Category Archives: Politics

Banning books and the games the media the media play

Posted on by
Reply

This is an old story (six months old now) reported by 9 News, but I think that is still worthy of exploring.

The summary:

“In March, Queensland conservative campaigner Bernard Gaynor complained to Logan City Council that [the graphic novel] Gender Queer [by Maia Kobabe] was on its shelves.”

This lead the Australian Classification Board to conduct a review and they have…

“given the book an “unrestricted classification”, paired with “consumer advice” that it may not be suitable for younger readers.”

There’s a lot that could be explored here, from social “conservatism”, to the myriad issues that young people encounter exploring their sexuality, to literature and how our classification system works. All worthy topics. But I’d like to talk about something small in the way 9 News reported the story.

Firstly, the original article: Gender identity memoir removed from Queensland library shelf, referred to classification board on March 13th is a reasonable piece or reporting that seems to be mostly neutral about the subject and fairly represents the situation.

And credit to 9 News, they did a follow up piece Classification review rejects push to ban Gender Queer book on the 21st of July that is also fairly neutral and just reports the news.

What caught my attention is the difference between the visible title of the articles:

“Gender identity memoir removed from Queensland library shelf, referred to classification board”

and…

“Classification review rejects push to ban Gender Queer book”

and the URLs of the articles:

https://www.9news.com.au/national/maia-kobabe-gender-queer-a-memoir-book-under-review-classification-board-faces-potential-ban/

and…

https://www.9news.com.au/national/maia-kobabe-gender-queer-book-classified-as-m-mature-not-recommended-for-readers-under-15-years/

I’ll expand them to make it easier to read.

“Maia Kobabe Gender Queer a Memoir book under review classification board faces potential ban”

and…

“Maia Kobabe Gender Queer book classified as M mature not recommended for readers under 15 years”

Lets line up the titles with their URLs.

First article title visible to readers:

“Gender identity memoir removed from Queensland library shelf, referred to classification board”

versus URL visible to search engines:

“Maia Kobabe Gender Queer a Memoir book under review classification board faces potential ban”

Second article title visible to readers:

“Classification review rejects push to ban Gender Queer book”

versus URL visible to search engines:

“Maia Kobabe Gender Queer book classified as m mature not recommended for readers under 15 years

In both cases the URL uses significantly more “conservative” and inflammatory language.

The question of why is open to debate, but given that 9 News is chaired by a group including Peter Costello (former right wing politician, deputy leader of the Liberal Party (1994 to 2007) and Australian federal government treasurer (1996 to 2007)) the implication is that 9 News has a conservative bias that it wants to hide from the people reading its articles, but not from the search engines that feed us all our fire hose of media content.

In that landscape these sorts of small details matter.

While the inner workings of Google’s search algorithms are opaque to the likes of you and me, they are closely studied by the kinds of people who run media empires and like to influence the viewing public’s opinion on of matters of “morality”.

I don’t think that I need to break this down further, but I do think that it’s a timely reminder to us all to not trust any media source completely. We need to read widely and try to understand the inherent biases that media of all kinds (even my writings) bring to the stories that they choose to tell, how they tell them, and even how they attempt to influence how they are delivered and to whom.

John

Even AI (companies) hate sex work

Posted on by
2

You have probably been hearing about artificial intelligence in the media recently.  The company OpenAI in particular has been making a lot of waves with its ChatGPT artificial intelligence service.  And honestly ChatGPT is absolutely astounding in what it can achieve.

So, being the person I am with an interest in technology and how it can help me I thought I’d have a look at ChatGPT and see what it might be able to do for me and my business as a male escort for women.

One of the favourite tests you can see people on Youtube doing with ChatGPT is asking it to give them suggestions for articles to write about a subject.  Knowing virtually nothing about ChatGPT and how to drive it besides what I had seen other people do I thought I’d start with that.  I wanted to write an article for this site today but wasn’t feeling inspired by any of the ideas I’ve jotted down in the last couple of weeks.

So I asked ChatGPT: “Suggest some article subjects about female sexuality and male escorts”.  This is what came back:

While all the suggestions were relatively “high-level” the topics that ChatGPT suggested were definitely on target.  So well done ChatGPT.

