The greens and prostitutes

"How the "Nordic model" affects those who sell sex:

• They are still criminalised if they work together (hence the Nordic model does not decriminalise selling sex outright.
• Risk of losing custody of their children
• Risk of losing their home, even if they own it"

So these things happen as a direct result of the Nordic model? And they don't happen to prostituted women in Germany or New Zealand where prostitution is de-criminalised or in Britain where prostitution is criminalised? Is that the argument?

I haven't yet seen anything that persuades me that full decriminalisation (as opposed to criminalisation of just the person purchasing sex) is safer for women who sell sex right now. And I certainly can't see how legitimising the purchase of access to people's bodies causes anything but harm to women in future. We don't allow it in any other way - just sex.

They aren't mutually exclusive, they work within the Nordic model and people putting the exact same quotes into every thread on the subject don't make it so.

Sass's post was good too.

I want women who are currently working as prostitutes to be as safe and healthy as possible.

I do not want men purchasing access to women's bodies (or anyone purchasing access to anyone's body for that matter) to be sanctioned by law.

Surely these two things cannot be mutually exclusive? I cannot vote green because of this issue in particular (plus others but this is a biggie) - in many other ways I am a natural green voter

Here is a quote from a woman in Sweden, Carina Edlund, who sells sex:

“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.”

lauraslifeandthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2014_03_01_archive.html

How the "Nordic model" affects those who sell sex:

• They are still criminalised if they work together (hence the Nordic model does not decriminalise selling sex outright.
• Risk of losing custody of their children
• Risk of losing their home, even if they own it

How the "Nordic model" affects those who buy sex (if they get caught):

• Choice of a (small) on-the-spot-fine or going to court.
• Out of everyone who has ever gone to court in Sweden for buying sex, only 2 have been convicted (after pleading guilty) and they did not go to prison.

So who does it affect worse?

There is also zero evidence the model has reduced prostitution/trafficking (Sweden views all prostitutes as trafficking victims and makes no distinction between consenting adults and those who really are trafficked). The only observation is that since 1999 the number of street prostitutes has halved (IMO that may also be to do with the fact 1999 was when internet for homes was just taking off, and as the internet became more popular a lot of street prostitutes would move indoors and take bookings via internet).

Oh yes, absolutely agreed. I didn't mean to give the impression it was an easily answered empirical question!

In a lot of ways, this is an empirical debate: which model decreases violence and trafficking most effectively? This is a data question which can be answered by research.

riveting I think that is really a complicated question. There are many difficulties in getting a good representation of women in prostitution. Many of the worst affected women have no opportunity to participate in studies nor to have their voice heard. Often there are organisations involved in the research that have a political view and this might affect the women who are brought into the study and also the papers often reach conclusions that are out of the scope of the research they have undertaken.

This is one of the best pieces of research I have found on this issue. The methodology looks robust and the author acknowledges that there are other issues involved, not just trafficking. They found a strong correlation between legalisation / decriminalisation and trafficking.

www.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/whosWho/profiles/neumayer/pdf/Article-for-World-Development-prostitution-anonymous-REVISED.pdf

It makes sense if you think about it - the demand undoubtedly increases and women must be found to meet the demand. One factor of prostitution that is often overlooked is the impact of racism in prostitution. Men seek exotic experiences from Chinese, Asian and black women in particular. While the demand is there, it will be met.

Good point Buffy (I always enjoy your points!)

I think sex work is also convenient because it's such an umbrella term. It can include pimping, stripping, manning (lol) sex lines, pornography etc. - not just being penetrated in exchange for money.

There are many sex work advocates who call themselves 'sex workers' and then refuse to elaborate. Melissa Gira Grant, for instance, is deliberately vague about her experiences as a sex worker. She certainly did webcam sex shows, but won't give any more details than that. It may be (without wishing to slander her!) that she wants to give the impression she sold full penetrative sex, but she actually didn't. I know another 'former sex worker' IRL who goes on about how empowering it was blah blah and I only found out recently that she was a dominatrix and never had sex with her clients, therefore never exposed herself to STDs, pregnancy and so on. This is not to say that these are desirable jobs necessarily, but they're clearly in a different category from the prostitution that Rachel Moran talks about.

