Nordic model demand in Daily Mail

"it has been demonstrated to reduce it in Nordic countries"

All that has been observed is that street prostitution has reduced, with the sex trade in general believed to be at the same level.

May also be explained by the fact when the Nordic Model started in Sweden it was before the internet was available for home users so there wasn't the option of taking bookings via internet as there is now.

"If it's a service and not herself being bought, then naturally the more experienced (i.e. older) in the trade a woman is, the more she will be able to charge. Surely?"

In many cases yes, mature women do often charge more than the younger.

Prostitution exploits women as a class. Decriminalisation plays into the hands of those who want to profit from the exploitation of women as the situation in Germany demonstrates. Where there is low risk money to be made by gangs and criminals how much bargaining power do you really think women have. Pole dancing/table dancing clubs in the U.K. are not run in a way that prioritises the financial interests the women who work in them. So I see the Nordic model as the least bad option. Go after the supply of money into the trade i.e. the punters and send the message that buying access rights to a woman’s body is not socially acceptable.

If it's a service and not herself being bought, then naturally the more experienced (i.e. older) in the trade a woman is, the more she will be able to charge. Surely?

For example, a 55 year old female lawyer with decades of experience has a higher hourly rate than a woman who has just qualified as a solicitor.

👏👏👏 Arabella

Saw this the other day. Seems apt.

The Swedish sex trade is still going strong, the Nordic Model isn't the magic bullet it's made out to be by some.

You seem to be wilfully misunderstanding me to promote your agenda. My point is not that the Nordic Model will eradicate sex work (although it has been demonstrated to reduce it in Nordic countries and that is why the legislation remains popular in Sweden and Norway). My point is the Nordic Model is the least worst option because - I accept that you can't eradicate it altogether, although I wish we could for the benefit of all women - at least it sends a message to pimps and punters that this is illegal activity and unacceptable to wider society. In this way the men procuring women are stigmatised, rather than the women themselves. I do not want to live in a society which legitimises prostitution by removing all laws relating to it so that women can be bought and sold at will with tacit approval. Your arguments against the Nordic Model have at no point convinced me that legitimising prostitution is healthy progress for women and girls. Women are not commodities.

The sort of sex work we should end up with is where 2 or 3 women can work together from a flat.

That is your opinion. As a feminist I am entitled to view prostitution as the sale of women to men for men's sexual pleasure, which I do. I believe this degrades the position of women in wider society. It is interesting that you never address that point.

I was listening to talkradio with James Whale last night and they were talking about sex work. There was a woman who has written a book about trafficking. It's called something like 'The Truth about Trafficking'. I wish I could remember her name because it sounds like a good book on the subject. Anyone else hear it?

@HecatesCatsInFancyHats

It is fundamentally offensive to view women as objects to be bought and sold for male pleasure.

Women are not bought and sold in sex work. Women sell a service as do many people.

The sort of sex work we should end up with is where 2 or 3 women can work together from a flat. They make the rules and take the profits for themselves. They don't let a man into the flat if they don't like the look of him. They don't do anal or sex without a condom, unless they are one of the minority who choose to do them for a lot more money. Could be just for a favoured regular client. There is never more than one man in the flat so they are safe.

There are already places like this in Britain. The 'walk up' flats in Soho are like this. The problem is that it's not legal. So that's where the pimps and the traffickers come in. They do the illegal stuff so the women aren't going to be arrested. If there's a police raid they say truthfully 'I am not running a brothel'.

"The letter says, “trafficking isn’t caused by the demand for sex, but by people’s poverty and lack of options: people are made vulnerable to traffickers for a number of reasons.”"

I agree. If poverty could be resolved, then that prob wouldn't mean the end of prostitution but it would certainly reduce it and ensure those who do sell sexual services are doing so on their own free will and not because they are desperate for cash. So why is the focus not on poverty?

Also what I'd like to know is that if the Nordic Model deters some clients and the sex workers make less money, who is going to compensate them for the money they would have made otherwise? Will those who campaigned for the Nordic Model give them money?

Sweden has shown that the buying-sex part of the Nordic Model just isn't enforceable, with a client being convicted on average just once every 6.5 years. Word of the complete lack of client convictions will spread and Swedish men who buy sex will know there's absolutely nothing to worry about re the Nordic Model. A quick Google search for "Stockholm escorts" reveals there are still plenty of sex worker details online for men in Sweden to contact. The Swedish sex trade is still going strong, the Nordic Model isn't the magic bullet it's made out to be by some.

