Sweden and prostitution

Are you a punter riss?

"FloraFox Wed 12-Nov-14 00:03:46
I'm not sorry. The article posted was written by someone from ECP which is an organisation that supports pimps and lobbies for legalisations of brothels (which involve pimps). It is part of the pimp lobby, plain and simple."

Brothels don't necessarily have to involve pimps or madams. The definition of a brothel is simply where 2 or more prostitutes work (they don't even have to be working together at the same time).

It could be they want brothels legalised so they won't be arrested for the above scenario (sharing the same workplace).

@NeoFaust's link
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/06/sex-workers-decriminalisation-amendment-modern-slavery-bill

Why are you all jumping on this and calling it "pimp lobby"?? The article was written by a prostitute, not a pimp.

The article mentions a sneaky attempt to criminalise prostitution in England earlier this month- only a few days before a bill was due to go for vote an amendment to make prostitution illegal was put in hoping noone would notice (nothing new, it's been tried before in Scotland like I said above).

It also points out the French Senate did not pass their recent proposal into law and concluded "criminalisation would endanger sex workers".

Try and see the issue from both sides.

forgot the link:
lauraslifeandthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/sex-workers-response-stop.html

quote from a Swedish prostitute, Carina Edlund of Rose Alliance, talking about the law in Sweden:

“Before even thinking of a law that criminalises men who buy sex, UK politicians should hear from Swedish sex workers like myself about how we have treated under the law. We are still criminalised if we work together in apartments, we risk losing our home if we sell sex there even if we own it, social workers treat as like children and we can even lose custody of our kids because we are seen as victims suffering from a form of self-harm who can't take care of ourselves. This law should be taken away not exported to other countries.”

"Sweden has decriminalised the selling of sex and criminalised the buying of sex"

It isn't as simple as that. The selling of sex isn't decriminalised outright- prostitutes can still be arrested if they work together (just like in UK jurisdictions), and they can lose their homes even if they own them. They are also seen as victims of self-harm and can have their children removed by social workers.

As for reducing prostitution they only mention figures for the street (it's worth noting in the past decade online bookings have became more popular which may also contribute to less prostitutes on the street).

"Unfortunately this was proposed in Scotland but didn't pass."

It's been proposed in Scotland about 5 times in the past 5 or so years (including sneaky attempts where it's been attached as an amendment onto other bills in the hope noone would notice). There are many prostitutes in the UK who spend a lot of time campaigning against such proposals.

Isn't it the case the most women who become prostitutes do so because of drug addiction? They need to fund the habit.

If the government did something about drug education (as they try to do with smoking and unhealthy eating) not only would it help these vulnerable women but society in general.

Vulnerable voices are rarely heard, and when they do speak out, they are called liars, their stories dismissed. Words like "consensual transaction" and "empowerment" and "choice" are used.

The punters that occasionally grace these boards are honest, up to a point. They will admit to being punters sometimes, others will not. They are always the "nice" punters, who would never hurt a woman. But when quizzed on how they know the transaction is truly consensual, how can they know she's not vulnerable, or underage, they become strangely evasive. Some even see themselves as some sort of saviour to women - helping them pay off debts. Some think that they are fancied by the women they pay to fuck (maybe some are - but what is blatantly clear is that many, many are not). Some think it's no different to going on a date with a woman and buying her dinner. One described how a woman burst into tears during a "consensual transaction"- but yeah - you guessed it - he'd paid so he still fucked her. He truly believed that was an ok thing to do, and described the incident on this forum.

What is always clear in the postings of the punter is that they expect sex to be available to them- and what they want is a certain section of the female population made available to them for this purpose. And they're not concerned with such issues as the woman genuinely wanting sex, they're only concerned with their £££ giving them the ability to buy that consent.

I suppose the basic difference between them and others, such as most of the opinions being expressed here, is that they believe prostitution CAN, at least in theory, be a valid choice that somebody makes, free of coercion and abuse.

I believe that it COULD be - but I don't think that is the overriding concern when it comes to prostitution.

I agree with Flora that prostitution is inherently abusive and exploitative - and you cannot ignore the fact that women in prostitution are affected by structural, social, economic and sexual inequality. What concerns me is the vulnerable women who are not free from coercion, or abuse - the vulnerable who have no voice. The women trapped, by violence, drug addictions or abusive pimps. That is who the laws should be protecting - the fact that some women do it through choice does not negate those who do not.

Laws should be written to protect the vulnerable - and Ireland and Canada seem to have also come round to this idea.

Except no-one has claimed that every member of the pimp lobby has been vilifying people such as Rebecca Mott.

I suppose the basic difference between them and others, such as most of the opinions being expressed here, is that they believe prostitution CAN, at least in theory, be a valid choice that somebody makes, free of coercion and abuse. I suppose at the end of the day you either believe that or you don't, and if you don't you're never going to accept them as a valid party to the debate.

That's not correct. You can be opposed to prostitution even if you believe some people in theory or in reality might make a genuine choice to be in prostitution. This could be because too many women in prostitution are abused and exploited and the industry is inherently abusive and exploitative. Also because is negatively affects how people in society view women which affects all women.

Flora -

The ECP were the original subject of the "pimp lobby" accusation upthread - not sure whether that was by you or someone else. Later it was claimed that "The Pimp Lobby" have vilified people such as Rebecca Mott. I asked for an example and you obligingly gave one.

