Selling sex is an odd profession, full of fiercely independent mavericks who are happy with a very flexible life outside the mainstream, while equally happy to moan about marginalisation. And there’s a fair bit of moaning going on in Bonn at the moment, after the local government installed “pay and display” tax machines for people who sell sex on the streets.

The move has put the spotlight on something I’ve always been mildly irritated by: the voices that lobby for decriminalisation of sex work, while objecting to legalisation. For those that don’t spend their days splitting hairs over such issues, here’s the difference, as I understand it. Decriminalisation allows me to sell sex without fear of arrest or penalty, while still whining about being marginalised and having special needs. Legalisation means I can sell sex in the same way that I can sell software or plumbing services, which means doing a whole lot of paperwork, paying a whole lot of taxes, and being subject to whatever boring occupational health and safety regulations are appropriate to my trade. In other words, there’s nothing special about me at all.

Prostitution has been legal in Germany for nearly a decade. Rules, regulations and taxes are the downside of that. On the upside, some people can get sex on social security, to support their mental health. But even in Germany, there’s a gray market. People working in brothels are better at doing their paperwork than people who freelance on the streets, it seems. In a pre-emptive attempt to collect tax from cash-in-hand street workers, the Bonn government is collecting a flat €6 a night from each of them. Stick your debit card in the machine, get your ticket for the night and you’re off.

According to Der Speigel, the city government is hoping to earn €200,000 a year from this venture. That’s an average of around 90 permits a night — one paid-up street worker per 1,160 men aged 15-64 (I’m blithely assuming that most of the buyers are male, regardless of the gender of the seller). Predictably, a sex worker rights group is complaining that the flat-rate tax is unfair. Others pay income tax on a sliding scale depending on what they have earned — why should hookers have to pay up in advance, even if they don’t get any clients in a given night?

Well yes. At recessionarry prices of maybe €30 a trick, a €6 tax is a lot if you average one trick or fewer per working night. But with Germany’s base tax rate at 14%, if you average at least a trick and a half per worknight, you’re ahead of the game compared with sellers of software or plumbing.

Of course no-one likes to pay taxes. It’s just the price of not being marginalised.

Thanks to Jonathan Beard.

Last night, I was sitting in a Brooklyn restaurant chatting with a Famous Artist and his life-partner, the Respected Historian. In just about third bottle territory, a huge cheer went up from the table next to us, crowded with 20-something year-old straight hipsters. The cause of their excitement was an incoming Tweet: gay New Yorkers can now get married.

I was thrilled. I was also thrilled that these young New Yorkers were so thrilled, and so engaged. I thought it vaguely interesting that the Famous Artist and the Respected Historian were shruggy about the whole thing. I guess when you’ve lived in a same-sex partnership in New York for a couple of decades, you’ve outlived the marriages of many of your straight friends and you’ve fought to bring partner-rights into the workplace for fellow faculty members, it doesn’t seem so life-changing. But New York is an important voice in an important nation. It is high time that it raised that voice in recognition of the fact that no-body should, just because of who they choose to sleep with, be denied the right to agonise over prenuptual agreements, to spend an irrational amount of money on a symbolic ritual ahead of which one stresses about the guest list, the menu, the wardrobe, to argue about whether to file taxes jointly or separately, to wonder whether to get divorced before or after the kids graduate.

New York is has also finally passed a bill that ensures that no-one helping a drug user survive an overdose can be prosecuted for possession of drugs or works. Since overdose is one of the most important causes of “accidental” death in New York, and thinking you might wind up in jail is an important disincentive to call an ambulance for a struggling mate, that’s an important step. Now all we need is for the New York State Assembly to pass a bill that prohibits the use of condoms as evidence for prostitution. Apparently the New York Police Department are unhappy with the bill. Other police forces that have proven more enlightened on this issue include those nice cuddly boys in the Police Force of the Union of Myanmar (Burma, to the stubborn). Surely if they can swallow it, so can NYPD.