However there is a problem.  “This content may violate our content policy…”

Sigh.  Here we go…

I dutifully followed the link provided to OpenAI’s content policy and I find this:

“Disallowed usage of our models

We don’t allow the use of our models for the following:”

Promoting sexual services.  Yup.  That’s me banned then. 

I haven’t been involved in sex work advocacy for several years now, but this sort of thing reminds me that the fight for the rights of sex workers is far, far, FAR from over.

I first bumped into this kind of problem when making erotic films.  Music is an important part of setting the mood in a film and several years ago there was a big boom in online royalty free music libraries (which ironically generative AI may yet kill).  That’s great because you can subscribe, download the music that suits your work, add it in and you are done, nothing more to pay.  But not if you are making erotic content.  That’s *always* excluded in their terms of service.  Last time I checked, none of the big royalty free music sites allowed use of their libraries in anything “adult” related.  As a result there is only a quite small set of music that I can legally choose from when making a new film.

And of course OpenAI have done the same thing.  Western (in particular US and Australian) prudishness is incredibly exclusionary and as stock or AI generated images and music become more and more prevalent, sex workers and our ability to create and promote our work becomes harder.

Now my business isn’t about to fail because I can’t use a song, or have AI generate article topics, but it’s another barrier unfairly place in front of me and every other sex worker in the world. And it demonstrates that the fight for sex work rights – which ultimately translates into your right as a prospective, or actual purchaser of sex work services – is an ongoing battle.

There will always be people who openly and directly oppose us and our work, but the people and businesses who casually oppose us because they are too scared of what the loud people might say about them are just as big a problem and far more insidious.

John

When sex work is criminalised sexual assault increases

Posted on by
Reply

For many years now I’ve been an advocate for the decriminalisation of sex work – which I benefit from here in NSW (and increasingly in other states and territories here in Australia and New Zealand). I encourage decriminalisation because it is very good for the health and safety and general well-being of sex workers and clients.

Now there is evidence that it is good for the rest of society as well. I was sent a link to an article that reported on a recent study of 31 European countries from 1990 to 2017 which shows that countries that liberalised their sex work laws saw a decrease in instances of rape. Where as countries that cracked down in sex work saw an increase in instances of rape.

So there we have it. Consensual sex work makes society safer (it wasn’t clear from the article if the statistics were gendered or not). 

I’m pleased to hear this news and it adds yet another reason to support decriminalisation. 

One unexpected result from the study was that countries that criminalised the purchase of sex but not the sale of sex had the worst outcomes. I doubt that will make the people who are fighting to “abolish” sex work, especially through the criminalisation of its purchase, stop and think about the harm that they are actually doing to their society. But at least it’s empirical evidence to throw in the face of the lawmakers who listen to them and vote to criminalise sex work on the basis of “protecting women”.

We are extremely lucky here in most of Australia and New Zealand – as sex workers and as clients. It is easy to forget that the all of the rest of the world labours under some sort of criminalisation of sex services. For all our faults as a society here in Australia we have at least gotten that right.

John

The rest of the world doesn’t understand sex work in Australia (and New Zealand)

Posted on by
Reply

Sex work in most of Australia is now decriminalised.  Current states and territories that have decriminalised sex work include: New South Wales, Victoria, Northern Territory, and the Australian Capital Territory. That covers the majority of the population of Australia.  Other states have some form of “legalised” sex work which is still better than nothing, but we are waiting for them to catch up.

This is good for both sex workers and our clients.  Sex workers can go to the police for protection if we need, clients also are protected by consumer protection law from sex workers who may behave unethically.  And most of all – because of this protection potential abusers no longer considered sex workers (or our clients) “easy targets” that no one will care about.

People from other countries generally have no understanding of what this means for sex work and sex workers.  Case in point, a video that I came across the other day. 

https://www.facebook.com/ItsGoneViralOfficial/videos/456528303190628

This post looks to be ripped off the TikTok of the original creator – a female sex worker in Sydney, Australia called Jasmine (https://www.tiktok.com/@gentle_aura).

What is relevant here is the comments on the Facebook repost.  They are for the most part judgemental, ignorant, moralistic (or some combination of the above), and show no awareness of decriminalisation of sex work and understanding of how it changes the industry.

