Yes, we are aware and appropriately disgusted by Ruhama, their role in the Laundries, and their role in advising the Irish gov to adopt the Swedish model of criminalizing full service workers’ clients. We’ve written about them in Week In Links past. But it’s good to keep on emphasizing the connection between them and the Laundries as often as possible, so thanks!

Just as a clarification—“sex workers” includes everyone who works in the sex industry (some even include those in managerial positions in some cases.) Almost all the people you described above all fit into the definition, and all of them could have a case made for them. “Strippers, sexual surrogates, adult film actors” are all CERTAINLY sex workers. There’s a misconception going around that “sex worker” is a euphemism for full service worker—that misconception can hopefully be debunked in this conversation.

I totally agree with your logic that if you yourselves do not create regulations for your business, they will be created *for* you, which is why I wrote that you’re keeping admirably to the nothing-about-us-without-us ethic. I just think that you’re basically creating a standard for your labor, and thus perhaps there should be a bit more focus on the rights of the worker and less on the rights of the clients. My opinion doesn’t really matter all that much, though–it’s your marketplace and your labor, and the important thing is that your the ones creating the standard you want to be held to–self-determination at its finest.

I like them too, actually.

I was actually thinking about asking her to contribute myself! Your suggestion sort of seals the deal. Though, her writing, while immeasurably awesome, is a bit too academic and heavy for TAS. But I’d love to find out if she’s interested in adopting a lighter style/tone.

Thanks, Andrew, I rectified that. Johanna and I are sorry to have made two errors that astute readers had to correct this week.