I’d write more about this but today happens to be New York Pride. I’m suspecting it will be a good party.

On the one hand, Canada bans Dire Straits. On the other, it fills the streets with posters aimed at extricating sex workers from social non-existence. Halifax group Stepping Stones is running an ad campaign reminding people that hookers are mothers, daughters, brothers, friends. They are also PhD students, civil servants, dental hygienists, actors and many other things when they’re not with a client, and shiatsu therapists, shrinks, grief counselors, actors and many other things when they are. Oh, and criminals (though it is my burning hope that this won’t be true in Canada by the end of the year).

It’s that criminalisation which creates stigma and the need for campaigns like this; the stigma in turn makes it hard to run these campaigns. The Chronicle Herald reports that ad agency Extreme Group‘s staff used their own grandmothers and Sepping Stones employees for the campaign because “regular” models didn’t want the job.

Also fighting invisibility are sex workers in Ottawa. There, Chris Bruckert and Frederique Chabot worked with members of prostitute group POWER to publish a synthesis of what sex professionals said about their work, and (perhaps more importantly) their work-life balance. Many of the comments reminded me just how hard it is to maintain that balance in any profession which society deems an identity rather than an occupation (film star, Royal, hooker). Here’s Janette, talking about how the police treat her when she’s not working:

“I was showing my new neighbour around, walking him up to the food bank. And as we were walking, one cop turned around and told the young man I was with ‘Do you know you are with a prostitute? You could get in trouble for that’. He yelled at the cop ‘She is my neighbour and I don’t care what she does for a living, she is helping me out. She is still a person’. I was so embarrassed. That did bring tears.”

You can read the whole (.pdf) report here. Stepping Stones have published a similar volume, which I haven’t yet read, called Sex Workers Talk Back.

SANGRAM has long worked constructively with sex workers, to the fury of Congressman Mark Souder who stomped on USAID until they shut down funding for SANGRAM. In a letter to USAID as bombastic, self-righteous and threatening as any I have seen, Souder pontificated about the Bush administration’s record in promoting family values and women’s rights.

“There is a tragic irony in the fact that this administration seeks to elevate women in the United States to some of the most important positions in the country…; yet, USAID has funded groups outside the United States that promote the ultimate degradation of women.”

Souder might know something about the degradation of women. Six weeks ago he resigned as congressman after 15 years, admitting to having an affair with a staffer. He started off on script, apologising for the pain he had caused his supporters. But then, with breathtaking arrogance, he stuck up for his own hypocrisy, saying “The ideas we advocate are still just and right.” I’m sure his wife agrees.

Here’s the pompous windbag being fake-interviewed by his girlfriend about the importance of abstinence-only education programmes.

Of course abstinence-only programmes are only meant to work until people get married. Since both Mark Souder and his squeeze Tracy Jackson are married, they hardly count as failures of morality-based sex ed, do they?

(Thanks to Paddy Woodburn for pointing out the Seshu profile and setting me off wondering whatever happened to that windbag Souder…)

But this one, from a fount of indignation calling Himself “Derrail”, deserves its own post. The grammar alone will make you laugh. And the unwitting insights:

YOUR A FUNGUS AN EPIDEMIC AND OUTBREAKING SHOW OFF

Mental illness is an odd thing, isn’t it? By turns worrying: (YOUR A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHY WOMEN SHOULD NEVER BE FREE TO ROAM AND SPEAK OUT IN THE PUBLIC ARENA) and amusing (YOUR FATHER FOR WHATEVER REASON REFUSED TO CHERISH YOU OR ELSE YOUR A MARX’S).

The toxic whole, sent in response to a post about sex worker legislation in Illinois, is after the jump. Prizes for the best response.

