photographing a child naked, or showering with a child (yours or anyone else’s) does not constitute paedophilia. Just as a mixed, nude, adult sauna (the norm in Scandinavia!) does not ipso facto mean there is sexual abuse.

We are rapidly approaching the stage where it will be a criminal offence for anyone to see any child nude at any time: parents will not be allowed to bath their newborns; and doctors will not be able to examine child patients. Clearly this is a nonsense and would lead to a major deterioration in health.

As I have observed before nudity and sexuality need to be normalised, not marginalised and ciminalised. I have always maintained that if we had a healthier understanding and acceptance of desires, sexuality, nudity and our bodies it would have far reaching positive effects on our health and our attitudes. Bring children up to understand their bodies, their sexuality and to accept nudity as something normal and they will be more balanced as individuals; more able to discuss their inner feelings and worries; more at ease discussing their medical problems with their doctor. All of which has to be good, if only in terms of catching serious disease earlier and when it is more easily, and more cheaply, treated. But I believe it would also be of great benefit psychologically.

current affairs, history

RIP Mrs Thatcher

So Lady Thatcher has died. No real surprise as she had been in poor health (physically and mentally, I think) for some years.

No, I’m not going to write an obituary, there’ll be more than enough of those around over the coming hours and days. I just want to make a very brief observation.

Whether you liked Lady Thatcher or not (and I can see both why people would and wouldn’t like her) she certainly changed much of the landscape and culture of the country, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. I think when historians look back they could well find that the two most influential Prime Ministers during the second half of the 20th century were Mrs Thatcher and Harold Wilson (with Tony Blair some way behind in third).

RIP Margaret Thatcher.