Myth: I Never Do Rachel Moran Any Favours

NB. This is not hearsay, I am an eyewitness to serious discrepancies Rachel Moran’s account and I have put this on oath . This means that if you believe I am lying you should go at once to your local police and make a complaint against me for perjury, which is a serious crime.

Not true, way back in April of last year someone posted, and Rachel Moran approved, this comment on her own article in my name:


It wasn’t that bad, in fact it was very similar to a comment I had made on twitter a few weeks earlier…but I had not even seen the post it was commenting on until I wondered why ON EARTH I was getting traffic from Moran’s blog.

(I still don’t think I have actually read it. Try not to judge me, I am genuinely allergic to bullshit, AND to polysyllabic, malapropriated intellectual pretentiousness, and I fear for my own health, otherwise I would read it intently, cross my heart).

It was obvious to me, from her response to the fake post that, apart from wanting to identify me, she found the fact that I had no interest in her blog at all distressing, so, I decided I would spare anyone the trouble of having to comment on my behalf this time. In case she feels my comment requires editing (perhaps to remove my notorious typos, or even add a few more big words to bring my use of language to her own standard?), I want you to APPRECIATE the time and effort she puts into editing it, so here are screenshots as it awaits moderation:

moroncomment3 moroncomment2 moroncomment1

…and here is the (copy/paste, typos and all) text to save you having to read through screenshots:


I had a few minutes spare so I thought I would save you the trouble of posting on this on my behalf for attention this time, as you have in the past.

You made a BIG mistake with me you know. As far as I am concerned you could have lived your lies and raked in the money and attention to your heart’s content without me saying a word to expose you (I probably wouldn’t even have noticed) AS LONG AS YOU WERE NOT ADVOCATING HARM TO INNOCENT, HARDWORKING WOMEN. Bit of a catch 22 for you though, because Ruhama and “Turn Off the Red Light” would never have backed you at all UNLESS you were advocating harm to innocent hardworking women to suit their agenda, would they, so I suppose it is all moot.?

Anyway, the first thing you need someone to point out to you is that you are not omniscient, no more than anyone else you literally have not got a clue how other feel about, or react to anything. You do not know how the women who really sell sex feel and react, you do not know how clients really feel and react, you do not even know how your fellow fake survivors feel and react, truth be told.

What I find hilarious is that even in your own lies, you are at pains to stress that you have barely known any sex workers at all, let alone closely, and yet you present yourself as some kind of expert on their innermost feelings…what is your explanation for that? Telepathy? An involuntary electronic interface with the human mind Android app?

Something else you need to know is that how the women who sell sex really feel about their work is absolutely none of your business to speculate upon until they choose to tell you about it, and will never be any of your business to assert without mandate, in their absence, under *ANY* circumstances.

What do you think happens to women who sell sex “because the circumstances of our lives have left us with no other viable choice” if you destroy, or even tamper with that last option? Do you think they eventually get the taste for despair, destitution and homelessness, or even worse, if you can only force them into it for long enough?

In the name of “education”, if these cruel laws ever pass, what say I get some of those worst affected to explain to you, face to face, exactly how much harm they have suffered because of them?

NB If we had thought we could get 8 to 12 clients every night on the street we would have crawled joyfully to work on our knees singing hymns of praise to the entire pantheon. At £240 a night (1992 rates), heaven knows who might have joined us (Bertie in ladyface? Doesn’t bear thinking about, does it, but it might have kept him honest!) Indoors 8 to 12 clients would have put most women on a one day week…didn’t anyone ever tell you, before you write fiction you need to do the research to check your facts.

Now, you can delete this, delete it and write something else in my name, as you have done before, alter it, whatever you like but I will be posting the text elsewhere and keeping screenshots.

I am adding in a link to the article Moran was taking a, nigh on, incomprehensible attack of the agenda driven vapours to – In Defense of Johns – I do not pay her any attention, but when a genuine, decent person you like and respect, who has the real experience to know what they are talking about, and the objectivity to analyse it, is seeing the same thing a different way to you it is time to revisit the issue and understand and learn why it affects you both differently.

Anytime you see things a different way to someone you respect is an opportunity to learn, and the day you stop learning you might as well order your coffin.

Discussion in comments, all with anything worthwhile to contribute are welcome.