Decriminalisation of sex work makes the work much, much safer for women – as sex workers and as clients. It is frustrating when I am contacted by women (especially from the US) who want to see a male sex worker but are unable to find a suitable man in their area. I would like to be able to refer them to someone known in the industry with a good reputation and plenty of online presence to allow potential clients to decide if they are suitable. But where sex work is criminalised workers have to hide themselves.

For most women who might choose to pay a sex worker this makes the entire transaction just too much of a risk. So they are locked out of the opportunity to explore their sexuality in that way.

It’s easy for us to take for granted what we have here in Australia. So I’m taking this moment to recognise the privilege that we have compared to our peers (workers and clients) around the world. We are incredibly lucky – but never forget that all of these advances can be taken away from us if we fail to defend our hard won rights from the ignorant masses who reflexively lash out at sex work whenever it is presented to them.

John

Vaccination – a public service announcement

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday I was among the lucky few in Australia to get my first vaccination for covid-19.

I am entitled to vaccination in the 1B group as I work with women with disabilities.

My second shot is in a few weeks time and I am really looking forward to being fully vaccinated against covid.

Here in Australia I think that hesitancy to get the vaccine is relatively low, which is great. Our problem is quite the opposite – a poorly planned and managed roll-out and limited supply of shots is the bigger issue.

However, if you are worried about having the vaccination, here’s my request – if you can get vaccinated, please do it. Not for me, but for yourself and for the people around you. There has been lots of media coverage of the risk of blood clots from one of the vaccines that have been developed. But what nobody seems to be doing is putting those (very small) risks in their proper context – that is to set it against the horrible consequences of covid-19.

So – as Seth Myers says – “Stay safe, wear a mask, get vaccinated, we love you!”

Update 4th of June: I am fully vaccinated as of today!

John.

Sex worker, not prostitute – “progressive” media needs to do better

Posted on by
Reply

In the time that I have been a sex worker the everyday language used around people like me who sell sexual services (not our bodies – no one does that, it’s not a thing) has changed dramatically and for the better.

Many politicians now use the phrase “sex worker” instead of “prostitute”. The state of Victoria (Australia) changed their “Prostitution Control Act” (which regulates sex work in the state, requiring workers to register as sex workers) to the “Sex Work Act”. A small change that – while the act itself is still a problem – points to a government that at least sees which way the wind is blowing.

The media though is a different matter. Yes many media personalities understand and call us sex workers. The ones who don’t do so consistently and pointedly and I would expect little more from them.

Then there are media personalities who while ostensibly progressive will choose the words they use based on the subject. And that’s a real problem – not to mention poor journalism.

US right wing politicians are famous for getting caught with their pants down. Their hypocrisy is quite plain to see. But then media who would see themselves as progressive and when talking about us would generally call us sex workers will turn around and start calling us prostitutes instead.

Why? Because they know how people react to language and in their efforts to ridicule someone (who may deserve it) they throw us – sex workers – under the bus as well.

And not just sex workers – but clients as well.

It’s fine to call out politicians and anyone else who is being hypocritical about paying for sex, but you shouldn’t be adding to the stigma of being a client or worker when you do so.

I think that I have perhaps met two or three women in all my time as a straight male escort for women who are open about having paid for sex. The vast majority of women – even in a place like Australia and especially New South Wales, where sex work is decriminalised – still would never tell anyone that they have paid a sex worker.

Why? In part at least because media personalities who should know better help to perpetuate the stigma around selling and buying sex.

Politicians who “point with one hand and jerk off with the other” richly deserve to be pilloried. But for their hypocrisy – not because they pay for sex. That just hurts sex workers and clients who are so often dismissed by a society that doesn’t care to understand why some people choose to sell sex and others to buy it.

John.

Consent – or why we shouldn’t force children to sit on Santa’s knee

Posted on by
Reply

Trigger Warning – this article discusses sexual assault and related topics.

I came across two articles in the media recently.  One discussed the horrible reality of what it termed ‘rejection violence’ – that is women being abused (especially verbally online) for saying ‘no’ to men.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/13253626

The solution (minimally) discussed in the article mostly focussed on re-education of men and safety tools in dating apps as solutions to the problem.  Which are certainly worthwhile things to implement because something really does need to happen right now to protect women from this sort of abuse.

