Rupert Everett in Soho. Photograph: William Baker/Channel 4
Show Hide image

Rupert Everett’s prostitution documentary, Love for Sale, seeks fantasy not reality

In reality, prostitution is not the world’s oldest profession – it is one of the world’s oldest oppressions. 

Rupert Everett introduces his Channel 4 documentary, Love for Sale, with an explanation. Prostitution and acting are "the world's oldest professions," he says; the only difference between the two being that, while actors "sell their feelings," prostitutes "grind away at their pussies with much less fuss but with more wear and tear". In fact, Everett considers himself "the greater whore" and is "frustrated" that despite the "fine line between acting and whoring," actors are given greater rewards and privileges in this world.

This misogynistic and ignorant introduction sets a tone that persists throughout the first episode.

While the series claims to explore how and why prostitution happens, the reality of servicing strange, often violent men, day in and day out and of being physically used and abused as a means of survival is glossed over. In reality, prostitution is not the world's oldest profession - it is one of the world's oldest oppressions.

One of the greatest failures of the first episode is Everett's unwillingness to acknowledge that which is most evident. The first episode asks "why people sell sex," but avoids the most obvious answer: demand. "People" (the vast majority of whom are women) sell sex primarily to men. If there were no male demand for paid sex, there would be no prostitution. Another unaddressed truth is that prostitution is not and has never been about female desire or fulfillment. Rather, it exists because of male power and entitlement. We, as a society believe not only that men have the right to access women's bodies, but that buying sex doesn't simply fulfill a desire, but a need. Everett himself believes that in order to abolish prostitution, we would need to "re-wire" men's brains.

This grim outlook on men's nature, wherein we assume men "need" sex with women who don't desire them shows little concern for how that supposed "hard-wired" "need" impacts women.

When writer and exited prostitute, Rachel Moran, who authored a powerful memoir detailing her seven years as a prostitute in Dublin, speaks with Everett, he is dismissive. When she tells him that "unwanted sex, even if you are paid for it, is damaging" and that society need not include prostitution, Everett doesn't listen, lecturing her as though she is delusional. "There is no way of changing this fundamental thing," he says.

But Everett's notion of a "safer, cleaner, more comforting" industry is the real delusion. It exists nowhere in history or in our current world. What he is defending is institutionalised oppression.

"Half of me don't want," an escort named "Juliana" who sends most of her earnings back to her family in Brazil, tells Everett, "and half of me needs." The camera stares at Juliana's breasts as Everett explains to her that she "lives like a movie star". He speaks on her behalf, so we'll never know if she agrees.

"I never liked this work and never wanted to do it," a male prostitute working in Tel Aviv tells Everett. The young man is an illegal immigrant from Jordan who doesn't have the ID card needed in order for him to move to Israel. He sells sex because he has no other choice. The man is Muslim and says: "if suicide was permitted, I would have done it."

A high-end male escort named "Bruno" tells Everett that he lost eight friends to suicide in the last 18 months and that the work leaves you "in very dark places" psychologically. Yet Everett concludes that the only harm of prostitution is that those in the industry are made into "social outcasts." When Everett discusses his friend Lychee, a transwoman who was murdered while prostituting, he fails to acknowledge that the violence came, not from abstract ideas such as social stigma, but from individuals – men, specifically. Often the very men who pay for sex.

Despite what happened to Lychee, Everett is unwilling to stop romanticising the industry, saying about Paris's Bois de Boulogne, where many transwomen work as prostitutes and where Lychee was murdered: "I adore this place, the notion of have sex outside in the trees – to me, this is a place of great romance and mystery…" "…And danger of course," he adds, as an afterthought. What Everett calls "eccentric" and "human" is violent and destructive to others and for that reason, people's "eccentricities" are of less interest to me than the lives of those impacted and destroyed by what Everett sees as "funny games".

Blaming abstract ideas like "social stigma" and religion functions as a means to avoid addressing a more unpleasant reality – that prostitution is physically, mentally, and emotionally damaging and that most people enter into prostitution because they are marginalised and have no alternative. "It isn't the stigma we need to eradicate," Moran tells Everett, "it's prostitution itself."

"We aren't doing it because we love it," a British woman, working the streets to pay for her drug addiction tells him, "it's a case of survival." Does Everett think she would feel differently if "stigma" weren't a factor?

On a whiteboard at an escort agency he visits, there are notes about certain clients (Everett calls them "the naughty boys"). Next to the name "Johnny12" is the word "rough." Everett jokes: "Johnny12 sounds my type." As though the violence suffered by women in prostitution is nothing more than a kinky, sexy little joke.

Everett claims he wants to "get behind stereotypes" that say prostituted women are either "immoral slags" or "powerless victims" but it feels as though he simply wants to replace one stereotype with another – that of the "happy hooker."

Everett visits Amsterdam, where prostitution is legal, in an effort to show how "empowering" it is when prostitution happens "out in the open". But in this supposedly "safe" atmosphere, women continue to be murdered and abused in the legal shop windows. A woman he speaks to there spends her days "screening" the gangs of drunken men who walk by her window, trying to guess which ones might rip her off, beat her, or worse. Is this what "empowerment" looks like?

Everett wants to sell a notion of prostitution as glamorous, sexually liberating, and economically empowering, but reality gets in the way. "A teacher can nearly double her weekly take-home income with just a good day's work with this agency," Everett proclaims. As though living in a world wherein a teacher must resort to selling sex on the side in order to survive is a great social achievement.

