Sweden and prostitution

The law here is a bit random, it's made up of little bits of different statutes. There's a remarkably good summary on wikipedia here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_Kingdom

The two main models available seem to be the Nordic model and the New Zealand model, which involves full legalisation, including of pimping, although coercion remains a crime (good of them).

Germany adopted the NZ model and this happened: s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/welcome-to-paradise/

It's not a dumb question, it's actually at the heart of a lot of debates, with drugs as well. Basically if you want to reduce a certain activity (whether drugs or prostitution), is it better to punish the person selling or the person buying?

In both cases there is a growing feeling that the more vulnerable side of the equation (the sellers in prostitution and the buyers in drugs) should not be prosecuted. The question then is whether you prosecute the other side of the transaction, or do you just decriminalise the whole activity and try to regulate it in other ways.

What's interesting is that there are a lot of different experiments going on in drugs policy around the world, to provide some evidence so that good policies can be made going forward. It doesn't sound like there are lots of different models for prostitution, is that right?

OK that makes sense. Told you it was a dumb question

Only read the first few posts so apologies of this been answered already and apologies if this a is dumb question but how can one be decriminalised and not the other?

Isn't that like saying its legal to sell drugs but not to buy them?

Buffy I think "demand" is demand for sex absolutely on the punter's terms: when he wants it, with whom he wants it, and what acts will be involved.

The steak/burger analogy is vile, but that's exactly what it is, it's like the man thinks, "I'm hungry, I know if I ask my wife to cook me a meal she will say no and I can't be bothered to make myself a sandwich, so I'll browse some menus and decide what I want to eat and where, knowing my order will be fulfilled to the letter. Plus I get an extra frisson of pleasure from eating out that I don't get when I eat at home."

My ex was a habitual user of prostitutes, and that was pretty much his thought process. Just thinking about it makes me want to bath.

I do a lot of work for women in prostitution who find themselves in need of a lawyer. The women I meet in the CJS have uniformly said they want to exit - although I recognise that this may suffer from What You Tell Your Lawyer Syndrome - and the women I meet in the immigration system just want to be believed.

It makes me angry when I see organisations comprising people who do not sell sex (pimps, "managers," lap-dancers etc) claiming to be the One True Voice of those who do, because the women I work for have zero voice. Saying this on twitter or similar gets you accused of "whorephobia."

This is a fascinating and thought-provoking thread, thank you.

The thing is, I can imagine that if you asked just about any woman working as a prostitute if she supported the Swedish model, the answer would be no, wouldn't it? Because that would be taking away her livelihood - how, then, would she repay her debt to her pimp/trafficker, support her children, pay for her drug habit, fund her PhD, or whatever?

It's like if you had a group of fruit-pickers who were being exploited, working in appallingly unsafe conditions etc and you said to them, "Okay, we're going to automate the whole process so there will be no more need for fruit-pickers," they'd be up in arms.

So I guess what I am trying to say is that even if the voices in favour of legalisation are the voices of the "pimp lobby", I'm not convinced that the voices of prostitutes themselves would be so very different.

I think in order to get the support of prostitutes themselves, there would have to be much clearer avenues of rehabilitation open to them. But it's hard to see what kind of rehabilitation you could offer a woman who's happily earning £500 a night servicing merchant bankers in five-star hotels. And while those women are a tiny, tiny minority, they're the vocal ones.

And part of me thinks, who are we to stop those women making money in this way if they choose? If we can eliminate exploitation by pimps and traffickers, if we can make the process safe, and/or put in place wage structures that reflect the danger inherent in the work (as we do with workers on oil rigs, firefighters etc), if we have support structures in place that help women leave the industry when they choose, then why couldn't it be made okay?

I don't like the idea of men buying sex with women, I don't for one moment support the idea that they have a human right to sex, but I do think there is validity in the argument that if a woman makes a genuine choice to sell her body, she shouldn't be prevented from doing so.

Yes Buffy agreed.

On a similar note, for those who think legalise, regulate and tax, think about what that means for the women involved. Women in the German mega brothers typically have sex with the first four or five men each shift to pay brothel fees. If they are paying tax, the next two might be for the taxman. Add more regulation and more sex acts must be carried out to pay for those. It's grim.

So do we actually think that demand has suddenly disappeared or there is still trafficking with those trafficked still being in danger if not more so. And with technology I just googled Swedish Escorts and there seems to be plenty so cannot see how people can claim the law has made much difference except on the street. The fact the research with monkeys and money showed that male monkeys educated in the use of money started exchanging currency for sexual favours. If a lower primate reacts in that way I cannot see how laws will make any difference. It is illegal for guys in the UK to solict on the street so pretty much shows that there is about 0% chance of change happening. So long as it is illegal you will find traffickers in the best position to profit from it. Where as if it is legal sex workers are more likely to report crimes as in New Zealand.