If you’d like to copy your response to Derrail, he gives his email address as UG_FC@YAHOO.COM

HELLO, I JUST CAUGHT WIND OF THIS YOU WROTE. I KNOW THE LAW IN ILLINOIS IS A FIRST STEP IN CRACKING DOWN WHOREDOM. IN THE LAW OF GOD IT IS FORBIDDEN FOR FATHERS TO WHORE OUT THEIR DAUGHTERS SAYING THE WHOLE WORLD BE GIVEN OVER TO IT WHOREDOM. AND INDEED YOU PRETTY MUCH MANIFESTED THAT POINT YOU AND YOUR SISTERS. THE UNDERLINE ISSUE IS GOD IS AGAINST YOU SUBHUMAN BEINGS. THEREFORE THE WRATH OF GOD IS BEING REVEALED FROM HEAVEN. YOU DO MAKE A VERY GOOD POINT. WHICH IS THE MORE A MAN OR WOMAN LISTENS TO YOU YOUR WORDS BEGIN WINDING THEM DOWN. AS THE WINDS FROM YOUR TONGUE UNLEASH VOLCANO AFTER VOLCANO.

YOUR A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHY WOMEN SHOULD NEVER BE FREE TO ROAM AND SPEAK OUT IN THE PUBLIC ARENA. YOU PLAY ON SYMPATHY WHICH IS YOUR ERROR. INSTEAD OF JUST DYING! IF YOU DIDN’T COMMIT FORNICATION NONE OF THIS WOULD ENSUE YOU. THEREFORE THE LAW IS AGAINST US ALL SAYING IF YOU DO SO YOU’LL SURELY DIE.

YOUR FATHER FOR WHATEVER REASON REFUSED TO CHERISH YOU OR ELSE YOUR A MARX’S OR EVEN AN ORPHANE. BUT HOE’S ARE PECULIAR THERE AIN’T NO LIMIT TO WHAT YOU’LL DO FOR MONEY. YOUR GREEDY AND YOU JUSTIFY YOUR ACTIONS ON THE DEPENDENCY OF FOOD.

BUT IF YOU ALL SUBMITTED TO GOD THEN THE PULPIT WOULD INDEED REVEAL UNTO YOU ALL PREPARATION “FASTING”. SO STOP HIDING BEHIND CURTAINS OF DECEIT. AND OWN UP TO THE TRUTH YOU DESPISE THE RULE OF OUR FATHER WHO IS GOD.

HERE IS YOUR VERDICT YOUR ALL ABOUNDING TO SHOWCASE THE EVIDENCE OF GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY, YOUR ALL INCLUDING YOU NEED NOT WORRY ABOUT EATING. FOR THESE THREE TRESPASSES YOUR ALL ABOUT TO DIE. YOU SOLICIT YOURSELVES, YOU ENHANCE THY WORTHLESSNESS,AND YOU BEAR FALSE WITNESS. THESE THREE EQUAL DEATH WATCH AND SEE SAITH JEHOVAH’S WITNESS DEATH I TELL!

IF INDEED YOUR WORTH WAS IN HARMONY WITH MY PRECEPTS I WOULD INDEED ENTREAT YOU TO DINE IN WITH ME. BUT I DID NOT SAY FOR YOU NOR DID I AT ALL APPOINT YOU JUDGES. YOUR A VAGRAINT LYING HYPOCRITE AND YOU KNOW IT. THEREFORE SAITH JEHOVAH I SHALL DO UNTO YOU AS YOU IMAGINED TO DO UNTO ALL MY INHABITANTS WITH THY TRIFLING SELF. YOU TRULY DO DISGUST ME AND I CAN’T STAND YOUR NASTY SELF SAITH THE LORD. NOTHING IS WORST THAN A SMELLY ONION SHOWBOATING.

