When we talk about prostitution, we should focus on the buyers

I think decriminalisation- which means that the prostitutes are not treated as criminals but victims, but the buyers are treated as criminals and prosecuted is the initial first step that has to occur. Decriminalisation includes prosecuting pimps/madams. To me, though this is a necessary stepping stone to abolishment of prostitution as the final goal. Should be aiming to support these women (and the few male prostitutes) into education/new careers. Did the same for the coal miners, retrained them and found them different work. The government can afford to do same for prostitutes.

I don’t like how the definition of “sex work” has been watered down from meaning selling sex to other look only sexy activity like pole dancing, burlesque, belly dancing, web cam, lingerie modelling, etc. It is deliberate because the activists want a show of thousands of women protesting to keep their jobs. But to me, there is a vital difference between actually having sex versus putting on a show that has sex appeal. I have no objection to any of this sort of sex work so long as there is no touching between performer and customer.

Why don't you research what has happened in Germany? They decriminalised prostitution in the early 2000s under a left-wing government and it has been quite an 'interesting' social experiment.

Actually Germany legalised prostitution in 2002 not decriminalise it. It’s never been criminalised in Germany.

Also, while I certainly believe that sex workers’ experiences should be listened to, why do the decriminalisation crowd never listen to the experiences of women who have escaped prostitution and who support the Nordic model? It’s disingenuous to pretend that all sex workers sing from one hymn sheet.

Those who are current sex workers will often be motivated by issues such as being able to get enough work and oppose the Nordic model on that basis. Often they can’t truly see the issues until they are out of the sex trade. A useful analogy is abusive relationships. Many many people in an abusive relationship will deny that the perpetrator is anything but lovely. That’s why I don’t formulate domestic violence policy by taking women who stick by their violent partners at their word when they say that the relationship is great.

@dayoftheclownfish surely we don't want women to thrive in this industry/profession, we want it not to exist, or at least for them to be safe, able to leave, and not forced into it by economic circumstances or coercion?

It is true that there is a difference between legalisation and decriminalisation, and that I got the two mixed up. The Nordic model is partial decriminalisation, however, this is not what the 'sex work is work' activists embrace.

Even those countries that have decriminalisation, not legalisation, have problems, e.g. New Zealand. I cannot think of an example worldwide where the majority of women are actually thriving in this industry. (You will always find a high profile escort with a success story but you cannot make social policy on the basis of anecdote.) If you have one, let me know.

And my basic point remains: even if it were the case that women in the sex industry are doing well, do we really want to empower an industry that inscribes fundamental inequality between men and women (majority of sex buyers are male, majority of sex sellers are female)? That systematically and intentionally confuses simulated sexual expression with the authentic sexuality of women? That produces the above-mentioned review boards? I know it's old-fashioned to think of 'public morals' but maybe it's time to revisit that.

MargaritaPie

"The groups I mentioned are made up of adults who sell sexual services themselves and I'm sure their claims are based on their own lived experiences, so shouldn't the sex workers("prostitutes") views themselves be held most important?"

The problem with your statement is that you are actually not answering the question 'how representative are these orgs.?' because of your focus on individuals and 'lived experience'. Are the spokespeople of these orgs representative of the majority of women in the sex industry? Do they reflect the average experience? To answer these questions you need solid facts, figures and aggregate data. And the facts and figures that we have look depressing, don't you think? The prevalence of violence, the fact that for most women this is not a job that pays well, the prevalence of trauma, both before and after entering the industry, the fact that migrant women (who are often socio-economically disenfranchised) are so over-represented ...

The term 'sexual services' covers a huge range of activities, also including pimping (because then you sell services performed by somebody else.)

Although I have actually not used the word "prostitutes" on this thread I want to comment on your language policing, which is something people use to project moral superiority in a passive-aggressive way. Bourgeois liberals tend to enjoy it. I am very happy to tell you straight up that I think your point of view is morally deficient, as it ignores harm and avoids the basic question whether consent to sexual activity can ever be bought in a meaningful way.

In the Nordic Model, men are arrested, women are supported out of prostitution. The women need help with accommodation, medical assistance, therapy, drug treatment, education and actual jobs with contracts that protect them in law. These are the most vulnerable people that exist, they don't choose to rent their orifices and be traumatised out of their minds. Over 90% of prostituted women suffer violence, because the men see them as a sex doll to do whatever with, but they are actually women just like your daughter, sister or mother who have been very unfortunate.

Blue moon yes.

