Criminalisation of sex work normalises violence, review finds

a lot of sexworkers have been made homeless in Sweden because the Nordic model also makes it illegal to allow an apartment to be used for prostitution, so the landlords kick the prostitute out as soon as they find out.

(You can't just look at the prostitutes in isolation either. You also have to think of the safety of other women and girls living near by in areas where prostitution is legalised or tolerated, neighbours in the flat next door, how using prostitutes affects men's views of women as commodities to be bought for their pleasure and do what they are told etc*
It's all horrible and none of it has a positive effect on society

I think that is so important to understand. It is damaging to society as a whole. It is damaging to all women as a class.

(Btw for anyone who cares I'm LassWiADelicateAir but have name changed as another poster with "Lass" in her name has been posting mainly on trans threads with posts I don't fully agree with)

Thanks rubisco

"Our findings suggest that this approach has limited to no effect on preventing street-based sex work and did not reduce the prevalence of sex work-related violence"

They did a bunch of interviews and some ethnographic fieldwork. This tells us nothing at all about rates of street-based prostitution or related violence pre- versus post-implementation.

I also note that 'the research builds on long-standing partnerships and a community advisory board with sex worker, community, policy and health stakeholders since 2004' and I would be interested to know a bit more about the interests involved.

The study the authors rely on for their claim that the Nordic model increases risk for prostituted women seems to be this one: bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/6/e005191

"Sex workers continued to mistrust police, had to rush screening clients and were displaced to outlying areas with increased risks of violence, including being forced to engage in unprotected sex."

Another woman working on the streets in Canada said she was no longer able to talk through the car window to ensure they felt safe.

But why? Why did she feel she couldn't stay outside? Is there more context?

The weather being cold is not a consequence of Nordic Model, you can't lower temperatures by using words like "Nordic". Canada has always been cold.

And she wouldn't have been harrassed by police, as Nordic Model doesn't involve criminalising prostituted women.

So the only thing I can imagine to be the reason for this is that she thought she had to get into the car immediately or the punter would have felt unsafe and driven away.

Nordic Model should be - and is, in the original model - accompanied by fighting poverty.

So, ideally, a prostituted woman shouldn't feel that anxious about losing one punter. It should even be possible for her to only engage in prostitution when the weather is warm enough.

It is quite likely that Nordic Model isn't implemented properly - I have read about problems in Sweden, like policemen being all too willing to send letters to the work address of a punter so his wife wouldn't find out ...

But that's not a problem with the model, it is a problem with the implementation.

Policemen who harrass prostituted women despite being clearly told that this is not their job (anymore) would occur in legalised prostitution, too.

Hackmum
Another woman working on the streets in Canada said she was no longer able to talk through the car window to ensure they felt safe. “Because of being so cold and being harassed, I got into a car where I normally wouldn’t have. The guy didn’t look at my face right away. And I just hopped in cause I was cold and tired of standing out there. And you know, he put something to my throat. And I had to do it for nothing
That's a fair point isn't it

This is not Nordic-Model specific.
This will be the case in America and even in the UK where workers are arrested for working the streets. They need to be discreet.

The NM is known for it's effectiveness in reducing/eliminating street prostitution which is in the first place the most dangerous and risky form of prostitution. They are better off indoors.

Wherever the NM is implemented, there needs to be an effective state security / benefits system to protect women from having to enter prostitution in the first place.

fewer women

The Nordic model lowers the incentive for pimps and punters so sell, respectively buy women. It also makes it easier for women to quit. I strongly suspect that the numbers for organized prostitution - including the type where women hardly see any of the money they earn - go down. It won't end 'unorganized / temporary' prostitution for need of food or money, and it might make that more risky.

I believe it is a net-positive, even if it may make certain scenarii more risky. In sum, less women are harmed.

Poverty wages drive women into prostitution for sure, but I don’t really buy the quoted prostitutes logic that the Nordic model only works on a warm night...

I think it's quite complicated. Instinctively, the Nordic model sounds better than legalisation or decriminalisation but I can also see that it has problems. Look at one of the quotes from the article:

'Another woman working on the streets in Canada said she was no longer able to talk through the car window to ensure they felt safe. “Because of being so cold and being harassed, I got into a car where I normally wouldn’t have. The guy didn’t look at my face right away. And I just hopped in cause I was cold and tired of standing out there. And you know, he put something to my throat. And I had to do it for nothing.”'

That's a fair point, isn't it? I can't think of any solution that really works - we know that decriminalisation has had horrific consequences for women, the current model in the UK is terrible for women, and it looks as if the Nordic model also poses risks to women.

I also agree with 2Rebecca about the importance of looking at the risks to other women.