YOUR A FUNGUS AN EPIDEMIC AND OUTBREAKING SHOW OFF. WHO HEARS VOICES ALL THROUGHOUT THE DAY AND INTO THE LATE NITE. SAYING HE’S GONNA COME AND GET YOU. REMINDING YOU AGAIN AND AGAIN OF ALL YOUR FORMER SINS AGAINST ME. SAYING GOD WILL FORGIVE ME GOD WILL UNDERSTAND. BUT YOU’VE MISTAKENLY MISUSED YOUR LAST HOPES OF GETTING INTO MY FAMILY SAITH JEHOVAH. I DON’T WANT YOU EVER SAITH JEHOVAH. I HAVE WATCHED YOU HURT ME AGAIN AND AGAIN. SAYING IF YOU FORGIVE ME I PROMISE TO NEVER DO IT AGAIN BUT YOU DIDN’T DID YOU EVEN LAST NIGHT. EXPECTING AND UNDRESSING FOR MANY OTHER NEW LOVERS I’M FINISHED WITH YOU SAITH JEHOVAH F I N I S H E D WATCH AND SEE ME DO THIS I AM THE LORD

What better way to celebrate than by coming to a party in Chicago on Saturday night. Wear your best gold thong, and be ready for 90′s hip-hop up the wazoo.

It’s above the cafe at 230 W. Chicago Ave, starting at 8 pm on Saturday May 1st. More info here.

These groups look to Sweden as their model, or at least half of it. Arguing that all prostitution is violence of men against women, the Swedes in 1989 made it illegal to buy sex (even from men and transgenders, go figure). Arresting and fining punters was supposed to strike a blow against partriarchy, advance the feminist cause, and, of course, reduce violence against women. Here’s what has happened since the law was passed:

At a cost to the Swedish tax payer of over US$ 7 million a year, Sweden has, over the last four years, convicted an annual average of three people for trafficking and 18 for pimping, and has fined an average of 75 men a year for buying sex. Street-based sex work did nose-dive soon after the law was passed, then stabilised and remains constant. There’s no information about what’s happened to women selling sex in other venues, including apartments, clients’ homes, neighbouring Denmark… What we do know is that convictions for rape have increased by 28% since it became illegal to buy sex, and convictions for sexual crimes overall have increased by 68%. Some of this may be because the hoopla surrounding the law did effectively advance the Ice Queen agenda, and more women are successfully prosecuting men under the country’s incredibly vague “rape” laws. But it hardly fills one with confidence that “end demand” campaigns will reduce violence against women overall.

Chicago’s abolitionists are a strange miscegenation of paternalistic feminists (I’ll tell you when you can and can’t consent to sex, dear) and tub-thumping moralisers (extra-marital sex is bad, and convenient, no-strings, paid extramarital sex is much, much worse). They have both failed to grasp the logic that underlies the Swedish approach. If all sex workers are victims by definition, then it is hardly fair to bang them up in jail for the violence that is done to them. And indeed, in Sweden, people who sell sex can’t be prosecuted. In Chicago, on the other hand, we’re busy increasing the penalties for both the buyers and the sellers of sex. So we are:

1) depriving women (and men, and transgenders) of their right to consent to sex, if payment is involved

AND
2) depriving women (and ditto) of a living

AND
3) depriving women (and other prostitutes) of their liberty, if they get caught.

You’d think from the Chicago police department’s Rogues’ Gallery that the only people who get arrested for soliciting and prostitution are blokes and the odd trans. But that just reflects a policy decision only to put up photographs of people with Y chromosomes. If you delve into the stats a bit, you’ll find that women bear the brunt of prostitution-related arrests right now. Look at this:

It’s already illegal both to sell sex and to buy it in Chicago, and indeed all of Illinois. Making it MORE illegal on both sides, which is what HR6195 is proposing to do, is not going to change that. What it may change is the overall volume of arrests, since a felony is more likely to lead to a court case than a misdemeanour, which is what most prostitution charges currently qualify as. More court cases mean more police time in court. And since Illinois cops are paid time-and-a-half with a three hour minimum for showing their face in court, that rather increases the incentive to arrest. And as you can see from the graph above, it’s easier to arrest women than men. So my question to the good feminists of End Demand is this: How, exactly, do they think HR6195 helps women who choose to sell sex for a living?