However – as alluded to in the article – anything that we do now is only a band-aid on a gaping wound in society and does exactly nothing to stop every future generation of men turning out exactly the same and thinking that abusing a woman just because she said ‘no’ is fine and no big deal. It’s treating the symptom, not the disease.

This is a systemic problem and one that can only be fixed by tackling the problem at its root – children (boys especially) need to be taught about consent from the earliest moment that they can comprehend the lesson. That’s where the second article comes in.

The Guardian – Teaching consent to children…

I like very much that this article doesn’t just address this problem from the point of view of teaching boys to respect other people’s boundaries – it goes much further and deeper and discusses teaching children to understand and assert their own boundaries – which I suspect then provides a solid foundation to discussing accepting other people’s boundaries.

Of course it also requires adults to respect children’s boundaries, making it a slightly circular problem we are tackling…

So, I had never thought of consent in this way before – but it makes sense as the fundamental starting point. Does a child want to be cuddled by a grandparent, or friend? Why don’t we ask children if they want this sort of contact? Why do we force children to “sit on Santa’s knee” when they don’t want to?

Put in this perspective, the origin of men feeling free to abuse women for something as simple as being rejected starts to make more sense – from an early age children are taught that they don’t have the right to choose who touches them and how. This is clearly setting up men to feel justified in forcing contact on women – and women in having to resign themselves to accepting that men are going to do that to them.

At the end of the day we have one problem with two actions required to resolve it.

Firstly we need to publicly and constantly make it very clear to all men that even if they don’t respect women’s boundaries and consent that they must curb that behaviour, even if they won’t personally accept that it is the right thing to do. We do this in every other aspect of our lives (like paying for things we want, following the road rules, or not committing assault) and men who may not respect the law – mostly – manage to behave rationally through fear of consequences.

Secondly we need to fundamentally shift how we treat and educate children. It has to happen in schools. And it has to happen in homes. And we won’t see any tangible results for at least a generation – far beyond election cycles and the media’s attention span…

All of this requires leadership with a strong moral compass. Something that Australia sorely lacks, especially at a federal level (I mean seriously, we have a prime minister who had to ask his wife to explain why the sexual assault of a woman in parliament house was a problem).

Sadly, I don’t see that these things will happen in any significant way any time soon – although I was pleased to see a high profile footballer was just convicted of two counts of “sexual intercourse without consent”. Convictions of this sort are vanishingly rare, but it is good to see that a man from one of the most privileged classes in this country (a sportsman) has been held to account for his actions.

That’s a good start.

John.

Sex work, disability, and the NDIS (again)

Posted on by
4

Back in May of 2020 the federal court of Australia ruled that the National Disability Insurance Scheme should not deny disabled people the right to use their NDIS insurance to pay for sex work services if they could show that it was “reasonable and necessary”.

I can’t emphasise enough how important this recognition of both sex work and the rights of people with disabilities is.  It cannot be understated.

Governments world wide have long pushed sexuality and sex work to the margins of society, with hugely detrimental consequences.  New South Wales in Australia, where I work, in fact was so plagued by corruption of it’s police force and politicians, due to the criminalisation of sex work that it became the first place in the world to decriminalise sex work (and thus remove that blight of corruption).

It seemed for a brief moment there that as the states and territories in Australia embrace and/or implement decriminalisation that the tide was turning.  Even the federal court has recognised sexual expression as an integral part of human existence.

Then last week federal minister for the NDIS, Stuart Robert went on a conservative radio show to once again display his ugly conservatism. 

“I never thought you and I would be talking about prostitutes.”

Robert said NDIS participants were “welcome to avail themselves of anything that is lawful and they can pay for themselves” but not with taxpayer funds.

The Guardian – Stuart Robert Condemned

Firstly it’s worth noting the derogatory language.  Stuart Robert knows that the preferred and respectful term is “sex worker”.  He has used it in the past here (https://amp.abc.net.au/article/11298838).  So his choice of words when talking to Ray Hadley on the radio was intended to rile up listeners and shame people who pay for and provide sexual services in front of a conservative radio audience.  It was deliberate.

