Sex work is work

And I suppose over time. Other things have been added in.

Just trying to remember. The views that have got added in, over the years.

I think not so universal and clearly less priority than SWIW.

In general though actually loads of stuff introduced. Whether they so universally bedded in, don't know. But certainly there an awful lot.

And they are ALL to do with attacking women. Not just women who say no. All women.

Because obviously all the evil in the world is due to women.
Especially those who don't comply. And if they're middle aged. I mean nothing worse.
Unless they have power and/ or wealth on their side. Those ones are the most dangerous people in the history of the world.

And obviously

• No kink shaming
• Idea sex offences done pretty much totally by males. Is biased/ says all females angels/ leveraging false victimhood/ exclusionary in various ways/ transphobic and lots more

• Children can give informed consent to pretty much anything. Saying no they can't reveals real goal. Which is to attack abortion legality.

• Women and girls have massive privilege over certain males.

I mean I could go on for hours.

'IamSarah

It’s telling that this has become a mantra chanted by trans activists. Couldn’t really get more patriarchal.'

It's not become a mantra. It's been there from the start.

Not used that I've seen for yonks.

Ages ago, years.

The phrase 'SWERF AND T*RF' was everywhere. It was there from... When it started to get public attention at least. I suspect always linked.

Sex worker exclusionary radical feminists and trans exclusionary radical feminists.

Like surf n turf... Catchy!

From way back it's been clear that sex work is work and trans women are women were so entwined that either support both or neither.

And for years the question has been.

Why on earth these two very different things were, are. Fundamentally linked, can't have one without the other.

I am extremely confused

Understatement of the year.

Still no comment as to why you talked about countries where illegal.

And then turned out you meant Sweden. Why say countries and then ignore totally the massive countries with huge numbers of people where it's illegal?

When thinking of prostitution and countries illegal, why did you ignore all those?
Where the group whose situation you want to improve, and specially this exchange it's people in prostitution rather than the wider group 'sex workers'.
Are in such dire situations, partly to do with their criminalisation?

It doesn't make sense.

And now instead of saying why ignore the massive issues in certain countries affecting those you advocate for.

You bring up new Zealand and talk about decrim etc.

That's not the point. Your point was that in countries where prostitution is illegal, there is a negative impact on those selling sex.

It's clear wanted to discuss the 'nordic model' and the fact that countries where prostitution illegal is a massive issue globally didn't even ping on your radar.

Imo, from what you have written.

I'm in agreement criminalisation (of any sort) leads to increased harm, dangers and stigma against the very people we are supposedly trying to protect.

That's why I think decriminalisation (the New Zealand model) is best. This letter, signed by many people and orgs (see bottom of letter for the list), gives an explanation of why they think decrim is better than any of the criminalisation models.

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

You have missed the point entirely.

To say in countries where sex work is illegal etc.

And then explain you meant one country (so why not say that in the first place).

Your original statement is at best misleading...

And get revealing. In countries where prostitution is illegal. Multiple countries, a massive number of people working as prostitutes.

You know. The countries where it is illegal. Not one (where it's not illegal and then getting into semantics even though obviously the statement 'prostitution is illegal in sweden' is simply incorrect.

It's just so revealing.

Ignoring everywhere in the world where it's illegal and that illegally caused such huge harm to those working as prostitutes. Who are VERY MUCH NOT seen as victims.

I mean you comment was just totally utterly misleading, I assume on purpose. If not deliberate then it's a stark illustration of how extreme your bias is.

That you don't even ACKNOWLEDGE that you have zero interest in the countries where it is illegal full stop leading to huge harm to people selling sex.

Eye opening.

"Prostitution is NOT illegal in Sweden"

ok to clarify it isn't a case of "yes it is" or "no it isn't". The answer is more of a "it's complicated". See my post above.

"I also thought selling sex was legal in Sweden, have I got that wrong? That it was the men who pay who were criminalised"

It's not as simple as that. It's still illegal for sex workers to work together in Sweden (and other countries with the Nordic Model). It's also illegal for landlords to rent to sex workers (which can result in sex workers being evicted and made homeless), and sex workers can (as shown above) be seen as unfit by to be a parent just for selling sex. This implies stigma against sex workers is increased and even if they aren't committing a crime per se they may be harassed by Social Services if they have children.

To say the Nordic Model "decriminalises selling sex" is IMO a very extreme simplification. It isn't just one law it's a set of laws and there's a lot of "small print" details people may not know about.

In Ireland (which has the Nordic Model), women sex workers are being jailed for working together. As of the time of the article (2 years after the law was introduced), only 1 client was charged with paying for sex. So in that 2 year period, more sex workers than clients are being in trouble with the law.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/12/change-law-sex-workers-jailed

A report by the UN HIV and the Law re the situation in Sweden, it's outdated now but it explains that it's very difficult to convict clients because the sex workers are "almost always unwilling to testify against them". Out of all arrests made almost all of them are let off and out of the ones who do make it to court only a tiny minority actually get convicted (usually if they plead guilty, and they just get a small fine). This report also states this is very expensive and leaves less money for other services.

www.hivlawandpolicy.org/sites/default/files/FinalReport-Risks%2CRights%26Health-EN.pdf (p38)

I think that was a bit too far to go even given your views Marguerita.

It is two things that are totally untrue, and to state them as fact, on a topic as serious as this. Do you go saying saying this sort of thing IRL knowing that most people will just think didn't know that. And put the info in their brain somewhere... It's really not on.

