Category Archives: Media

A sex club just for women

Posted on by
Reply

I think that it is a sign of maturity in a society when it empowers women to be and do what they want to do – free from control or even the observation of men.

The normalisation of sex workers (male and female) for women is one example. It’s quite a big statement that women, who for so long have had their lives, finances, and their very bodies ruled by the whims of men are now able to choose to see a sex worker and not have to apologise to any one for it.

We are moving ahead. Becoming more tolerant of each other – not always and not everywhere – but we make progress.

Another small sign of this is the arrival of the Skirt Club in Sydney (http://skirtclub.co.uk/), a UK originated sex club exclusively for women. It has a modest global membership, but by all accounts it is well liked by the women who are members. I can imagine many men feeling threatened by the very existence of such a place, but to me it’s a delight.

You can read more about it here: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/sex-and-relationships/australias-first-womenonly-sex-club-arrives-in-sydney-20160831-gr623w.html

I love the idea of women being in control of their lives and perhaps more importantly being able to choose exactly what it is that they want to do with their lives, without having to involve or answer to men, if they don’t want to. At the end of the day, it makes all of our lives, whether we are male or female richer.

So cheers Skirt Club, here’s hoping that your first party goes well!

John.

Harm reduction, not abolition – is the moral and humane thing to do

Posted on by
Reply

This article is a little different to my usual writing. I have been in an introspective and philosophical mood in recent times and when I heard the news that California had recently refused to implement new rules that would reduce adult films shot in that state to little more than this:naked-gun-safe-sex

I felt compelled to write about it. While it may not directly touch on what I do as a male escort, I hope that on reading it people will understand the broader point and how it relates to sex work – and in fact pretty much all of our lives.

The Californian Occupational Safety and Healthy Standards Board recently failed to pass new regulations that would force porn performers to use condoms, dental dams, and even goggles to protect them from the risk of sexually transmitted infections while making films and images about sex.

It was a win for that most elusive of beasts: common sense and incidentally for the concept of “harm reduction”. Even if only marginally (the board failed to achieve a four to one majority by just one vote).

The adult film industry in California already has a system for ensuring the health and safety of its performers. It is called PASS (Performer Availability Screening Service) and is administered by the Free Speech Coalition. It provides bi-weekly STI testing for performers, the results of which are held in a secure, private database, and allow producers and agents to see the availability of performers (but nothing detailed about their health information). It also provides performers with access to both testing, and – in the case of an infection being detected – support and treatment services.

It’s a good system. From what information I can find online, it works. Under that system there hasn’t been a case of HIV transmission on the set of an adult film in California in over 10 years (2004 was the last recorded time in California, which prompted the shift to bi-weekly testing with higher sensitivity testing methods).

There was an on-set transmission of HIV between to male performers in Nevada in 2014, however it appears that it happened under less stringent testing standards – which really just re-inforces the point. PASS works, less rigorous testing does not.

So what has all of this got to do with sex work and my blog? The short answer is: the PASS system is a good demonstration of sensible, tolerant attitudes toward dealing with a real risk (STI transmission between performers).

It accepts that there is a risk and that it needs to be taken seriously, and it sets out to minimise that risk without creating unintended adverse side effects. This is classic “harm reduction”. Continue reading →

Amnesty International votes to adopt policy to protect rights of sex workers

Posted on by
Reply

Following on from yesterday’s post about the NSW inquiry we (my industry) had a very exciting piece of news last night.  Amnesty International has voted YES to accept a policy that it has developed to protect the human rights of sex workers.  You can read about it here:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/08/global-movement-votes-to-adopt-policy-to-protect-human-rights-of-sex-workers/

This is a significant step forward for destigmatisation of our industry and the people who work in it.  It also paves the way for more sensible and informed conversations about the problems of our industry and how to fix them.

It is very timely given the inquiry happening here in NSW and will hopefully go some way to protecting the liberal, tolerant, and effective laws that we have in our state.