Actually, that may not be fair. I think this research paper is dull. But honestly, it is so incomprehensible that it’s hard to tell. It’s written by physicists at Swedish universities, and perhaps to other physicists the observations are sexy. Here’s a sample for you:

The probability distribution of the time between two subsequent
posts ΔTposts … is narrower than a power-law, but wider than an exponential or Poisson distribution, and consistent with a powerlaw with an exponential cut-off P(ΔTposts) = C exp(−α ΔTposts) / (ΔTposts + β)γ. That the distribution is broader than Poisson suggests a more complex dynamic than just sex-buyers posting independent of each other; that it is not a power-law means that the problem cannot be mapped onto other studies of human response dynamics.

Well, I’m glad the Swedish taxpayer has invested in sorting that out for us, then.

The paper makes a pretense of being important because sexually transmitted infections are passed through the networks of the sex trade. The physicists, who include glorious graphics like this:

note that the sex workers who get the highest ratings go on to have more clients in the future (now there’s a revalation). This worries them, because the more clients a girl has, the more likely she is to be exposed to diseases, right? Well no, actually. The more clients she has unprotected anal or vaginal sex with, the more likely she is to have an STI. But really, what’s the likelihood of a girl getting consistently high ratings if she’s sending clients home pissing glass? She gets high ratings because she’s not exposing them to infection.

As an aside, I was interested to note that the forum allows punters to record three specific exotic or unusual practices: anal sex, oral sex without a condom, or kissing on the mouth. Note that in Brazil, which has one of the strongest HIV prevention programmes in the world, unprotected anal or vaginal sex with clients doesn’t even make the list, very possibly because it is too rare to mention.

Thanks to Paul for putting me in the way of a paper I’d never have found, by way of Technology Review.

Yesterday, I sat at the TED conference in California and watched David Cameron pledge to make policies that support prostitutes.

He didn’t say it in those words, exactly, but he did promise firmly to make policy that “goes with the grain of human nature”. That would be a massive change for the UK: Labour’s old fashioned feminists have allowed their best intentions to get the better of their common sense. That’s saddled us with laws that put prostitutes lives AND livelihoods in danger.

David Cameron is a politician on the stump, so everything he says should be taken with several grains of salt. But the the goody-two-shoes meddling of the likes of Harriet Harman and Jaqui Smith has become so tiresome that maybe we should take Cameron at his word, and hold him to it. Political bondage, in the best possible sense…

Christmas in London — what better way to celebrate than carol singing in the streets of Soho with singers from Westmister Abbey and the International Union of Sex Workers? The Rector of St Anne’s parish in Soho swished out in front in long robes and fuschia beret but it was this banner, carried by Nico and Thierry, that really led the way. Note the trick photography — by the time we got out on the streets it was dark and floating with magical snowflakes; the boys were definitely wearing more than body paint.

Soho was full of good cheer; lots of people joined in the carolling and a couple of crusty punks pulled out descant voices that rivalled the cathedral choir’s. There was much cheering for hookers; it made me wonder how many people knew that the jurassic feminists in this Nanny government had just the month before pushed through new legislation that will make it more dangerous for women (and men, and transgenders) to sell sex in the UK.

My challenge the evening of the carol singing was to tear myself away from the Glo-ooooo-ooooo-rias in time to heat up vast vats of mulled wine. I rose to that occasion ok. My challenge for the New Year is somewhat more daunting. TED has announced the programme for its next conference in California, and I’m hugely honoured to be speaking there, in some very great company.

TED talks are not very often about sex. But the best of them can even make statistics sexy. I leave you with this classic from Hans Rosling, an ally in the war on Data Hugging Disorder, but here popping some of the bubbles of the HIV narrative.