"Criminalizing clients does not protect sex workers, according to a recent study"

Well plenty of people do :)

The comments about criminalising prostitution. Not sure what that's about. I don't think anyone has called for prostitutes to be treated more harshly in law?

'when sex work is criminalised or partly criminalised, the arrangement between the client and prostitute on the street becomes more rushed and the client will often want the act to take place out of sight eg down a side alley. The client, not wanting to be caught, may be more controlling and want things done his way and be more on edge and not relaxed. '

This is part of the appeal of looking for a start prostitute surely. It's not like there aren't plenty of other options currently available.

I am gobsmacked that anyone can look at a problem where 95% plus of the punters are male, where the violence is perpetrated by men, where the rape is perpetrated by men, and try to deny that class analysis identifying men (NAMALT of course yadah yadah) is a sensible analysis of the problem.

If men magically stopped thinking they had the right to buy women's bodies tomorrow, and invested the amount of energy they currently invest in fucking impoverished women for a pittance into trying to deal with the causes of that poverty, yes, the problems would mostly go away.

How the fuck can anyone say with a straight face that the male punters are not the problem here?

AllCatsAreBeautiful made another point- when sex work is criminalised or partly criminalised, the arrangement between the client and prostitute on the street becomes more rushed and the client will often want the act to take place out of sight eg down a side alley. The client, not wanting to be caught, may be more controlling and want things done his way and be more on edge and not relaxed. Obviously not a good thing for the prostitute.

Similar for online when clients contact a sex worker to make a booking, the client will be far less likely to be honest about who they are and their details which makes it harder for the prostitute to screen the client.

This link mentions this point also:
newrepublic.com/article/121981/northern-ireland-sex-work-law-based-wrong-model

The definition of a brothel means more than one sex worker works there, even if they don't work at the same time. This means if sex workers want to work together for safety they are criminalised for doing so.

Prostitution is already legal in the UK and generally the police turn a blind eye to brothels (there's a really obvious one up the road that's been there for years). So decriminalised in practice.

Not sure what changes are required. Assume it's about making it legal to have brothels (and I really don't want obvious brothels all over the high street thanks) and legalising Street soliciting?

The Scottish study I mentioned was this one, this link has quite a short summary and it was in the papers at the time.

It's simply not even true that these situations are all caused by men - family degeneration, poverty, addiction, FAS, child abuse - the underlying problems - are not limited to men, at all. They are a social problem that affects families and communities and needs to be addresses at that level. And in many cases, within the communities.

The people who are suffering are men and women, the people passing on the problems to the next generation are men and women, and the people who are making a difference are men and women.

But even when looking at real crimes, you have them occurring thousands of miles apart, over decades, for different reasons, under different circumstances - do you seriously think saying "Oh, geeze, lots of male perpetrators there" is very helpful when looking to either assign some sort of generalised blame, or addressing root causes?

Identifying"men as a class" as somehow responsible, or systemic racism, or colonialism, might make someone feel vindicated but it gives no way forward. Calls to have some sort of inquiry on this are political theatre that can come to no actionable conclusions and do nothing useful for anyone real. It involved spending a shedload of money, though, on lawyers and researchers and courtrooms, mainly.

It is pretty clear that the criminalisation of clients harms people who sell sex. For example, this paper (www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60800-X/fulltext) looks at over 800 studies and reports on sex work and found that criminalisation, including criminalisation ostensibly targeting clients, increases sex workers' risks of violence (from clients, partners + police) and HIV transmission. On the Swedish model/client criminalisation, the researchers write: "The Swedish so-called end demand criminalisation approach prohibits buying sex and earning money from someone's sex work, and is increasingly popular on the basis of its client orientation. Yet despite the focus on clients, sex workers' health and safety can suffer. Sex workers continue to face police harassment as a party to a crime, and fear reporting crimes. Safety dynamics are similar to those noted where selling sex is criminalised, in that fears of arrest can rush negotiations with clients, and sex workers can be displaced into isolated and dangerous areas to evade client detection by police."