John

Beauty – part II

Posted on by
Reply

I made a blog post a couple of days ago about Australian journalist Clementine Ford being deluged with hate mail for standing up to Channel Seven’s Sunrise program (when they engaged in “victim blaming” in response to news about women having their nude photos hacked and published without their permission).

I see today that one of the perpetrators (who threatened to bash and rape her and called her “lesbian scum”) who Ms Ford outed, has apologised and is feeling the heat of public disapproval. See here:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/man-shamed-for-trolling-clementine-ford-apologises-for-online-attack-20150625-ghxz24.html

On reading his responses though I am left cold. This much is clear: this man still, does not understand why what he did was wrong. He is only apologising because he got caught and was embarrassed.

It brings into focus a common problem: some people are either unable, or unwilling to see that the way they treat other people is wrong. This is particularly bad when it’s men treating women badly in relationships.

So what’s the point? It is this: if you are in a relationship where you are being abused physically, or emotionally then you are not obliged to just accept or tolerate it. People like the man in this article may one day be able to see why what he did was wrong. But he clearly can’t yet. And the only way that he will learn this lesson is for women (like Clementine Ford) to state clearly and repeatedly that what he did was not ok and to walk away from him.

Not everyone is incapable of learning from their mistakes. I like to think that I am a better person for having my mistakes and errors pointed out to me and then trying to do better. But when someone has shown that they aren’t, or won’t, then it is the right thing to do to move on – for your own health and well-being.

It is no our job to rescue people from themselves. We can only do so much before the cost becomes too great.

I am not saying that we should throw away relationship at the first sign of trouble. Not at all. But it is important to know when to put yourself first and to stand up for your own needs.

John.

It’s time that we had REAL sex education

Posted on by
6

Following on from my recent post about beauty in our society I want to write something about sex education. It’s a topic that I have cared about since my ok, but rudimentary sex education in high school. I was prompted today by this article in the local paper. From the article:

So it is not uncommon then for a female student to graduate high school having never received any formal education on topics such as natural lubrication, the clitoris, female masturbation or the female orgasm, even though the male equivalent of these topics were first broached way back in primary school.

The inherent asymmetry this creates then stigmatises female pleasure, while reinforcing a phallocentric model of sex. Thus male pleasure is centrally coded into the experience and attributed hyper significance, while the female orgasm is treated as taboo, embarrassing, irrelevant or even non-existent.

Worse still, by erasing female needs and prioritising male needs as paramount, the current model of sex education normalises male entitlement and perpetuates female voicelessness. At a fundamental level, this reinforces the same gender stereotypes and patterns which give rise to sexual violence and intimate partner violence.

For Manon and Lyndsay, this all points to a need for urgent reform, starting with more consultation with young women.

I couldn’t agree more about the need for reform. Also for the participation of young people (girls and boys). And that when we neglect to make sex education broad and inclusive of both genders (and a range of ages!), we help to entrench stereotypes that marginalise women and their right to self knowledge and sexual pleasure.

It is a regular occurrence for me that I meet women who have little connection with their bodies and their sexuality, who have difficulty achieving orgasm, and generally have a hard time enjoying sex. It happens so often that I specifically offer “therapeutic” services to try to assist women and give them a better sex life. It is enjoyable and rewarding work for me, but in an ideal world it would not be necessary.

To this end I have often thought about (collaboratively) writing a set of ebooks for young (and not so young) people about all aspects of sexuality. Not just the biology of reproduction like I was taught at school, but about relationships (straight, gay, bi, open, closed, and poly), kissing, masturbation, oral sex, contraception, consent, peer pressure, penetrative sex, breaking up, emotions, porn, and anything else that people wanted to hear about.

Importantly I think that this sort of material shouldn’t be “one size fits all”, but revised or expanded for gender, orientation, and age. Young people need access to this information, but even us adults need it too some times.

And we now live in an age where (thanks to the magic of computers, smartphones, tablets, and the Internet) we have the ideal means of distribution and totally private viewing for this sort of material. In short the time has never been better to solve this problem.