4 thoughts on “Myth: I Never Do Rachel Moran Any Favours

  1. You Call that a Defense? A kneejerk response to the TIME article by Jim Norton about Defending Johns…

    If Jim Norton thought he was going to be an advocate for the legalization – or even decriminalization – of prostitution or sex work in literally any country with his article in Time magazine, he has not only fallen short of the mark…he has made a strong case for why we should encourage law enforcement to focus even more efforts to arrest the buyers of sexual services and insist that they attend one of the many John Schools that are popping up throughout the country.
    Before you dismiss my comments as that of a sex-work-hating-rhetoric-spewing member of the anti-trafficking movement that has become drunk on the fear mongering liquor they liberally dispense throughout the country, understand first that I speak from both the experiences of the sex industry worker and the advocates for the women who want out of the sex trade. I supported the concept of John Schools long before they regained popularity and mutated from efforts to educate and inform to an agenda to shame and penalize. I also understand – as Mr. Norton clearly does not – that the reasons for a woman to engage in Sex Work range from those that truly enjoy the work and the financial remuneration the receive, to those who are forced into the trade by circumstance, perceived cultural norms and a lack of opportunity to support themselves in any other way.
    Additionally – the National Day of Johns was indeed a parade of sorts – for law enforcement to crack down on juveniles who were being prostituted, multiple cases of physical and psychological abuse and the ever present abuse of power – including a border patrol agent trying to buy sex in full uniform as well as a mother who was selling her 15 year old daughter for sex. The issues of sex addiction, and ritualistic compulsions – as Mr. Norton proudly claims to be paying a therapist to address – are also paraded in this 15 state sweep where they arrested a “daddy” soliciting the services of a prostitute with his new baby in his back seat. Wow. Who is exactly is your therapist Mr. Norton? If tallying the dollar amount is the only recommendation this therapist has to make to have you account for your behavior, you might want to check the validity of their license.
    Mr. Norton also claims to be “extraordinarily loving and comfortable” towards the prostitutes he charms through the passenger window of his car. And he worries about violent behavior like rapes and homicides but did nothing when – during one of his “gentle and intimate” sexual service shopping expeditions he witnessed a woman bounced across the hood of his car and tossed into a van filled with more women. How exactly would he recommend this – or any other – pimp get thrown down an elevator shaft” if Mr. Norton didn’t take a single action to alert authorities that he personally witnessed a violent kidnapping and did nothing?!? Way to take a stand Mr. Norton! I’m sure sex workers everywhere are taking up the mantle of legalization based on your action in hopes that they will be protected from violence in this manner. Perhaps you should volunteer to attend a local John School curriculum so that you could gain some understanding of how far off the mark your defense of johns actually is. It is not the legalization of prostitution that needs to be addressed here – it is the attitude created by those such as yourself that the woman who was bounced across the hood of your car didn’t deserve an anonymous call to the police with the license plate of the van in question. You display – by your lack of action – that this woman was of No Worth. Disposable. An antidote for a comedy bit.
    Mr. Norton goes on to self-righteously claim that it is the society who is at fault for the prostitute being put in dangerous situations and quote studies that suggest that Rapes and STD’S would be reduced across the board if legalization of prostitution were to be signed into law when in fact this action would only legitimize the pimp and do nothing to protect the prostitute. Legalizing prostitution would not provide health insurance and a retirement package for the prostitute nor would it encourage her to report a violent crime against her person. Just exactly how do you see the “security” being “adequate” in places of legalized prostitution when the majority of violence would occur by the very providers of the security? It is the short-sighted, self-centered point of view of the john that continues to trip up the criminal and social justice system where sex work is concerned. You are not entitled to buy sex out of the passenger window of your car as if it were a Happy Meal of sorts and “giving johns a break” has never really been the central issue when the subject comes up.
    Prostitution and Sex Work are complicated issues that demand sensitive and prolonged thought when considering solutions. Prostitution and Sex Work is not the same as Sex Trafficking but there is no clear delineation that both sides of the issue can agree on to make a law – or series of laws – that provide for the variety of needs that arise from the men and women – and indeed children – who work within the sex trade whether by free and fully informed choice or force, fraud and coercion.
    Johns like Mr. Norton, who troll for paid sex indiscriminately in neighborhoods where poverty, hunger and homelessness are the primary economic factors that drive this facet of the sex trade can and should expect to be demonized and arrested posthaste. They are a danger to the community and they have no dog in this fight. There is a gap the size of the Grand Canyon when it comes to the difference between a john who discreetly seeks out the company of an independent responsible sex worker who is informed and over 21 and is willing to undergo a certain amount of screening and what Mr. Norton describes as his ritualistic addictive behavior to entice whomever might be working a corner under a streetlight.
    Mr. Norton’s call to “give johns a break” is enough to confirm the need for education and information about sex work, prostitution and sex trafficking through a john school format. And if they have to be arrested in order to receive this information and behave in a socially responsible manner, then so be it.