It therefore makes sense to clarify whether people are claiming that the ECP, who were described as part of this "pimp lobby" (and were indeed the reason why the term even came up), are guilty of such vilification.

That is of course the problem with such terms of abuse being thrown around so freely. It becomes hard to tell who's actually being tarred with such a broad brush.

Buffy -

But I don't think the ECP are pretending that everything's fine and dandy in prostitution, are they? On the contrary, they seem as open as anyone about the existence of abuse - they just feel that fuller legalisation, with removal of barriers to safety such as not be allowed to work together in brothels, is the best solution to get rid of abuse. IIRC they've campaigned for greater help for those wishing to leave prostitution, among other things.

I suppose the basic difference between them and others, such as most of the opinions being expressed here, is that they believe prostitution CAN, at least in theory, be a valid choice that somebody makes, free of coercion and abuse. I suppose at the end of the day you either believe that or you don't, and if you don't you're never going to accept them as a valid party to the debate.

I'm not sure whether I do.

That's an odd question.

Thanks. That's awful.

Do you think the ECP are among those harrassing her in that way?

The term pimp lobby was discussed upthread.

Here is Rebecca Mott talking about the vilification she has experienced:

rebeccamott.net/2014/11/

I wouldn't put much stock in the pimp lobby organisations being representative. Laura Lee spoke at the Northern Ireland Justice Committee earlier this year as a representative of the International Union of Sex Workers and Pimps . She said in her oral evidence that she was speaking for the "vast majority" of women in prostitution. When asked how many members her organisation had she didn't know. She later wrote to the Justice Committee to state that there are 10 members. She didn't say how many were pimps but at least one member is certainly a pimp.

Silly emotive term? Not really, for the reasons explained upthread.

Sabrina -

Of course the voices of ex-prostitutes are important too. We should be open to building up the most complete and accurate picture we can of what the people actually affected say they want. And of course there will be contradictions and a range of views within that.

The only thing I would say is that we'd have to recognise the limitations of single testimonies by individuals. I don't know what the membership is of the ECP or the international Prostitute's Collective of which they are a part, but obviously if you have an organisation with thousands of members who broadly back its main policies, that holds more weight and accounts for a greater range of the profession, than one single statement by an individual. We can after all, find plenty of individual "happy hooker" stories too, but something tells me noone here is likely to be very impressed by those.

Two questions for you though:

1. Have Melissa Farley, Rachel Moran and Shelia Jeffreys all campaigned for the Swedish model of criminalising purchasing sex? Genuine question - I don't know. I just ask because people sometimes confuse the question of being pro or anti that model with the question of whether prostitution is bad, or just how bad it is. Stories of how bad it can be do not in themselves necessarily support the idea that that is the best model for dealing with it.

1. I'm not sure who you mean by the "pro-pimp lobby". It seems to be just a silly emotive kneejerk term you to describe anyone who diagrees with the consensus here. But whoever they are, can you point to any examples where they've "vilified" the people you mentioned?

Welcome to MN, of course, Homer. Or did you NC to contribute to this thread, maybe 'cause the feminists are all so scary?

Do you include exited prostitutes in that, Homer? Because their voices are out there - but quickly disparaged by those who might make money out of the sex trade.

Rebecca Mott's powerful words have already been posted on this thread, I would also include Rachel Moran's words, and all of Space's words. I would also include the words of Melissa Farley and Sheila Jeffreys - all of whom are vilified by the pro-pimp lobby, for no good reason other than they speak out for exploited women.

And the basis of the ECP's support for legalisation of brothels should be obvious to anyone who has the slightest clue about the issue. One of the most obscene things about current prostitution law in the UK is that it's legal to buy sex, but illegal for the person selling sex to do many of the things they need to do to make themselves safe. Foremost among these is working together in a single establishment. Good old sexual shame making sure the punters can get what they want as long as we can keep it underground and pretend it doesn't exist.

And do people really think that because a prostitute is not working in a building called a "brothel", she's less likely to be being exploited by a pimp?

Obviously there are arguments to be had, and a range of employment situations possible, with prostitution as there are in any industry. But the ECP seem to believe that prostitutes would be better off overall with the right to work in larger groups under a single roof, and I see no reason to doubt them.

What troubles me about this whole debate is how everyone claims to know what the 'sex workers' want. But - and this is my interpretation as someone who conducts research with excluded groups - I don't hear their voices in this. I hear them being spoken for by various groups and for various (implicit and explicit) reasons. Including us, here. This concerns me greatly.

But one voice of a sex-worker organisation was cited right near the beginning of the thread - and then universally shouted down as nothing but "pimp lobby", because they dared to say the opposite of what we say "for" them. And obviously we know better than they do.

To be sure, that's only one organisation, and it doesn't speak for all or, AFAIK, even most sex workers. But it's a start. If someone has information or a policy statement from another organisation consisting of sex workers themselves, then we can consider that too. And if it gives the opposite POV, we can talk about why.

But you can't have it both ways. You can't say how important it is to listen to what sex workers themselves say, and then immediately reject and vilify them the moment they fail to say what you want them to say. Doing so in response to that Guardian article, which was about highlighting exactly that problem, is particularly ironic.