Having said that, I guess it’s time to put my money where my mouth is and write something. So, a question for my readers: as a young person (or as an adult), what aspect of sexuality would you have liked most to be able to pick up a short e-book and read about?

In hindsight, as a teenage male, I would have benefited most from a book about masturbation for boys/men. I suffered for many, many years with premature ejaculation (ironic I know, given what I do now!) and I can absolutely attribute that to having no idea about how I should have been learning to masturbate – with a view to having a healthy sex life once I had a partner to share sex with. Just a few basic tips would have made my sex life (and that of my first three partners) much more enjoyable.

So, please let me know what you think. I am very interested to hear your thoughts.

John.

Beauty is so much more than skin deep

Posted on by
6

A recent hacking incident that lead to private nude photos of women being published on line caused a cascade of responses, one of those being presenters on Channel Seven’s Sunrise program here in Sydney indulging in victim blaming.  This lead Sydney Morning Herald columnist Clementine Ford to respond with a semi nude photo, posted to Facebook with a message “Hey #Sunrise – get fucked”.

It was, I thought a powerful response and entirely appropriate.  The post has been very popular and attracted vast numbers of comments.

Clementine Ford has since published an article in the Sydney Morning Herald talking about the torrent of abuse that her post drew down on her.  Mostly men basically trying to shame her for how she looks.  To her credit she had held the line and not taken the post down despite the very, very personal criticism.

We live in a media saturated world that puts physical beauty on a pedestal (then alternately savages it).  We all know this, but we like to think that the people around us aren’t so shallow – after all, we live in the “real world” not in the celebrity world.  But the truth is that, as Clementine Ford experienced, there are plenty of regular men (and boys one suspects) who are equally vacuous and malicious and prepared to publicly judge and criticize women for their appearance.

Which is why I am writing this post.  It is a common thing for women who come to me to feel insecure about their appearance, or even hate how their bodies look.  Year of subtle, or not so subtle denigration by people around them, and of course the relentless pressure of the media sap their confidence and take away their love and enjoyment of themselves.

I am often asked what I do if I don’t find a client attractive.  The answer is not what most people expect though.  When it comes down to it, I see all of my clients as people, as women, as human beings.  Different shapes and sizes, different interests, fear, worries, and desires.  But all people.  And in every person there is something to admire, something that can arouse passion and make a person attractive to themselves and someone else.

On top of that, no matter what, we are all able to enjoy sex.  And sex transforms people, pleasure makes people vulnerable and beautiful.  Not beautiful in the superficial way that the media would recognise, but in a way that speaks to the partner with whom they are sharing something so intimate.

We all have beauty.  And it deserves to be celebrated.  A big part of what I do is give women an opportunity and the safety to experience feeling and being beautiful.

John.

A sex club for women…

Posted on by
Reply

Killing Kittens, is a “sex club” for women, started in the UK by Emma Sayle and now grown to 40,000 members world wide (now including Sydney). What can I say but “wow”. That’s impressive.

I read about it in this article.

The impressive thing is that Ms Sayle has created a club dedicated to sex for women and it has worked – (some) women actually enjoy it. It defies the stereotypes of women and their sexuality, and it tells us something real about what women want and what they are prepared to try if they feel safe and in control. That’s a really significant discovery.

Sayle’s club has a few rules:

  • Members only (AUD $200 per month approx.)
  • Only men who are part of a couple can attend
  • Men are not allowed to initiate sex, only the women can do that
  • All members are vetted for “attractiveness” (I am not too keen on this rule)

So Sayles has worked out the formula that allows (some) women to be comfortable with their sexuality, to engage with it, and to experience sex outside of the traditional sanctioned confines of a monogamous relationship. It’s great to know, because we can absolutely put to rest the notion that “men always/only want sex” but “women need to be in love to enjoy sex”.

It’s simply not true.

The truth is that everyone can enjoy sex. Men and women alike. But our upbringing, our personality, libido, health, stress, and more can all affect when, where, and how we want sex and are able to enjoy it. The problem is that modern life rarely prioritises making us healthy, happy, relaxed, and with time to spare. It’s a battle to pay bills, to raise children, to build careers, and often, just to get along. Sex loses out almost every time.