The crucial thing about client criminalisation is that it makes people who sell sex poorer, which makes them less able to turn down clients who seem dodgy or aggressive, or who are asking for things the worker is comfortable with (eg to drive her to a deserted industrial estate). Being less able to refuse these kinds of clients of course makes sex workers more vulnerable to violence. This report, which is by the Norwegian government discussing the situation in Sweden, is worth reading on this (www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/kilde/jd/rap/2004/0034/ddd/pdfv/232216-purchasing_sexual_services_in_sweden_and_the_nederlands.pdf). They write, "Those who run the bus that gives out syringes to addicts in Malmo are of the opinion that more abuse takes place than previously as the women cannot afford to say 'no' to clients they have their doubts about". Another quote from the report: "For those forced to work on the street, life has become much harder ... the law on the purchase of sex has made working as a prostitute harder and more dangerous".

Of course, we would all prefer that no one be forced to work on the street, or be pushed into prostitution in any way – but clearly the way to achieve that goal isn't by making life harder and more dangerous for women who sell sex. Client criminalisation harms people who sell sex.

Yep, no problems with the Leed Zone:

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-54819248

""I was 13 and was wearing my school uniform walking to school. I barely got down the street and I was approached by a man asking if I was a prostitute," she said."

The "German model"

www.trauma-and-prostitution.eu/en/2018/06/19/the-german-model-17-years-after-the-legalization-of-prostitution/

"prostitution has risen up to 30% since 2002."

"3500 brothels are officially registered. But we know that there are at least as many illegal brothels. So: the main goal, that wanted to bring the women out of the darkness, has totally failed."

" Today around 95% of prostituted women come from other countries. It has become a prostitution of poverty."

"do you/have you used prostitutes?"

No of course not. The point is decriminalisation is considered by a variety of people and services local and international to be the safest option for both consenting sex workers and the victims who are trafficked and need help.

I'm not sure why you hate Amnesty Int. so much and why you think they have "lost credibility". It has been established that the rumours about their "policy being written by a pimp" is false.

The World Health Organisation is another well-known international and reputable organisation who also support decriminalisation. Was their policy on sex work "written by pimps" too?

Re the Leeds Managed Zone, again opinions differ. I personally think street-prostitution is much riskier but an article from last year suggests sex workers want the zone to stay:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-53355765

Quote from above article: "Sex workers said that the zone had "significantly improved their health and safety" and their relationship with the police had improved, leading to an increase in their reporting of crime."

"Full decriminalisation in this country would mean that the authorities would no longer give a shit"

This is not what decriminalisation would mean at all. If that really were the case decrim wouldn't have such strong support amongst prostitutes themselves as well as local and international human rights and health orgs.

Crimes such as trafficking/slavery/non-consensual activity/involvement with anyone underage/theft/assault/sexual abuse or harassment/rape etc will all still be illegal and taken seriously and enforced under decrim.

Not long ago, a NZ sex worker won a large payout after she successfully sued for sexual harassment for example:

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/14/new-zealand-sex-worker-wins-six-figure-sexual-harassment-payout

Germany has legalised prostitution, which is different from decriminalisation which for example New Zealand has (the model human rights, health and sex worker groups generally advocate for).

Any proof the sex trade has increased in Germany? Or could it be because it is legalised it is more visible? When prostitution is criminalised or partly-criminalised it is pushed underground which means it still happens just as often but is "out of sight"?

And to repeat again- Amnesty International and The World Health Org for instance make it very clear trafficking and slavery is not ok and wish to do all they can to combat this. I am very confident all the other orgs I mentioned which support decriminalisation have the same views.

Supporting complete decriminalisation does not mean saying trafficking/slavery/non-consensual activity is ok. It is perfectly possible to have complete decriminalisation and also fight trafficking. It also means there is a distinct line between prostitutes who are consenting and those who are not and allows each prostitute to receive more personalised support according to their own wishes, as opposed to the "Nordic model" which treats all prostitutes as victims regardless what they say.

Not-so-fun-fact: In Sweden it's also illegal to allow your home or establishment to be used for prostitution. So guess what happens when a landlord in Sweden finds out his tenant is a prostitute? He instantly evicts her and if she has nowhere else to go she becomes homeless (which has happened many times). Which means prostitutes in Sweden who are renting have another reason to keep what they do hush-hush. Immigrant prostitutes are usually deported if they are found out. This would not happen under decriminalisation.

It’s not only about that though is it, OP. It’s the fact that certain behaviour is reprehensible and needs to be punished. That includes trafficking and buying women’s bodies for sex.
I would also say that a lot of the Nordic model’s effectiveness depends on how it’s implemented and what support is offered to women who want to leave the industry.
Full decriminalisation in this country would mean that the authorities would no longer give a shit, so who is meant to help these women?
If you want to decriminalise prostitution, do you want to do the same for those who keep people in domestic forced servitude (modern slavery)? Should they also get off scot-free because slavery is work?

