Sweden and prostitution

Buffy, I think that the question of "what sex workers want" is almost meaningless. They are not some kind of uniform mass. I could not possibly hazard to say anything beyond "like all people, they all want a dignified life without poverty and abuse." How that's to be achieved though is what we are debating.

I think a feminist question would rather be "how do different sex worker choices affect others, including other sex workers"?

I don't want to romantisise sex workers either. I can't call everything just a matter of perspective. So I say that some people really do not understand that they are oppressed. "Women against feminism" is a prime example. Sex workers are just people, not some kind of perfect noble and all-knowing victims.

Buffy, I have a rather depressing view that violence is at the very heart of sex. I don't know where it's coming from. I don't know if this is the "natural state" of sex. I don't believe in "natural" things very much, so tend to think that patriarchy is the source of poison in sex. So an industry that sells sex is inherently the industry that sells violence. I am sure that there are punters out there who just want a gentle cuddle, but I am guessing they are a minority. I cringe even at the images that accompany articles on this topic. Like the disembodied feet in heels in red light in that Guardian article.

Saying this, there are all sorts of violence out there. I am prepared to believe that the violence of prostitution is preferable to some to violence of extreme poverty. 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. In the same way that some financially dependent women stay in abusive relationships in order not to end up on the street or a homeless hostel.

I also feel that it's a question of ethics. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand feminist ethics as ethics of paying attention to how your choices affect the lives of other people. To me, feminist ethics is opposed to the capitalist ethic of free and totally individual choice. So we have to be weighing somebody's choice (when it is actually a choice and not trafficking or just continuation of past abuse as it often is) to relieve their poverty through prostitution against the effect this will have on other women.

Also - I am talking about the developed West only here. Developing countries are a totally different matter. With no social safety net, prostitution can often be the only means of physical survival.

Buffy: womenagainstrape.net/content/war-opposes-clauses-criminalise-purchase-sexual-se

I can see how this is a very murky area for advocacy groups, Amnesty being another good example.

Flora, you are right, some people do debate the harm of prostitution. I don't think it's much of a debate in FWR. I just meant that even if we don't accept that overall debate, that doesn't mean there is no debate to be had.

I also agree with being vocal about who benefits from the status quo and certain policies. I'm not sure about calling WAR a pimp lobbyist though. Do intentions matter?

I think Amnesty International went a bit bonkers here. I won't withdraw my support from them over this as they do a lot of brilliant work otherwise, but having sex is not a right in my book. It's not necessary for sustaining life. Eating and not starving is a right, have a three-course dinner with lobsters and vintage plonk every night isn't.

Amnesty International is another "respected" organisation that has/or is going to support decriminalisation. But they're coming from it from a different angle - the angle that human beings (men) have a human right to sex.

This is a very difficult thing for me to agree with, when there is very clear evidence of gross abuse of women, girls, and even some men and boys, who are exploited, trafficked and abused within the sex trade. We need to protect these people first.

I look at the problem from the stance of reducing violence against women, not from the stance of people having a right to sex.

NeoFaust has posted about prostitution before, as has OldLadyKnows

It is very common on prostitution threads for men to appear to promote an "objective" view on prostitution. I'm not too concerned with whether they feel welcome or insulted.

There is no debate around the suffering of women but clearly there is a debate about the best policy to ameliorate that suffering

This isn't the case. It is common for pro-pimp lobbyists to deny that women routinely suffer in prostitution. Many deny there are any trafficked women in the UK, for example. Many say prostitution is no worse for women than many other jobs.

I use the term "pro-pimp lobbyist" because I want it to be clear who will benefit from the policies being put forward by these groups. They shroud their language in "sex workers' rights" and "women's agency" and they do it on purpose. The punters and the pimps are invisibilised in this discussion. They don't want people to think about the thugs and gangsters who exploit and harm women.

IMO, the Swedish Model is the different approach that is needed.

The women who are most damaged by the sex trade are those who are trafficked - they are the most vulnerable, the most in need of protection. The trafficking of women and girls is big business for organised criminal gangs all over the world. There is a lot of money to be made - but it has been greatly reduced in countries such as Sweden, where demand for prostitutes has been reduced by legislation and education programs promoting sexual equality for women.

The Swedish intelligence police have stated that they have intercepted communications between these organised traffickers saying that Sweden is not an attractive country for them to traffic women and girls into prostitution because of the laws in place. This is a good thing for all women - women's bodies are not commodities to be profited from by others.

Great post, dreamingbohemian.

I think Autumn has a point though. From the Guardian article:

"This came after a plea from sex workers that mobilised hundreds of individuals and organisations, including the Hampshire Women’s Institute, Women Against Rape, the Royal College of Nursing, church groups, trade unionists, academics, lawyers and anti-racist and anti-poverty campaigners, to write letters urging MPs to oppose the legislation."