So, if there is a lesson to be learned from Emma Sayle and Killing Kittens, it seems to be that we need to look after ourselves and make time and space in our lives for our sexuality. This isn’t a new idea, and I am pretty sure that I have said it before. It is nice though to have Sayle’s experiment to support the idea that if we do, then men and women can enjoy sex as and when we want to.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, the upcoming inaugural party in Sydney will cost $1200 per couple to attend!  That’s if you can make the guest list of course.

John.

The fallacy of “female viagra”

Posted on by
2

Today I saw this article in the Sydney Morning Herald that discusses the race to create a “female viagra”:

http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/multimillion-dollar-race-to-find-a-pink-viagra-20141121-11e1b6.html

There’s a saying that goes … “to a hammer, everything looks like a nail”.

Therefore it is no-surprise-at-all to me that pharmaceutical companies (who as a matter of course make drugs and sell them to people) would like to have a convenient pill to sell to women to alleviate their “sexual dysfunction”. Hammer/nail.

There are so many things wrong with this conversation about why women don’t want, or don’t enjoy sex that it’s hard to know where to begin. Perhaps the most pertinent place is with “male viagra” and to define what it really is, as opposed to what this article (and popular culture) think it is.

Viagra is the brand name that Pfizer gave the drug sildenafil. Sildenafil is a vasodilator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasodilation). In short, this means that it increases blood flow, particularly arterial blood flow (that conveniently carries blood to the penis). This is VERY, VERY useful if you are male, older, less fit, have poor circulation etc. It can make getting and sustaining an erection much easier. But it doesn’t create arousal.

So, viagra gets your blood flowing. But it does not create arousal. Let me say that again: viagra does not create arousal in a man. This is a common misconception, and one embodied in the title of this article. No arousal, no erection, no-matter how much viagra you have popped.

As implied by this article, men rarely suffer from a lack of desire and arousal for sex. What some men lack (due to age, and perhaps less than ideal health) is the blood flow to get and keep their penis hard. Women on the other hand often lack the arousal. Therefore it is pointless – in my opinion – to talk about a “female viagra”. Viagra works perfectly well on women as a vasodilator. The obvious problem is that this doesn’t do one damn thing to increase a woman’s level of arousal. It probably won’t hurt, but it’s not going to change a woman’s perception of someone who she don’t feel like having sex with.

What people who talk about female viagra are really talking about is developing a drug that makes women aroused (or some facsimile of). There is at least one very obvious problem here, so lets address it first: this is sounding seriously shady to me. We usually call these sorts of things “date rape” drugs. You know, things like rohipnol (who’s effects include: disinhibition and impaired judgment). If a woman can pop a pill to become aroused, then what is to stop someone else slipping them a pill to do the same?

I am sure that the pharmaceutical companies would be horrified to hear me characterise their work in this way, but at the end of the day making a pill that alters women’s state of mind to increase sexual arousal is a dangerous and very slippery slope. There is of course a common drug that already does this sort of thing. It’s called alcohol. Used in moderation it can be socially beneficial. Used inappropriately it can be disastrous – and people think that a more powerful version would be better?

A second problem is that, if you are trying to develop a drug that creates the physical responses of female arousal (like vaginal lubrication etc) then you are again missing the point. Having the physical indications of being ready for sex in no way guarantee that a woman will actually want to have sex with the man in front of her. Being wet, or having an erection doesn’t always mean that you want to have sex. Just that your body is ready to do so. Granted, for women who have issues with a lack of lubrication (as many women do post menopause for instance), then this could be a good thing. However that’s not really what the article, or the pharmaceutical companies are focusing on.

So, lets stop talking about “female viagra”. Lets instead have an adult discussion about why so many women don’t want sex. Or lose interest sexually in their partners as relationships age. Lets talk about how the concept of the “nuclear family” (and the social and physical isolation that causes) effects women’s libidos. Or about long work hours (for men and women), stress, debt, consumer culture, social dislocation, negative body image messages, hormonal contraceptives, lack of skill and interest from male partners, social pressure for “conventional” relationships, monogamy, and plenty more.  All of these things play a part in women having sex lives that are unfulfilled.