"In Sweden...women will not report rapes if they are by a client for fear of arrest or deportation if they come from abroad" "

How would legalising prostitution alter that?

The woman who has been trafficked, who is in Sweden (or the UK) illegally, who has no right to the protection of the law, who has no legal right to work in the brothel because she is an illegal immigrant, will be no more likely to report rape if prostitution were legal, than if it is illegal.

I posted this on one of the amnesty threads, but I find it helps to think of it like black slaves.

When they were fighting for equal rights, did anyone say, no we can't abolish slavery because women and children will have no money.

Did any black people come forward and say, we don't want slavery abolished. We want to do this line of work, we don't want our masters prosecuted.

Did any anti racists stand up and say, we will never abolish slavery so we might as well make it 'safer' for black people to be slaves.

Doesn't that sound ludicrous?!

And that is what feminists who support prostitution and the likes of Natalie Green sound like to me.

We can't change it, so let's continue to keep and support women in their disadvantaged state.

It blows my mind that as a women, you can think this.

Kudos to black people who all collectively believed they were more worthy than the shit they were subjected to.

Question remains- Why do all the females not believe women are more worthy?

"In Sweden...so that women will not report rapes if they are by a client for fear of arrest or deportation if they come from abroad"

I've heard from various sources now that despite it's 'good guys and gals' moral positioning, Sweden is actually very xenophobic and unfriendly for the immigrants already there. Funny how these things come together isn't it.

This has been very educational reading for me.

It would not put me off voting Green though.

Yes it's so difficult when they have everything right except this threatening to turn women back into second-class humans.

I wonder if it is because the policy was formed a long time ago, as someone upthread suggested, and has never been updated. It would probably not be a good idea to update it now so close to an election - or would it? A shame, a great shame, that they did not review this last year.

I see in the greens the seeds of a new kind of politics, one which gets us off the same old tired track and into new areas, and one where community, thought, evidence and where necessary admitting mistakes play their parts. But I don't want this aspect in there!

Yeah this has turned me against the Greens as well. This is the first election in which I'm genuinely a swing voter! (waits for army of campaigners to knock on my front door...)

Measuring violence against women in prostitution is incredibly difficult. I think it's Rachel Moran who points out (can get a citation here if anyone wants it) that this common assumption that street prostitution is more dangerous isn't always true. One of the advantages that women on the street have is that they can get a look at the john before they agree to have sex with him. They're also more likely to be in the open air and so are more able to run away. Women in brothels run by pimps and madams don't have this option - they don't get to choose ("choose" being a very heavily qualified word here) which johns they have sex with, since the pimp does this for them; they're also in a confined space, so if the man gets violent it's harder to escape.

This is such a bleak thing to discuss...

In a lot of ways, this is an empirical debate: which model decreases violence and trafficking most effectively? This is a data question which can be answered by research. All feminists agree (surely) that the priority is the safety and welfare of prostituted women.

But that's not the only issue at stake. Legalising or decriminalising prostitution sends a horrendous message to men: buying sex is morally acceptable, prostituted women are commodities, all women are potential commodities, consent can be bought, the sexual pleasure of your partner is irrelevant. This is the rape culture feminists are fighting so hard to combat, and this affects all women. Another Rachel Moran idea - all it takes to end up in prostitution is a vagina and unfortunate circumstances; all women have the first, and all women could fall prey to the second.

Me too. This is opening my eyes a little, I didn't know much about the prostitution issue. I was also pleased that Natalie herself unequivocally stated that she disliked the term 'terf', but a bit that they still have an equality spokesperson using such terms while the man coming from the other side of transgender was forced into an apology. Will watch that space...

I will still be voting green in May if I can, because they are the only party seriously considering the environmental and associated socioeconomic problems we face. But I am hesitant to join them, which I had decided to do until those terf comments kicked off.