1. Prostitution is NOT illegal in Sweden. That is just plain wrong. I'm SURE you know that. Why say it?

1. Stating that ''I understand this to be saying that in countries where selling sex is illegal, anyone working as a prostitute is automatically seen as a victim of sexual violence.'

Google the situation in countries where prostitution is illegal. (IE not Sweden ).

Wiki is a good place to start improving your knowledge on what I know is a massively important topic for you.

Very first entry on the page,

'Prostitution is illegal in the majority of African countries. HIV/AIDS infection rates are particularly high among African sex workers'

Going into countries around the world you surely will realise that when prostitution is illegal. Those selling sex are quite categorically not seen as victims of sexual violence. They are at very high risk of sexual violence including by the police.

I would really like you to explain what you were even thinking/ hoping to achieve with that post. It's totally out of order, even by usual standards.

'I understand this to be saying that in countries where selling sex is illegal, anyone working as a prostitute is automatically seen as a victim of sexual violence.'

Oh right

I immediately thought of countries around the world where selling sex is criminalised. And the usually women working as prostitutes are often threatened, coerced, ill treated by police and presumably others because that law combined with general social attitudes makes it very easy to do.

When you think about countries where selling sex is illegal, you don't think of those countries and what it means for those who sell sex?
Is there a reason for that?

I also thought selling sex was legal in Sweden, have I got that wrong? That it was the men who pay who were criminalised.

Risk assessments. Maternity leave. Sick pay. Pensions. No idea.

Thank you for that update. I took the figures from
thewww.statista.com/statistics/1102023/number-women-victims-homicide-brazil-type/
and you are quite right, these only contain the numbers known to be killed simply because they are women.

It should also be pointed out that Brasil is a very dangerous place for women with approx 4 women every day being killed in cases classed as femicides.
.
It's approx 13 women killed there a day, Femicide, a narrower definition, only applies where a woman is known to have been killed by a man/men. Women whose killer is unknown don't meet the criteria.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femicide

Yes . that was a very sad case dating back to 2013. Could you tell us if things have changed in Sweden after the protests concerning this case?

Also, trans sex workers in Brazil do not seem to be at any more risk of death or violence than female sex workers. It is however a very dangerous occupation in Brasil.
It should also be pointed out that Brasil is a very dangerous place for women with approx 4 women every day being killed in cases classed as femicides.
.

Based on the case of Petite Jasmine, Sweden thinks abusive and violent men are better suited to being a parent than a sex worker.

I think the challenge for feminism is that so often the fight has been about gaining basic bodily autonomy for women, that it can be easy to be gulled by the idea that an extreme, consumerist version is in their interests too.

As with so many shibboleths of the current self-identified (not not actually) "progressives", the concept itself is fine if we were starting from a place of equal power between the sexes.

But that is so so very far from the place we are in reality starting from.

In reality, starting from where we actually are, any loosening of sex (the act and the class)- related protections always tends to increase the disempowerment and exploitation of female people by male, because the male people have the cultural power/weight/levers to impose their will on the female.

'In countries with criminalisation(or partial criminalisation) there is no distinction made and all sex workers are classed as victims'

I understand this to be saying that in countries where selling sex is illegal, anyone working as a prostitute is automatically seen as a victim of sexual violence.

Is that right?

I think the common thread is support of extreme bodily autonomy.

The ideology behind all this is individuals can do what they want with their own bodies, and it’s the job of the medical profession, markets etc simply to facilitate this. That includes buying and selling access to your body through surrogacy, “sex work” etc. The fact this turns relationships that many people don’t think should be commercial “transactions” into exactly that is overlooked. Meanwhile changing the language around “women” and divorcing it from biology helps to conceal the fact that in practise it is the female sex who are exploited by all this supposed “personal choice”.

Of course, its proponents also tend to claim that if you are against bodily autonomy then you are anti-abortion. But surely most pro-choice people see abortion as the least bad option, rather than something to be celebrated in itself? They would be uncomfortable with women deliberately choosing abortion over contraception, or for sex selection (even though they might not support banning this) and would likely oppose the idea of monetising abortion (e.g. if there was a market for fetal tissue and women were having abortions for that reason, or if there was a market in “abortion porn”.)

I think the challenge for feminism is that so often the fight has been about gaining basic bodily autonomy for women, that it can be easy to be gulled by the idea that an extreme, consumerist version is in their interests too.

Yes I think I heard somewhere that Brazil was a particularly dangerous place for transwomen

It's a particularly dangerous place for everyone.

I’m just trying to think of a world where prostitution is legitimised.
Trust pilot reviews?
Full refunds if customers unhappy with service?
Apprenticeships and college courses to learn about the “trade”?

Ah how is sex work defined? And why must any terms specifically meaning money for actual real life sex acts be got rid of?

1. Sex work encompasses loads of things most of which are just not the same risk etc as prostitution.

1. I read on s thread here that sex work including being paid for sex is defined as s consensual transaction.

... Hmmmmm...

The second point was put forward by a poster on this thread. I think it's really not s good point at all. Tbh.

Hello OP

For a long time 'SWERF AND TERF' was all over the place.

Standing for

Sex worker exclusionary radical feminists and trans exclusionary radical feminists.

What the two things have to do with each other was never made clear. But apparently they're closely linked...

It's a men's rights movement. It's always been. So so many totally obvious things practically advertise it in neon lights.

So there you go.