And that’s where the answers to the question of how to arouse women lie. Not in pills. Not in miracle cures. The problem of how to make a man’s erection last longer and be harder is trivial by comparison. Answering this question requires a revolution in both our thought and behaviour. It’s little wonder that people and business just want a pill! This stuff is hard, bordering on impossible to address. However, if we look hard at our lives, work out what really matters to us as people, then we can start to work on changing our lives to support those things. It’s not an easy thing to do for most of us, but that’s the reality of life. It is incumbent upon us all to find our own path.

John.

Orgasmic Meditation and the 15 minute orgasm

Posted on by
Reply

Ok, I admit it, the title of this post is click bait, but the title is important, as is the subject. I was recently shown an article in Sneaky Magazine, here that talked about a growing movement (?) from a US organisation called One Taste that teaches people (men and women working together) what they call orgasmic meditation.

From the One Taste website:

“Orgasmic Meditation (OM) is a practice embracing and utilizing the sexual energy we all possess.

Courses at OneTaste teach you how to acknowledge the energy flowing through you, and then channel it into all areas of your life. The result? Your sex life improves, food tastes better, your connection to yourself and others deepen. Being TurnedOn means feeling the electricity of being alive.

Practitioners experience benefits similar to other mindfulness practices such as sitting meditation, as well as the well-known health benefits associated with orgasm. It’s deliberate and structured with repeatable results.

OM is profound, yet simple and you can have it whether you are single or coupled.”

So far so good. Mindfulness is a good thing. Being aware of one’s self, your emotions, and the sensations that you are experiencing here and now is an excellent foil to the noise, stress, and discord that modern life assails us with virtually all the time these days. Adding orgasm to mindfulness sounds extra good!

So, reading through the article, this is what I discover …

Orgasmic massage is basically clitoral masturbation of the woman (of course) by a partner (usually a man, perhaps its an American thing, but they don’t really talk about women performing the “stroking”, but I can’t see any reason why they couldn’t). For just 15 minutes. And according to the One Taste explanation, the 15 minutes is central to the whole concept.

Now this is where the click bait comes in to play. A session lasts for 15 minutes, from laying down and the woman spreading her legs so that her stroker can begin stroking to the hands off moment when you have to stop. No ifs, no buts. Now I know a few women who could probably reach orgasm in that time from just clitoral stimulation, but that’s a vanishingly small minority. And fair enough, with practice, perhaps you could learn to experience a version of orgasm that is long and slow and deep and last the whole 15 minutes. But this definitely doesn’t qualify as an orgasm as most of us know it. There simply isn’t time for most women to build to the required level of arousal and then peak in what we call orgasm.

In fact, I know plenty of women, who, if they could achieve orgasm within 15 minutes, would be pushing the stroking hand away straight afterward as orgasm leaves their clitoris overly sensitive and further touch is almost painful (much like most men don’t enjoy strong stimulation of their penis straight after orgasm and ejaculation).

So, the name Orgasmic Meditation is misleading. This isn’t about orgasm. It is about sexual pleasure. It is about mindfulness. It is about empowerment for women and taking control of their sexuality. All of these are very good things. But it’s not about orgasm.

So, slightly dodgy name aside, I think Orgasmic Meditation is a REALLY GOOD THING. If you are well in touch with your body, comfortable in your sexuality, and happy with your sex life, then it could be fun and may be useful. However, if things aren’t so great, then orgasmic meditation may be of real help to you. Here’s why:

The structure of the process (15 minutes, very specific touch, no sex, no expectations, total focus on the woman) means that the woman can let go of all of the stresses and expectations that she has learned or had imposed on her around sex. This is her time. It’s all about her. It’s about pleasure (from a sexual source), but it’s not about sex. She doesn’t have to worry about pleasing her partner, or really doing anything at all besides enjoying herself. Perhaps it’s like getting a manicure? Time when you are just indulging yourself and no-one else – and it feels really good too!