Pimping is already currently illegal in Britain.

It won't be under decriminalisation, which again underlines my point. This move would legitimise and lend tacit approval to the sale of women for men's sexual pleasure. A trade which lowers the status of all women and is hugely lucrative for sex traffickers and will remain so if prostitution is decriminalised.

"The open letter (from DecrimNow) cited support for full decriminalisation from Amnesty Internationall and the World Health Organisation (WHO)) without mentioning that these organisations were advised by a pimp who has since been sentenced to 15 years in prisonn for sex trafficking, that their research is generally of very poor qualityy, and that their position has been robustly critiquedd_."

It's dissected here:

"Statement on the DecrimNow open letter opposing the Nordic Model

At the end of last week, DecrimNow, a lobby group for the full decriminalisation of the sex trade in the UK, published an open letterr to Westminster MPs calling on them to “stand up against continuing attempts to introduce Nordic modell legislation into Parliament”. The open letter was signed by an impressive array of academics and organisations.
We were immediately contacted by a number of our followers who were disturbed by this development and wanted to know how to respond. We are therefore making this brief statement about why the open letter is full of flaws and providing suggestions about what you can do about it.
What’s wrong with the open letter?
The letter says, “trafficking isn’t caused by the demand for sex, but by people’s poverty and lack of options: people are made vulnerable to traffickers for a number of reasons.”
Sex trafficking is enormously more lucrative than any other form of human trafficking – ten times more lucrative according to a recent studyy_ – precisely because so many men are prepared to pay for sexual access to vulnerable women and girls. To suggest that cashing in on this bonanza is not a cause of sex trafficking is naive in the extreme.
Yes, poverty and brutal immigration laws cause large numbers of people, particularly women and children, to be trapped in situations where they are vulnerable to traffickers who want to use them as a meal ticket. But they wouldn’t be such a great meal ticket if so many men weren’t such enthusiastic prostitution users.
The solution to poverty and brutal immigration laws is not opening up prostitution but tackling these inequities head on.
The open letter’s aspiration to make ‘sex workers’ safer is an oxymoron. Prostitution in all its forms is inherently dangerouss and can never be brought into line with even the most basic health and safety guideliness.
What’s more, all the evidencee_ suggests that prostitution-buying brutalises men, making them more entitled, and more likely to rape and harass women and girls and to sexually abuse children. This means that anything that gives the green light to the prostitution system (as full decriminalisation certainly would) will inevitably lead not only to more women and girls being drawn into the sex industry where inevitably they will be harmed but also to more male violence against women and girls in the general community.
But the open letter doesn’t mention any of this. Which begs the question of whose interests they are promoting? It certainly doesn’t look like they are promoting the interests of the most vulnerable women and girls. They seem to be advocating prostitution as the solution to their poverty and disadvantage, and that that should be sanctioned and recognised in law and policy.
Is this really what we should be aiming for? A world where poor women and girls have no alternative but to prostitute themselves in order to survive? And the corollary that large numbers of men have sufficient disposable incomes to buy sexual access to them?
That doesn’t sound like a world I want to live in. Surely it will lead to an ever-greater divide between women and men."

Article continues here...

nordicmodelnow.org/2021/04/15/response-to-the-decrimnow-open-letter-opposing-the-nordic-model/

If the Nordic Model is so great why are such a large and growing list of orgs signing a letter (the one by DecrimNow) against it?

Could it be because under the Nordic Model sex workers are still criminalised for working together and can lose their home because the Nordic Model forces their landlords to evict them if they are renting. In Sweden there were only 2 client convictions (who received a low fine) over a 13 year period because sex workers are unwilling to testify against their clients. Attempting to police the Nordic Model costs more which means less funding for Social Work and other support services. Condoms are still used as evidence same as if prostitution were illegal outright which can increase the risk of condoms not being used.

Pimping is already currently illegal in Britain.

Under decriminalisation- the removal of all laws specific to prostitution- prostitution is legitimised and ultimately sanctioned. The entire point of my post is that society sanctioning prostitution is misogynistic and damaging to ALL women and therefore the least worst option is the Nordic Model because at least we are still clear that this is wrong, but that the pimps and punters bear the responsibility for criminal activity. Read the post again please.