So can you end demand? Not likely so what is the best way to protect women who work in the industry? Really for me common sense suggests that the best protection is a law that doesn't criminalise. At least that way men may report suspected trafficked victims where as if they are criminals you can be certain that wouldn't.

I agree with that Buffy and I'm not anti-theory.

I think women who think about prostitution should try to put themselves in the position of women in prostitution and think about how it would feel. An exercise might be, if you are in a crowd of random strangers like a supermarket or on a train, look at 8 - 10 random men (not choosing the best looking, just the first 8 or 10 you spot) and think about having sex with them on their terms every day. What would your life need to be like for you to make that choice?

I am not saying that prostitution lifts women out of poverty, especially in the long term, but I can see how short term relief is possible.

I agree there are huge issues with poverty in many countries however I think the notion of prostitution as relief is misleading for a number of reasons.

• The amount of money prostitutes make is much lower than the general perception of them having sex a few times a week for £100s a time. We've had women on here speaking in support of prostitution whose own experience is anal sex for £30 a time, with £12 of that going to the pimp/boyfriend.

• Women are subject to economic coercion by pimps to get them into prostitution and keep them there. There is often some real or notional debt that the woman must repay.

• Only a relatively small number of women can earn money in prostitution - young, attractive and able bodied. Women not in that category can only earn money if they are willing to do things no-one else would do.

• Women who turn to drugs to cope with the dissociation necessary to industrialise the sexual experience end up just earning to pay for the drugs. It's a vicious circle.

I agree about the problems of who gets to say who "sex workers" are and what they think. I agree with this:

This means that we cannot hope to know what it is like to sell sex if we've not done it, so we should not impose our own feelings of what it must be like and how they should feel about it on people who do.

However, I also believe that if we can think about how we would feel in the same position, we should not assume that women in prostitution would not have the same feelings. Men often talk about women in prostitution not having "hang ups" about sex or being more comfortable / less prudish than other women. However, many women in prostitution have experienced sexual abuse or talk about dissociating themselves from the sex or use drugs or alcohol to help them dissociate. There is also a high incidence of mental health problems among women in prostitution. I think it is a fairly safe assumption that most women who find themselves in prostitution feel the same way about it as any woman not in prostitution would feel.

Urgh, WAR have also attacked Eaves in that report as racist. While making no mention of the racism which underlies a great deal of prostitution. In fact, instead of noting that the use of "exotic" and "foreign" in ads for prostitution is evidence of the racism, they criticise Eaves for discussing it in the context of trafficking. Enough said AFAIC.

That's really interesting Flora, thank you. I agree that 'wooly-minded' is a good term here.

I'm very interested in what Autumn has raised, the question of structural violence, i.e. poverty and marginalisation as a form of violence. I very much subscribe to this view, although I mostly deal with this in foreign contexts. If anyone is interested, this is a good layman's explanation of it, I think: www.structuralviolence.org/structural-violence/

I think this goes back to the OP actually is the Swedish model only possible if we get enough women in power? I think it might also have to do with the broader Scandinavian approach to social problems though they have higher levels of welfare, better health care, etc., which means lower levels of structural violence for their people.

So perhaps the concerns of at least some of those against this bill would be addressed if we did a better job generally of addressing violence and oppression -- if the police did a better job of handling sexual violence, if health services were better, if victims had more help.

Installing the Swedish model without the underlying welfare and health and justice system that Sweden has could be a problem.

In that link dreamingbohemian there is no mention of pimps at all or the harm they do to women in prostitution. They mention "brothel-keeping" only in references to two or more women in indoor prostitution (minimising). They describe trafficking as where women have been "kidnapped and raped" thereby ruling out other types of coercion and trafficking. So yes, I would say WAR are pimp lobbyists (and they also support Julian Assange).

Pimp lobbyists (the intentional ones) have been very effective at recruiting respectable organisations to their cause. "Sex worker" groups are often involved in the reports published by others and then put forward as neutral or objective accounts of the experiences of women in prostitution. It's very disappointing that these organisations do this. I don't believe it's always intentional, sometimes it's just wooly-winded pursuit of harm reduction. I say wooly-minded because if you were going to look at the harm caused to women in prostitution, the first question really should be how the pimps are involved in any organisation you are involved with.

Buffy, sorry, I have to run. Did not want to disappear suddenly. But I share your thoughts.