And the fact that there (probably) isn’t a recognisable form of orgasm involved for most women has another benefit: having had someone play with your pussy for 15 minutes will leave you “turned on” and wanting sex. That’s completely natural, and it’s no surprise to me that the energising effect of unresolved sexual arousal would flow through to other areas of your life.

At the end of the day I think that orgasmic meditation is a great idea. I can’t see how it can hurt anyone (unlike medication, alcohol, and extreme life changes), so why not try it out? I am planning on attending a course in the near future to get the training (although the instructional video on the One Taste website makes it look pretty simple really). I will make another post to describe the experience.

John.

It’s a matter of trust

Posted on by
2

Stars of entertainment and sport frequent two Sydney brothels

Headlines like the one above (clickbait of the worst kind) make my blood boil.

To be fair to the journalist Eamonn Duff, he didn’t name names, explode families, ruin careers and create an orgy of public indignation. But the headline makes it sound like that’s what’s behind the link. What is the story actually about? Two “seedy” men fighting over the ownership of a modest brothel empire, and somehow a bunch of client information has been leaked to the press.

People fighting over ownership of businesses isn’t usually news – or not often anyway. So why is this article a headline story? Because it has to do with selling sex to famous people. If the client details of a couple of banks had been leaked would Eamonn have even raised and eyebrow? I doubt it (except to feel outraged to see how much money certain people have perhaps). But I think that most people would say “who cares?”, yes, people have money. Some of them put their money in the bank and have bank accounts.

Likewise, yes, people have sex, and sometimes they pay for it – for a whole load of reasons that Joe Average doesn’t know, doesn’t understand, and quite probably doesn’t want to understand (because it’s complex, doesn’t come in neat three word slogans and actually requires people to open their minds to new possibilities and problems with our society). Joe Average just wants to know which celebrity woman pays to have sex at a brothel in Sydney.

Lets get some things straight here: selling and buying sex is legal in NSW (within certain laws), just like selling and buying milk. These businesses are legal (there is no hint in the article that they have done anything wrong). The customers have broken no law by going to these places. Someone HAS however revealed private personal information to a journalist. Information that would if released utterly ruin people’s lives and careers. That’s a breach of trust at the very least. I don’t see Eamonn Duff railing against that though. No, he lapped it up, analysed it, found the juicy parts and made it a national headline.

As you can imagine client confidentiality is paramount to me as a male escort for women. If my clients don’t trust me to protect their identities then I have no business. But lets turn that around for a moment and look at it from the perspective of my clients: if they can’t be sure that I (and other providers of sex services) will protect their identities, then they are prevented from seeking out something that they need and want in their lives, that they can’t get any other way (if they could, then why would they be paying a provider like me).

I don’t do this job just to earn money. I also do it because the service I provide matters to the people I provide it to – and it matters that it is available for them. I can’t make everyone in the world, or even Sydney happy and satisfied, but to the few women who need what I offer, then I can and do make a real and significant difference to their lives.  That matters to me, it gives me significant job satisfaction in an industry that most people look down on and despise.

A journalist handed private information about similarly vulnerable people needs to stop and think VERY hard about the consequences of what they are doing. I expect that Mr Duff would say “no names were mentioned, so it’s fine”, but that’s not the point. The customers, who woke up this morning (who know that they are on that list) have had their day, week (and possibly life) ruined by this non-story. They will have to think long and hard before they go out again in the future to engage a service that (like my customers) may be very important in their lives.

And why do they now have to live in fear? So that Fairfax newspapers can sell some advertising space. Our society needs to think more about values and real people and less about making money by exploiting vulnerable people. Especially when it’s so easy to beat up public interest by splashing a scandalous headline about in the news.

There is only one name that I would like to hear from Mr Duff: the name of the person who betrayed the trust of hundreds (thousands?) of clients of two legal business. Because that person should never be trusted again with people’s private information.

John.