These are respected groups in society -- why would a non-specialist assume that their stance is part of the pimp lobby? Obviously more digging would reveal things, but a casual reader wouldn't know. Accusing someone of promoting the pimp lobby view is pretty insulting, unless you have history with the poster I would give benefit of the doubt.

There is no debate around the suffering of women but clearly there is a debate about the best policy to ameliorate that suffering, as with any social ill. Some people will shoot down new approaches because they want the status quo and to keep oppressing women but some people will just think a different approach is needed. I don't think it's fair to lump them all in together.

For example, I am really curious to see that Women Against Rape opposed the bill. Can someone shed some light on that? Do you think they are a good organisation just badly aligning themselves on this issue, or is there something wrong with them altogether?

(I hope it's clear that by asking this question I am NOT condoning prostitution, I just think there is no magic policy to address it, and having a policy debate is not the same as wanting the status quo.)

I don't think that it's feminists' job to be saintly. However, if we (can I include myself here? I am not sure.) accept that we are not saintly, then we should be prepared to accept some constructive criticism. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up as saints, just of a different kind. For this reason, however much I like Puffins and you and lots of other people on this board, I just can't easily go along with hanging people as "pimp lobby" without trial. Puffins could have just said "the Guardian article is backed by a pimp organisation". It would have taken just as many words as making a personal accusation.

I don't write on FWR or on MN in general too often as I physically have very little time. When I do though, more challenging threads on FWR are my favourite. I come here to learn. And I have learnt a lot and formed many new opinions. This is why I came onto this board. I don't expect to be taught. That's not anybody's job here. But I expect not to be abused. And I felt I was walking on eggshells when I wrote my first post on this thread. I feel I am walking on eggshells as I write this as I don't want to spoil my relationship with people I like but neither I want to be bullied by them.

However, I feel I am derailing the thread now. I'll shut up now.

And yet feminists are happy to get into a metaphorical bed with these people?

Given that pro-pimp lobbyists are in a metaphorical bed with pimps, gangsters and traffickers, this accusation doesn't carry much weight.

These people who accompany police on brothel raids, shaming and humiliating women, dragging them into the streets in their underwear, with press photographers present?

I don't believe Ruhama did this.

The pimp lobby is not the same as being a pimp. No-one on this thread has been accused of being a pimp.

Totally agree buffy. I agree absolutely with puffins here too - and if people don't realise that the pimp lobby does both spend time and money writing articles/campaigning for legalisation of prostitution, and post on mumsnet, then it's time they did realise that.

Women's freedom from violence and exploitation isn't (well it shouldn't be) a "debate" with two sides putting forward their rational arguments.

Aye.

Buffy, thank's for the explanation.

I know that FWR is not an outreach organisation, but neither it is a closed club where anybody who has not been initiated into finer points of feminism should be routinely accused of pimping. What's the point then? For people who agree with each other to agree with each other?

I think ACIM's point is that there is truth to accusations of unreasonable intolerance on this board. Yes, we do not have to conform to the stereotype of being nice, sweet and polite. However, calling somebody a "pimp" without any explanation simply for the fact of positing an article on a relevant topic but espousing an opposing view is a bit harsh, don't you think? The knowledge that many "sex worker" organisations are associated with pimps is pretty specialised. It is not easy to get this information unless you actually do some digging like I just did. It is not something that would occur out of the blue even to a very feminist-minded and critically thinking Guardian reader. A reputable left-leaning newspaper publishes a fairly well-researched and coherent article with a point of view by a union of sex workers. What's not kosher, from the perspective of a non-specialist?

What's happening is that at the start of this board people who were not privy to rather specialist information were accused of being pimps. With no explanation.

Yes, it is possible that the person who linked the Guardian article was part of the "pimp lobby", especially seeing that they did not provide much information about their point of view either. But I like giving people the benefit of the doubt in such complex cases.

Aicm does not like the feminist pov on fwr board.
Duly noted.

Puffins
That type of comment proves my point better than I ever could! Thanks!

I don't know what the right answer is here, but I think it is a statement of pure unadulterated fact that some people under the status quo suffer, and suffer badly. Therefore the way we have prostitution operating, in the UK at least cannot be right can it?

Whatever fancy academic dancing around the subject that goes on often seems to obsfucate this fact. Anyone arguing the status quo or who are simply shooting down suggestions on how to change things without submitting their own model for change are only contributing noise and precious little else to the discussion.

Just to reiterate I have no idea what the "right" answer is to make things better, but I have the utmost respect for anyone that is at least trying. Things have to change.