The greens and prostitutes

I have said nothing about UKIP

"But why are you suggesting people who support the Nordic model would vote BNP?"

I'm not saying they would or should.

Above you said something about suspecting UKIP being happy to decriminalise, I don't know what UKIP's policy on this is but the BNP are IMO similar to UKIP and they want criminalisation.

fayyive, I couldn't find anything on the bnp website about prostitution (except in relation to children). Would you support the Nordic model if the penalties for those buying sex were more severe?

That's fine, different opinions are available, there have been very nuanced posts on this and other threads about both models and views of different women in prostitution. But why are you suggesting people who support the Nordic model would vote BNP?

My post 05-Mar-15 18:21:01 has a quote from a prostituted woman in Sweden. I think she will know better than either of us.

My point is the Nordic model does not decriminalise selling sex outright.

And as for the criminalisation of punters- all that happens to punters in Sweden is given a small fine (if they are caught) and then sent on their way.

How is that a deterrent? If a man can afford to pay for sex in the first place is a fine that big of a deal?

IMO the Nordic model harms those selling sex far more than those buying it, and that's why I don't support it.

Do they fayyive? Is that te criminalisation of prostitutes (which no one here has said they are in favour of) or punters? And do you really think that that fact, if true, is going to make people here vote for them? Or are you just lashing out when people simply aren't agreeing with your POV?

btw if anyone wants the name of a British party that supports criminalisation of prostitution- there's the BNP.

"PuffinsAreFictitious Sat 07-Mar-15 05:25:11
it's to prevent anyone profiteering from prostituted women."

The prostituted women themselves are criminalised if they work together.

"Are those things necessary to it though?"

@Wackadoodle, it is not necessary at all. But in countries with the Nordic model this is the case.

Mmmmm, didn't do much for me either. Think that might be responsible for vaginal atrophy more than any lack of sex really.

Ye gads, the thought of Farage salivating himself through an interview talking about the subject makes my skin crawl! Ick.

Petula... I agree, I think they have made efforts to speak to a certain group of women in prostitution, the same one as Kim mentioned upthread. Sadly, that means that, yet again, the women most adversely affected are yet again left without a voice. So, I'm not sure how useful those discussions actually were when trying to formulate a manifesto policy on the subject.

It would be similar to going and asking a group of female execs what percentage of their wage they spend on childcare and extrapolating those figures to cover all working women, even those on NMW.

I do agree with Jessica though, at least they are actually having the conversation, which is a damn sight more than the big 3 and that bloody awful UKIP are although I suspect that kippers would be only too happy to decriminalise as well, what with their strange views on the role of women

I think the mirror may have stopped the heavy use of CAPITALS.
As Cameron would say "calm down dear".

Yes, it does need talking about. These threads have shown how divisive it is, which is again why I think it was brave of them to attempt to change the policy on it. Sadly I do wonder where they got their speakers from, as I said in my first post, and am concerned that they may have been lined up by members of the party hoping to gain support for their own means. It doesn't seem that they saw a balanced set of speeches on both models or spoke to any addicts or anyone who opposed the NZ model at all! This could just be because we don't know how the policy was selected in great detail (other than Nathalie saying she has read extensively on the issue - what we are not told and again this could have been presented to her to back up the speeches - although I'd not like to say she is blinkered or incapable of doing her own research obvs!). So it would be nice to know a little more about how they got this result when opting for a policy in an apparently democratic party where they all get to vote on what goes in.

"Mary - women can rape too.

No shit Sherlock but how does it apply to what i was referring too?.

How is me having control of my body and what to do with it and choosing to go out and have sex with men or women who will pay me money for doing so.

In any way the same as:

Me having control of my body and what to do with it and choosing to go out and rape people.

One of these involves non consensual sex the other does not.

I agree Jessica

I also don't think that anyone on either side of the debate about the best route forward would deny how important it is for any changes to the law to be backed up by proper support and options for those who want to exit prostitution and any linked difficulties and disadvantages they may have.

Whilst I don't agree with the approach the Greens are taking, it seems significantly better than "we just won't talk about it", which seems to be the approach of the other parties.

I do think that they have made the effort to talk to women in prostitution and their intentions are genuine. But as kim explains above, it's easy to see how in talking to women in prostitution it is easy for only one group of women to be heard.

Thanks lion

Mary - women can rape too. I'd read that last sentence of yours to a mirror. Maybe twice.

Moving on...

Rufus yes, none of the other parties is touching it with a bargepole. It is the reason I like the Greens - they are trying to think of women and make a few changes for them. However I think most of us think this is a little misguided, but are open to arguments and suggestions from both sides.

Puffin popcorn won't keep those teeth in good working order
So now I know I don't have a chuff like a wizards sleeve... (much easier than doing kegels this being single malarky!).
I'm wondering if there are any other models out there? As I said both seem to be fairly opposing ends of the spectrum to where we are. I like a bit of middle ground myself. I also think the trafficking is where the problems are being highlighted - and therefore that should be tackled first. Driving down prices for prostitutes can't possibly help anyone other than the clients. Even then not all, as Kim says a lot of men would rather not deal with women who are being coerced or addicted.

"Mary I think a lot of societal rules and laws are in place to do exactly that - stop people doing whatever they want with their bodies. Otherwise people could grope/rape/run about naked/use anything openly as a toilet/bite etc etc. Not sure what your point it."

Its true you utterly missed the point because anybody who brings up USING IT TO RAPE in a discussion about women having control over their own bodies and deciding for themselves what it can be used for and why has issues.

IS A MAN WHO GROPES OR RAPES ME ONLY DOING WHAT HE WANTS TO HIS BODY THEN OR AT THAT POINT HAS HE PERHAPS INVOLVED MINE AGAINST MY WILL????

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON?

I'm here to help jessica

lion

I didn't even know that the Green Party had that policy til I saw it on Mumsnet. I wonder what the other parties think....I am afraid to google it I might try and be brave...

Sorry. I'll return to a serious point.

The buying of organs is illegal in England, and in many other countries. I see buying of sex in the same light. Some things cannot and should not be bought.

Sorry