Everett claims to have set out to uncover the "truth" about prostitution in Love for Sale, but it's clear he – like so many others in this world – is unwilling to see the truth, lest his fantasies be destroyed. The title of the documentary speaks to this – in prostitution, it isn't "love" that is for sale, but rather power, sold by those who have none.

Meghan Murphy is a writer and journalist from Vancouver, Canada. Her website is Feminist Current. Meghan advocates for a model of law known as the Nordic model, which decriminalises prostitutes and criminalises the johns. You can follow her on Twitter @meghanemurphy.

 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn faces a dilemma as Brexit solidifies: which half of his voters should he disappoint?

He comes from a tradition on the left that sees the EU as a capitalist club.

Imagine a man who voted to leave the European Economic Community in 1975. A man who spoke out against the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, saying that it “takes away from national parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers”. A man who voted against the Lisbon Treaty in 2008.

You don’t have to imagine very hard, because that man is Jeremy Corbyn. When campaigning for the Labour leadership in 2015, he told a GMB hustings, “I would ­advocate a No vote if we are going to get an imposition of free-market policies across Europe.”

When Labour’s Brexiteers gathered to launch their campaign in 2016, several seemed hurt that Corbyn and his shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, were not there with them. “It is surprising, when we voted against the advice of the chief whip on a number of European issues over the last decades, that Jeremy and John, who have always been in that lobby with us, that they would want to lead a campaign that isn’t even asking for a renegotiated position,” said the MP Graham Stringer.

I mention this because since the election campaign started in April, I keep having an odd experience – people insisting that Corbyn is not a Eurosceptic, and that he will use Labour’s new-found strength to argue for a softer Brexit. Others claim that Labour’s current position on freedom of movement (ending it) is the obvious, common-sense – even progressive – choice.

This matters. Look, if the evidence above doesn’t convince you that the Labour leader is intensely relaxed about exiting the European Union, I don’t know what else would. Yet it’s clear that some Labour activists strongly identify personally with Corbyn: they find it hard to believe that he holds different opinions from them.

The second factor is the remaking of Brexit as a culture war, where to say that someone is a Eurosceptic is seen as a kind of slur. Perhaps without realising it, some on the left do associate Euroscepticism with Little Englanderism or even flat-out racism, and see it as a moral failing rather than a political position.

But I’m not impugning Jeremy Corbyn’s character or morals by saying that he is an instinctive Brexiteer. He comes from a tradition on the left that sees the EU as a capitalist club. You can disagree with that premise but it’s a respectable line of reasoning.

Also, the Euroscepticism of Corbyn and his allies will undoubtedly give them an advantage in the months ahead; they are not consumed by fatalism, and the members of McDonnell’s shadow Treasury team feel that the removal of European state aid restrictions can help revive ailing bits of the British economy. They have a vision of what an ideal “Labour Brexit” would be – and it’s not just sobbing and begging Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel to take us back.

We do, however, need a reality check. Now that the necessary humble pie has been eaten, Labour’s unexpected revival at the ballot box means we can begin to treat Corbyn as a normal politician – with the emphasis on the second word. He’s not the Messiah, but he’s not a joke either. He is a charismatic campaigner who is willing to compromise on second-tier issues to achieve his main objectives.

From the general election, we can see just how good a campaigner Corbyn is: he can fire up a crowd, give disciplined answers to interviewers and chat amiably on a sofa. That throws into sharp relief just how limp his performances were last year.

He might have little else in common with Theresa May, but they both looked at the EU referendum and thought: yeah, I’m going to sit this one out. He called on activists to accept the EU “warts and all”; and said he was “seven, or seven and a half” out of ten in favour of staying in it.

For both leaders, this was a pragmatic decision. May did not want to be overtly disloyal to David Cameron, but neither did she wish to risk her career if the result went the other way.

Anyone in Labour would have been equally sane to look north of the border and back to 2014, and remember just how much credibility the party immolated by sharing stages with the Conservatives and allowing itself to be seen as the establishment. By limiting his involvement in the Remain campaign and whipping his MPs to trigger Article 50, Corbyn ended up with a fudge that gave Labour some cover in heavily pro-Brexit regions of the country.

That’s the politics, but what about the principle? I can’t shake the feeling that if Corbyn campaigned as hard for Remain in 2016 as he did for Labour in 2017, we would still be members of the European Union. And that matters to me, as much as left-wing policies or a change in the rhetoric around migrants and welfare claimants, because I think leaving the EU is going to make us poorer and meaner.

That’s why I worry that many of my friends, and the activists I talk to, are about to be disappointed, after waiting and waiting for Labour to start making the case for a softer Brexit and for the single market being more important than border controls. As Michael Chessum, a long-standing Momentum organiser, wrote on the New Statesman website, “Recognising the fact that immigration enriches society is all very well, but that narrative is inevitably undermined if you then choose to abolish the best policy for allowing immigration to happen.”

Labour’s success on 8 June was driven by its ambiguous stance on Brexit. To Leavers, it could wink at ending freedom of movement when they worried about immigration; to Remainers, it offered a critique of the immigrant-bashing rhetoric of recent times. But can that coalition hold as the true shape of Brexit solidifies? Over the next few months, Jeremy Corbyn’s biggest decision will be this: which half of my voters should I disappoint?

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

This article first appeared in the 22 June 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The zombie PM

0800 7318496