"Sex for £15" and other such findings, including on the availability of unprotected sex, have made the headlines after the release of the Big Brothel report, the culmination of the Poppy Project's research into off-street prostitution. Due to the fact that such "findings" have been reported out of context – for example, only in 2% of cases was unprotected sex on offer, as highlighted in Diane Taylor's brilliant article Really lifting the lid? – all this report has served to do is to paint a very bleak picture of the off-street sex scene which any socially-conscious individual would quite rightfully abhor.

There are many problems with the report, not least the fact that the research was conducted by male researchers posing as prospective clients. Given this, such findings as the average age of the women being 21 have to be taken with a large pinch of salt. It is not unheard of for women in their 30s to be "advertised" as being 21. At the very least, knocking five years off a woman's age is accepted as an industry standard; thus, adding five years to the woman's advertised age will give a more accurate picture. Furthermore, the report found that 75 different ethnicities were "on offer". I don't doubt this is true, but parlours have been known to try to pass off Thai women as Japanese, to give but one example. I would suggest that, knowing the industry as I do, the actual number of women of different ethnicities on offer is somewhat smaller. Somewhat predictably, the Big Brothel report also slams the likes of the ITV2 series Secret Diary of a Call Girl as depicting an unrealistic, glamorous off-street sex industry quite removed from the reality. But can a group of male researchers posing as clients, conducting telephone research and not even visiting the brothels in question, really claim to have uncovered the truth about "what is going on" in the industry?

I am an off-street sex worker. I don't live a Belle de Jour-type existence, but nor am I the trafficked/drug-addled/pimped victim the Big Brothel report would have you believe. The reality of my working life lies somewhere between the two. I feel obliged to state at this point that I have a good degree from a good university, as so many people assume we do this job because we are poor, uneducated souls. I say "we" because I am not alone – I know many, many women who work the length and breadth of the UK in the same way as I do. I cannot speak for all these women, of course, and I do not intend to try to do so, but suffice it to say that my situation is not an unusual one. So, what is my situation? I am a single mother with two young children aged 4 and 6. Prior to doing this job – and it is a job – I was employed as a PA in a large, city-based firm. My job was a typical 9-to-5 – which, as everyone who has ever worked in such a job will know, means 7:30am to 6:30pm by the time you take into consideration travelling and (unpaid) overtime. I was dropping my children off at breakfast club at 8am and collecting them at 6pm, by which time we would all be completely knackered. The children go to bed at 7:30pm, meaning we were left with precisely 90 minutes to prepare and eat our evening meal, have baths, get ready for bed and read bedtime stories. It was like we were living in a whirlwind. I felt I never saw my kids – let's face it, I didn't (much) – there was certainly never much time for playing or talking or simply just sitting cuddling on the sofa. The guilt was getting to me. I was unhappy. I hoped they weren't, but I was never sure. Yet, despite the long hours I spent away from home, I was earning just enough to make ends meet. Sure I could pay the mortgage, but we'd never had a family holiday. By the time my monthly pay packet came around, I would have literally just a few pounds in the bank. It was by no means a desperate existence – we always had enough food, and the house was always heated – but it was quite empty from my point of view. My children are fantastic human beings and I wanted to spend more time in their company without us suffering financially, it was as simple as that. I wanted a job which would allow me to work flexible hours to fit around the children's schooling, fewer hours, but without taking the drop in wages which a part-time office job would have lead to. Escorting seemed like the natural solution. I say "natural" because it felt natural to me. I am well aware that this is not a job everybody could do. But as a sexually-aware and sexually-experienced woman in her mid-30s, the thought of having sex with strangers did not terrify me. I remember thinking that I might even enjoy it (and that has proved to be the case). I work from a flat on which I pay the mortgage – I do not have any landlord to worry about. I charge £150 per hour and I get enough enquiries to enable me to choose my own working hours. In a typical day I drop my children off at school at 9am, return home, shower and get changed into my alter-ego, Lara (we never use our own names). I then might have an hour's appointment at 11am and another at 1pm, leaving me with a break of an hour in between to shower and refresh myself. I then fetch myself a late lunch and am at the school again to collect my children at 3:30pm. It works. I never see more than two clients a day; most days I see only one; on other days none at all. Yet in just three hours' work I can earn the same as I used to earn in a week working at the office. Such is the taboo of sex work, that it is difficult to tell anybody what I do for a living. These taboos are created and exacerbated by reports in the media of all prostitutes being drug addicts and "dirty". Promiscuity amongst women is still deemed to be something to be frowned upon. In order to make excuses for our behaviour (because excuses have to be made, of course – no "normal" woman would choose prostitution for a living) reports such as Big Brothel promote the victim status of prostitutes, making such sweeping generalisations such as "if the women do not have pimps as such, their money will likely go to fund their coping strategies, such as drugs and alcohol". I find such a statement both patronising and offensive. I do not have a pimp, and nor do I feel the need for "coping strategies". I am not au fait with drugs and drink only on social occasions. Contrary to what Big Brothel would have you believe, my money pays the mortgage and bills; it pays my income tax and national insurance; it buys food and clothing for my family and, this summer, it paid for the first holiday my children have ever known. My clients are on the whole middle-aged businessmen. I have never been treated with anything less than respect by any one of them. I have not been physically or sexually abused by any of them. Of course I have my security systems in place should anything go wrong, but so far nothing has. My children have their mother now, and not just on a part-time basis. I have time with them to enjoy their childhoods, without any of us suffering financially. I am not making big bucks – but I am earning a little more money to boot. Big Brothel calls for the purchase of sex acts to be criminalised, in order to stem what it calls the "rise in demand for prostitution" which, it asserts, "fuels trafficking". The report does not seem to take into consideration that the type of people who benefit from trafficking, be it for prostitution or otherwise, are likely to pay scant regard to the law; as, indeed, are the men who wish to purchase sex from trafficked women. Criminalisation would only serve to drive the industry further underground, leaving the women who are victims of trafficking even more vulnerable.

Conversely, making criminals of all men who pay for sex would result in myself and thousands of other women who choose to work in this industry becoming unemployed, and thus instead of contributing to the state (through our taxes) we would be taking from the state in the form of income support, housing benefit and so on. This is how we make a living; it's an industry that prevents many, many women and their children from living on the breadline. If you are going to take our livelihoods from us, the consequences will be devastating.