  2. I revisited the article right away, and I still feel as I did the first time. I agree with him…and I like the total absence of any posturing and elitism in what he says. He has a thing about street workers, and not once does it seem to have ever occurred to him that he is any better than they are, or in any way entitled to talk down to or about them. He just assumes that street workers are autonomous adult able to make their own decisions, and that the reasons why are not his business unless they choose to tell him.

    He takes responsibility for his actions and assumes streetworkers can do the same

    I do not think the “National Day of Johns” was a good thing either, it just guarantees a drastic drop in earnings for sex workers for a week or two and what good use is that?

    I realise that, although I always relate better to men than women on every level, in terms of sex work, sorry, but the women matter and basically…WHAT men?? I see no men…

    OH YOU MEAN the *crop*…well it is not as if they are really people, is it?

    And if THAT sounds bad let me tell you I was always one of the more “client sympathetic” ones (What??? This is MY BLOG not Escort Ireland, I will say WHAT I LIKE!). Of course it is a very foolish farmer indeed who will allow his crop to be discouraged and punished for thriving as if it was some kind of crime.

    (This is hilarious because I am digging back through my old stuff to try and find what I had to say about clients *THEN* and realising that, in fact, I wrote the entire abolitionist brief – like an idiot I sent it to Farley too in 2001, leading to a kind of “virtual God experience where BOTH side plagiarise me – but with one essential difference. My conclusion was that anyone knowingly responsible for a situation that drove, cornered or left a woman hung out to dry with no realistic option but sell sex should be criminalised and punished. I wanted to be able to sue and punish every one who had cold bloodedly exploited, abused and let me down within the system that was supposed to be protecting me until sex work was the only way I could survive at all. Whereas the abolitionists want all their hypocritical, self serving do-gooder friends let off scot free while the clients who provides the means to stay alive AFTER they have driven the victim of their corruption incompetence and, sometimes plain nastiness, to sell sex gets scapegoated, while she gets to suffer some more.)

    Anyway, here it is written in late 2000:
    “There are two most common types (of clients):

    • Lonely men who are unable to develop relationships with women in the normal way.
    • Men who can only really respond sexually in depersonalized situations.
    In my opinion both types would be far better off to seek real help for the far deeper problems that place them in that position. However, in the real world, that is not always even available. ”

    THAT is what I really think when I am just being me, with no political agenda, and not conditioned to fend off constant streams of high rent dangerous propaganda (nor, of course, having to harvest the beggars to pay my bills, I guess hitmen have to detach the same way? :o) )

    I think we are reacting in a very different way to seeing different parts of exactly the same elephant.

  3. I see your logic. I understand that the “economics of prostitution” is levelized and I am being an idiot to imply that driving it “indoors” is in any way a solution. Yada yada yada…Heres the thing that really pissed me off in the Jum Norton article…

    He saw a prostitute “bounced off the hood of his car” and “tossed in a van with other girls” and did nothing. He circled the block and then rolled down the window of his passenger door and kept trolling. That trumps all cruelty. Who was the guy that said that all that was required for evil to triumph was for good men to do nothing? I can’t get past that.

    I can forgive Jim Norton for being a john. Even for being a cheap john. I can overlook the high risk addictive behavior of a sex addict and the low self esteem issues that his wonder-therapist isn’t doing a very good job enlightening him about. But – damn it – I’m not gonna let him slide on the lack of good citizenship and human kindness that let him witness a violent act against a woman and just drive away.

    The hypocritical abolitionists? Oh that’s a whole ‘nother subject. I say they should burn.

  4. Burn is good… :o)
    I checked the article again…he didn’t actually say he “did nothing”, he said…NOTHING…either way…which in 9 out of 10 scenarios I can think of is the safest thing to say. If he says that he did something, then he is identifying himself to a psychohosebeast who is bound to be totally p*ssed if he got anything like his just desserts out of the situation. In fact, if Norton has any sense he is not describing a true story at all, but an *equivalent* story to protect the woman in question (reminding psychhosebeasts never seems to end well for the innocent?).

    Of course, I do not know for sure…but the way his story just falls off a cliff instead of waffling on into defensive justifications and excuses as the truly ignorant coward would do. All I know for sure is that when I have to let a story I am telling drop like that it is because there is a part it is not safe to tell and I am hoping nobody notices the gap.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s