The federal court stated that if a person with a disability can make a case for the NDIS to cover the cost of sex work services then those services should be covered.  Which seems quite reasonable.  It’s not giving anyone with a recognised disability a blank cheque to see sex workers every day of the week on the government’s dime.  It is simply recognising that there are people in our community who’s disability means that they can’t safely and readily participate in an integral part of the human experience – their sexuality – that the rest of us take for granted. 

What most people who oppose the NDIS funding sex workers don’t stop to consider is the risks that people with disabilities take when they try to engage with people for a relationship and especially sex.

Most of the clients I see and have seen over the years who have a disability are extremely physically vulnerable and require significant care 24 hours a day.  It is virtually impossible for a person in this position to “just get on Tinder” for instance.  Most have never experienced sex at all when they contact me and are looking for someone who understands their disability, how to communicate and work with them safely.

This isn’t something you get with a random stranger off the Internet.  Imagine being wheelchair bound and unable to speak trying to meet someone to have sex with – for the first time.

This is what Stuart Robert ignores.  And it’s a huge over site for the minister in charge of the NDIS. 

The only way that you can justify excluding sexual services for people with a disability is if you believe that sex and sexual expression is a privilege.

From the NDIS website:

The main objective of the NDIS is to provide all Australians who acquire a permanent disability before the age of 65 which substantially impacts how they manage everyday activities with the reasonable and necessary supports they need to live an ordinary life.

NDIS – Operational Guidelines

So the test that the NDIS claims it applies to supporting people with disabilities is “does this disability prevent you from living an ordinary life?”

I would suggest that a life devoid of sex is not an ordinary life – and I have over ten years of experience working with people, both able bodied and with disabilities who tell me all the time how important being able to have sex is to them and much it improves their lives.

Sex is a part of our ordinary lives and if minister Robert Stuart was honest with Australians he would accept the federal court’s ruling and stop fighting against people with disabilities.

His latest attack on people with disabilities is try to force through a definition of “reasonable and necessary” that will exclude sex work from NDIS cover.

“I will move to actually define what is reasonable and necessary so we can meet community standards, because I do not believe … that the federal government using taxpayer’s money to pay for prostitutes meets that standard, I just can’t see it,” Robert said.

The Guardian – Stuart Robert Condemned

Every time he claims that it would be against “community standards” he is applying his own moral, religious, and/or political beliefs to a question that should not be influenced by any of those things ever.

And claiming authority by citing “the community” is nothing more than cowardice. At least own your discrimination Stuart.

John.

Living our best lives

Posted on by
Reply

I have to admit that I live in a bit of a bubble. I don’t watch commercial television or listen to commercial radio. I don’t read newspapers (online, or paper).

I have terms like “Donald Trump”, “Scott Morrison” and “politics” blocked on Twitter.

I really don’t need the ongoing train wreck of Western politics in my face – even occasionally.

And then there’s commercial TV and radio – swamped by cheap to produce reality TV, “current affairs” programs that platform racists in the name of “balance” and ignore the very real problems in the world in favour of tabloid sensationalism.

I’m happy in my bubble honestly. I spend my work times with interesting people who on the whole care about the sort of things I care about – social justice, tolerance, freedom – people who understand that the world is bigger than them and requires an open mind.

As I write this, I am in Canberra. I stopped earlier at a self serve car wash to wash my car and (disappointingly) had to listen to a commercial radio station for the 15 minutes it took me to clean the car.

It reaffirmed to me that I haven’t been missing anything. From the inane banter about clothing to the news items delivered in the most effective way to make a listener feel stressed about things that don’t actually matter.

It was all just noise. Noise that, if you let it, will drown out the things in life that do matter. This is the very real problem with the “modern condition” living in a place like Sydney.

I heard recently of a man, who emigrated to Australia from India and settled in Sydney. He found employment and has been living like so many of us do – working to pay the rent and have some free time and money to enjoy himself.

His realisation though is profound: he has decided to return to the small town that his family comes from in India – because the quality of life there, while modest, is better for him than the kind of life that we live here in Sydney. In his home town he doesn’t have a lot of money, but he has time – time to spend with friends and family doing whatever they want to, or even nothing at all. He may not have great restaurants to go to like we do, but food is cheap and he and his family have time to cook and share good meals.

The list goes on, but I think that you can see the point I am making – we sacrifice a lot living in a place like Sydney. Our lives are driven by work. Our free time is seriously restricted by the daily requirement to earn money to pay rent.