I know. You have missed my point.

Germany has legalisation. That isn't the model which human rights orgs, health orgs, anti-trafficking orgs and sex worker unions (see list of signatures in link below) are campaigning for. That would be decriminalisation which New Zealand has

decrimnow.org.uk/open-letter-on-the-nordic-model/

Legitimising prostitution and pimps is not going to magically turn this into a peachy keen trade in which punters treat women with respect and traffickers no longer trade women for profit. This is a total nonsense. It is fundamentally offensive to view women as objects to be bought and sold for male pleasure. It is shameful to dress this up as progressive. As has been written about extensively- this is one of the few areas (porn too) where leftist men get whole heartedly behind the free market, funny that. The hypocrisy stinks. The only system I will ever get behind is one which protects women without giving men a free pass. When I say protects women - I don't mean protects the right of women to sell themselves, because whilst many of them have little choice, the trade is in and of itself an insult to all women and helps to commodify all women in the view of society. In Germany we see what a form of legitimisation of the trade means - degradation, women sold and tossed aside like fast food. Men need to know this is not ok. They need to understand what the problem is here - it isn't women's agency - it's a capitalist, individualist patriarchy with women at the bottom of the pecking order.

@HecatesCatsInFancyHats

The sex industry is a multi-million-pound global industry and yet we are supposed to believe that work to de-stigmatise purchasing sex (aka increase the consumer market and therefore profits) is entirely led by grass-root workers? Unlikely.

In Sweden the anti-Nordic model movement is led by Pye Jakobsson, who is a former sex worker and an academic. She runs Rose Alliance and says that of the nine board members, three have been evicted by police putting pressure on landlords.

She has also said
"Contrary to assertions that “police definitely don’t interfere” with sex workers, police can use pimping laws to ‘interfere’ with sex workers directly. Where it is illegal to provide premises for prostitution, landlords are obliged to evict sex workers, or face prosecution themselves. Police have been known to inform landlords that their tenant(s) sell sex, thus forcing the eviction. Sex workers working together for safety, as well as anybody cohabiting with a sex worker, can also be targeted, prosecuted for pimping one another or sharing in the income of prostitution, respectively."

@GNCQ

It's so completely untrue it needs repeating

Ireland has been Nordic model for a few years. Both North and South. The first man to be arrested was arrested alongside three women. He wasn't convicted, what happened to the women in not known.
www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/05/northern-ireland-offence-of-paying-for-sex-first-arrest

In the Republic two Romanian women in their 20s were convicted of brothel keeping (working together for safety). They are the ones who got into the papers but there were others.
www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/sex-workers-say-kildare-brothel-arrests-prove-law-is-not-fit-for-purpose-38198407.html

There are official reports for both north and south. They give the total number of convictions of men who have paid for sex. I can't be bothered to look it up but it's about 3 each.

The sex industry is a multi-million-pound global industry and yet we are supposed to believe that work to de-stigmatise purchasing sex (aka increase the consumer market and therefore profits) is entirely led by grass-root workers? Unlikely.

Perfectly put.

In this context, "sex workers" is used to refer to adult men and women who sell sexual services.

1. That kind of mantra reciting may work on certain corners of twitter. but not here.

2. Pimps call themselves sex workers. Should we listen to them? The sex industry is a multi-million-pound global industry and yet we are supposed to believe that work to de-stigmatise purchasing sex (aka increase the consumer market and therefore profits) is entirely led by grass-root workers? Unlikely.

3. Furthermore, if sex work is just like any other job, then everyone gets to have a say, just like any other job. When people talk about police brutality, would you be happy if shills filled up the comments saying "Listen to police officers"? I doubt it hugely.

"Agnete Strøm suggests Amnesty chose Norway because prominent Norwegian Amnesty members openly opposed the Nordic Model, and in 2013 the incoming Norwegian government made it a manifesto promise to repeal the Nordic Model law. Amnesty wasn’t to know then that the incoming government would in fact abandon these plans [to repeal the Nordic Model law] when they realised how well the law was working in practice."

https://nordicmodelnow.org/myths-about-prostitution/myth-amnestys-research-in-norway-has-proved-the-nordic-model-is-harmful-to-sex-workers/

Listen To Sex Workers
Listen To Sex Workers
Listen To Sex Workers

Ta.