Stop putting short skirts legs high heels bending over a car no head just body.

Show the man.

I read a thing a while ago about another topic. The prevalence of rape on TV shows. The rape is always shown from the rapists perspective. Looking down on the face of a scared woman in pain. Never her perspective.

It's a similar thing I suppose. Even in these things. Presented from the male gaze. Male pov.

Skimmed the thread.

I think the OP point was as per the thing upthread. Where the language used invisibilitises the punter. There is rarely any focus on the men. Why do they do it. How often do they do it. What is their psychology. How dangerous are they. What do they get out of it (company? Domination?) Etc.

When I was young paying for sex was stigmatised. Going to watch women take their clothes off was stigmatised. It was sad. And not generally normal. (Apart from maybe in the city.. dunno).

I would say

Stigmatise the men who buy as much as possible. It's not like going to McDonald's FFS. It's not ok.

Help the women and girls who are selling, if and when they want out.

Problems here.

Universal credit. Little support for drug and alcohol abuse. CSA AOK. Authorities don't care. Loads of services have much less money now.

UC reports in papers about women turning to prostitution because no no money.

As a society we decide whether to care or not.

In the meantime. I am AOK with stigmatising the buying of sex. Making it illegal.

Oh and of course you can never legalise prostitution. Health and safety regs. It's just too fucking dangerous. Note that. When all the lovely orgs call for decrim. Never legalisation. That is a tacit an admission of what a dangerous job it is.

Leering out of car window*

Yes replace a picture of the criminally bare legs with a photo of a punter leering out from POV of the woman

amp.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/21/my-working-week-who-buys-sex-vulnerable-women-help

Published today.

It criminalises it for the buyers.

Almost the opposite of the way harm reduction works in addictions policy, where the buyer/addict is decriminalised but the seller is criminalised - but that makes sense given the way the two are structured.

Where it differs is that in addictions you typically create a way for the addict to access drugs through the medical system in a safe way oriented toward stopping if they want.

There really isn't a need to provide buyers of sex in a similar way, it's not like the women "need" this. Jobs, or financial support, would be the equivalent.

The question I guess would be, does the market then go more underground - but I think the answer is no - it's the same as it was before because that part always seems to exist.

All intriguing perspectives so far from a range of points

The Nordic model is not decriminalisation, it's a form of criminalisation. None of the orgs or groups I have mentioned above support the Nordic model.

I think you have to be careful about equating decriminalisation with something like what Germany has. Organisations that support it are not necessarily supportive of the latter - what they mean is that prostitutes, women or young men, should not be criminalised.

How to manage the rest of it is another question.

I do think the strongest argument for allowing some system of prostitution is harm reduction. The problem is, you have to show it actually works, and it's not at all clear that it does.

I think the reason that it seems like a reasonable approach to many is that it has been at least somewhat effective in a lot of other areas to look at problems, like drug addiction, as public health problems, and to use a harm-reduction strategy. So things lie safe injection sites. Lots of people working in this area also del with sex work and prostitution, so it makes sense they would think along similar lines.

I would argue that while that approach seems like it could work, it doesn't seem to in the same way we can see with things like addictions. That's an evidential claim of course so if someone could show better outcomes in that kind of scenario, better than something like the Nordic model (which also involves decriminalisation btw) that would be a strong argument.

"from a smelly bloke"

In legal or decriminalised jurisdictions at least, sex workers have the right to refuse service to customers who don't meet hygiene standards.

Quote"what follows is what happened in Germany. You will have women on universal credit being sanction and losing their benefits if they dont go to interviews or accept job offers from brothels."

This is a myth started by a Telegraph article from 2005. It's false. Tabloids are by no means at all credible sources for pretty much anything.

www.snopes.com/fact-check/hot-jobs/

Ooh, ooh, I know. Next time someone posts about not eating meat (due to their concerns about animal welfare) someone can accuse them of waging a war on farm animals!

That will be new, at least, as at this point I have heard it all when it comes to MN meat-free bunfights about vegetarians.

What next? Calling it a war on slaves next time some MNer starts a thread about fair-trade coffee brands that don't have slavery in their supply chain?

the war against sex workers won't work

Oh give over.

You're on a feminism board, not a religious fundamentalist board.

No-one wants to attack sex workers. We just aren"t okay with a world in which people end up risking physical genital injury (vaginal tears) from a smelly bloke with god knows what STIs for a couple of banknotes.

If it's work, where's the PPE? They're in close contact with more bodily fluids than health care workers, with less protective equipment.