" The pimps and traffickers certainly saying it, "

Yes obviously the pimps and traffickers are. I mean organisations like Amnesty International and the World Health Org aren't.

And I'm a bit sceptical of studies like the one you mentioned. I remember reading there was a study done in Sweden before and after they introduced criminalisation asking men if they would pay for sex, they found in the "after" study less men replied saying they would pay for sex and this was taken to mean the law "was a success". Or maybe it's just because less clients are willing to admit to paying to sex if it is made illegal. That's what tends to happen, whatever has been made illegal still happens but it just becomes more "hush hush".

The link I previously mentioned from UN HIV and the Law commission page 38 mentions the sex trade in Sweden still remains at pre-law levels. Despite Swedish police being given so much funding to enforce the law there was less resources for Social Work, only 2 clients were convicted of buying sex in 13 years and given small fines. Doesn't sound much of a deterrent does is it? Also the sex workers are "almost always unwilling to testify against their clients".

hivlawcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FinalReport-RisksRightsHealth-EN.pdf

There was a study in Scotland a few years back where men who paid for sex were asked some questions. Quite a lot said if it were illegal, or they thought friends family work would find out, they wouldn't do it.

Some men will always anyway. But it does prevent the men who do it because it's there and they can get away with it.

Reducing demand is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

"If your feminism supports the Pimps you are doing it wrong."

Incase you missed it, I provided a link where Amnesty Int. have made it clear their policy was not "written by pimps". On the webchat the spokesperson for Amnesty Int. also confirmed they do not "work with pimps for any reason".

www.amnesty.org.uk/douglas-fox

Amnesty Int. make their views on trafficking very clear:

Source- from the live Mumsnet webchat. See link above.

"Amnesty believes that any human trafficking, including into forced prostitution or any other non-consensual sex, should be criminalised as a matter of international law. Traffickers should be prosecuted, and those who have been trafficked should be protected. We have a long and proud record of work against trafficking. Here in the UK we led the campaign to have the UK government to sign up to the European Convention Against Trafficking, a campaign win of which I’m immensely proud. Our consultation document on sex work makes it very clear that we are against trafficking and our work on this will continue."

Noone is saying trafficking is ok or should be tolerated.

"Decriminalisation drives demand which drives trafficking."

Source? Or is this just your own speculation?

"Would you be happy for your son to tell you that buying trafficked women and children is OK."

Trafficking is illegal in all UK jurisdictions, and supporting decriminalisation does not mean supporting trafficking.

"Amnesty's recommendations to their members to vote in favour of a policy advocating for complete decrim were written by a pump, FFS."

False: www.amnesty.org.uk/douglas-fox

Amnesty Int. did a live webchat with mumsnet here once and they answered questions which include the "was your policy written by a pimp" etc. Link here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/1986689-Live-webchat-with-Amnesty-International-Tuesday-4th-Feb-11-12pm

Gotta agree with Ursula above. Buying sexual access to people is not ok. Amy more that murdering people is ok. Society's laws and mores should reflect that.

I guess the devil is in the details about how, though.

Amnesty's recommendations to their members to vote in favour of a policy advocating for complete decrim were written by a pump, FFS.

The report I posted above was published 13 years after Sweden began using the "Nordic model". In those 13 years, it reveals only 2 clients have been convicted of buying sex and they received a low fine. It says "Workers to not consider themselves to be victims and are almost always unwilling to testify against their clients.".

Another quote: "The Swedish State Criminal Dept warns that the sex trade may now be more violent."

That makes sense to me. Criminalising the purchase of sex isn't going to deter the clients who really would potentially be violent. If a man isn't going to care about the legal consequences of a violent crime such as assault/theft/rape he isn't going to care about a purchase of sex law is he?

Despite only 2 being convicted (in the first 13 years of the law), the report also says that trying to police and enforce the law is so expensive it leaves resources for Social Work scarce because the funding has to be siphoned to policing.

I also just searched Google for "Stockholm escorts" and found numerous results for Swedish sex workers with contact details. So it's still clear the sex trade in Sweden is still going strong and the demand is still there.

While "criminalise the client only" might sound good on paper and in theory, it isn't a magic bullet and for various reasons there are many people and orgs who don't support it.