A semi-rural lifestyle with limited money may not seem like the best life to you and me – we have grown up in a different way and have different expectations – but I think that it can still teach us something.

That lesson is: we shouldn’t see work and the assumption that we must all do it all the time as an inherently good thing. For most of us it is a necessary thing, but it tends to draw us away for the fundamentals of human nature – that is connections with the people around us, the sharing of simple pleasures, and time to just “be”, rather than “do”.

I think that this lesson is particularly relevant when considering my industry. Paying for the services of a male escort like myself absolutely costs money. But it’s trading money not for another “thing” in ones life, but for an experience. The older I get, the less interested I become in having things in my life and the more I value the experiences I have with other people.

Much like the gentleman from India, what I really want is to live a life full of people and new experiences with them. I think that, if anything, is the way to live a fulfilling life.

John.

Minister Stuart Robert! The NDIS should fund sex services

Posted on by
2

You may be aware that an Australian woman living with multiple sclerosis challenged our National Disability Insurance Scheme and won when they rejected her request for the NDIS to fund a therapist to provide her with regular sexual release.

You can read about the case here:

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net.au/article/11298838

This is a huge step forward in the recognition of sex as a natural and fundamental part of the human condition and that people with disabilities deserve it too.

Sadly though that is where the politician stepped in (from the article).

“Minister for the NDIS, Stuart Robert, said that ruling was out of line with community expectations.

‘The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) intends to appeal the recent decision,’ he said.

‘The current position continues to be that the NDIS does not cover sexual services, sexual therapy or sex workers in a participant’s NDIS plan.'”

First – can I just say that it is nice to see a politician (particularly a conservative one) using the term “sex worker”. It’s rare and appreciated.

Sadly though Stuart Robert then fails to be a leader and reverts to nebulous conservative morality to justify appealing against the decision.

He claims that the NDIS funding sexual service for people who cannot experience sex because of their disability is not in line with “community expectations”.

There is a lot to unpack here.

The first is the idea that “the community” has a right to tell people what they can and can’t do in the bedroom. I think that we have, through things like the decriminalisation of homosexuality and indeed sex work here in NSW (and the Australian Capital Territory, and New Zealand), established that “the community” has no right to tell consenting adults what they can and can’t do to each other.

The second is that a minister of our government is hide bound to follow “community expectations”. This is absurd. Ministers make unpopular decisions regularly, they do so – they will tell you – for the good of the nation, to protect minorities, the environment etc.

So Stuart Robert claiming that he is duty bound to challenge the ruling because “the community” wouldn’t like people with disabilities being able to enjoy basic sexual release is nothing more than abdicating his responsibility as a minister and failing to be a true leader. Stuart Robert – if you are listening: man up and do your job.

Also – has Robert Stuart actually asked “the community” what we want? I’m fairly sure this question has never been polled anywhere, that being the case it’s even worse than abdication. He’s just deflecting and using the presumed moral authority (of “the community) to avoid having to take a stance that his party and his (presumably conservative) electorate might not like (read: he’s afraid he won’t get re-elected if he lets people with disabilities have an occasional shag).

As a straight male sex worker (escort) for women, I have been working with women with disabilities for almost my entire career. I know absolutely how important having intimate touch and the ability to enjoy and experience their sexuality is.

But personal experience shouldn’t even be necessary. Do we – does Stuart Robert – have no ability to empathise? Has he ever stopped to imagine never having someone touch him again in a sexual way? How about never being touched and being unable to even touch himself?

This is the reality of life for many of my clients with disabilities. And it’s not their fault. It’s just what they live with because life dealt them a shitty hand.

We happily fund or subsidise (through the NDIS) education, physical therapy, medication, accommodation, travel, and more for people who we as a society recognise are unable or disadvantaged to get those things for themselves because of their disability.

The only way that we can justify not funding sexual services as part of an NDIS plan is if we believe that sex isn’t an integral part of the human experience. I know that I personally need sex in my life to be a happy and fulfilled person. If I don’t have it, then it seriously impacts on my quality of life.

This is a message that I hear from my clients – able bodied or otherwise – regularly.

So why would “the community” have a problem with the NDIS allowing people with disabilities to occasionally enjoy what most of us take for granted?

John.