I think the only option, really, is to tackle the root causes that drive women into prostitution - typically poverty and male coercion. The authorities also need to clamp down much harder on trafficking. This is much harder to do, of course, than tinkering about with the legislation.

Criminalisation of sex work normalises violence

But prostitution is violence - what else is it when a man buys a woman to slam his penis into?

Decriminalisation legitimises that violence. Even outside of the rest of the harm done to wider society, decriminalisation specifically says it's OK to endanger the health and safety of a woman because a man wants to pay money rather than expend some effort finding a willing partner (or wanking).

I don't listen to "sex workers". I listen to women who describe themselves as having gotten out of prostitution and don't use cutesy, euphemistic terms like "sex work".

Interestingly enough, those women seem to mostly be in favour of the Nordic Model. I wonder why ...

Perhaps because "sex work" includes pimps?

Very thoughtful analysis of the Guardian piece by Sian Louise:

The calls for full decriminalisation are from those who will benefit from a free for all on the profit of human misery. Britain is a massively unequal society. Working class women are disempowered in multiple ways.
...
And before some next man steps to me with "eugh SWERF listen to sex workers" your definition of a sex worker is so wide, work I've done fits it. Take a seat. What you think I was while having to do self assessment tax returns, a financial advisor?
...
And please remember the "my feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit" promise when a sex worker ally is pushing New Zealand style full decrim for Britain. Migrant women are so very high risk in the sex industry. And they're a big part of it.

twitter.com/SianLouise34/status/1072755595453915137

Well, they concede that no statistical inference can be drawn from the quant meta analysis, ‘cause the grouped data were too different from each other. Frankly it makes me doubt the qual meta analysis too, but whatever they managed to get it published anyway..

Yup, or pimping them or confiscating their condoms. Not sure this is really an argument against the Nordic Model

That article is spinning the research so hard the author must be dizzy.

The main message I took from it is that prostituted women are harmed when the police behave in harmful ways towards them

Like, for example, buying them for sex?

(Apparently, there's a lot more policemen among punters than one would assume.)

You can't just look at the prostitutes in isolation either. You also have to think of the safety of other women and girls living near by in areas where prostitution is legalised or tolerated, neighbours in the flat next door, how using prostitutes affects men's views of women as commodities to be bought for their pleasure and do what they are told etc.
It's all horrible and none of it has a positive effect on society.

YY. Like the teacher raped in the managed zone in Leeds.

Agh. I had a go at the article but it's not well-organised and seems to be in many ways comparing apples with oranges. The main message I took from it is that prostituted women are harmed when the police behave in harmful ways towards them.

You can't just look at the prostitutes in isolation either. You also have to think of the safety of other women and girls living near by in areas where prostitution is legalised or tolerated, neighbours in the flat next door, how using prostitutes affects men's views of women as commodities to be bought for their pleasure and do what they are told etc.
It's all horrible and none of it has a positive effect on society.

I can't understand why more people aren't pro Nordic Model and contra legalising the punters.

It is not like it is rocket science.
In Sweden, a prostituted woman who was raped by a punter can just go to the police and tell them he's a punter, and he will get punished for that. She won't have to prove the rape.

The notion that in, say, Germany, where prostitution is entirely legalised, a prostituted woman could go to the police and tell them she's been raped and actually get the punter punished is laughable.
They don't even believe women who "flirted" with a man, or visited his hotel room, or whatever, they aren't in a thousand years going to believe a prostitute. Even if they believe her that she told him to pull his dick out and he didn't ... they aren't going to consider it rape.

So. This is really, really obvious.

But, of course, it is also obvious that you can't make prostitution safe.

A man who wants to use a condom, be respectful of a woman's boundaries, ensure that she enjoys the sex and freely consents ... such a man could just go and find himself a sex partner who doesn't charge money.
And he probably will do exactly that.

The review, by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, found that sex workers suffering repressive policing – including arrest, imprisonment and extortion by officers – were three times more likely to experience sexual or physical violence from a client and were twice as likely to have HIV or another sexually transmitted infection as those who lived in countries where sex work was tolerated

The review isn't specifically focused on the Nordic model, they're including where the workers themselves are arrested like in parts of America.

The Guardian article includes the obligatory section opposed to the Nordic Model, and ends with "decriminalisation is urgently needed" which echoes virtually all of their articles on prostitution ever published.

You'd think they have a pro-punter, anti-woman agenda or something...

very strange that the Guardian article doesn't seem to link to the paper it is discussing.
Its here:

Associations between sex work laws and sex workers’ health: A systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies
Lucy Platt , Pippa Grenfell, Rebecca Meiksin, Jocelyn Elmes, Susan G. Sherman, Teela Sanders, Peninah Mwangi, Anna-Louise Crago
Published: December 11, 2018doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002680

journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002680