Pushing back against the so-called Nordic Model of sex work

@OldCrone That's not the same logic at all. In the drug trade, the drugs are the product which is being bought and sold. In prostitution, the prostitutes are the product which is being bought and sold.

I guess we can only agree to disagree, then.
Whether the product being sold is a substance or it is a service provided with one's body, the fact remains that some people enter into these "trades" because they have no alternatives, while others do it out of greed: they have alternatives, the alternatives pay less, they want more money, so they choose what they perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be "easier" money.

@catontheironingboard BUT, just like the “Dude” above, one thing you never like is to talk about the “customers” - the MEN who buy sex
Wrong. Factually wrong. I did talk about the men who buy sex. I had said two things.

I said that I refused to go to a job working for someone who had bragged about seeing young foreign sex workers who clearly had a pimp, and for whom the likelihood of being trafficked was high. I found this guy to be a despicable person with no morals and I had no intention of working for him. The point is not whether guys like him deserve a medal, but whether the Nordic model is effective at reducing demand and reducing risk for sex workers.

I also said that I can think of a couple of middle-aged guys, a widower and two divorced men, about whom I wondered if they had started seeing sex workers, based on their conversations and change in behaviour. I appreciate I may be more libertarian than most, but, in these cases, IF the women in question chose to do it freely, with no coercion trafficking etc, then I see nothing wrong with it.

The Italian tycoon and ex-politician Silvio Berlusconi had a "girlfriend" who was 50 years younger, and when he dies he left her EUR 100 million (look it up). I think this was more immoral than someone like a belle du jour freely choosing to do sex work to top up her income at a certain time in her life. Or are you going to tell me that Berlusconi's girlfriend was coerced and is a victim of a patriarchal society?

@CharlieParley The purpose of the model is to reduce demand, disrupt the market, remove criminal penalties from those sold, and shift social norms so that buying women is no longer treated as acceptable male behaviour.

And where is the evidence that the model has achieved any of this?

Both the European Court of Human Rights (2024) and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (2023) examined research and data provided as evidence for this claim and thoroughly rejected it because none of these papers could show any causation between the Nordic Model law on prostitution and the harms people in prostitution experience.

Can you please elaborate? I don't follow. Courts opine on whether something is legal, constitutional, etc. They do NOT opine on whether a certain policy is effective, nor on whether policy A is better than policy B.

Against that backdrop, arrest numbers in the low hundreds over several years do not show that the law “doesn’t work”; they show that it has not been enforced at scale. Both jurisdictions have acknowledged this explicitly.

Are you talking about Northern Ireland alone, or also Norway and Sweden?
A policy should be assessed on whether it has been working, not on whether it would work in some hypothetical, far-fetched scenario.
Norway and Sweden are among the richest, least unequal countries on the planet. Can they afford to enforce this Nordic model properly, yes or no?
If yes, where is the evidence that it has worked, that demand has dropped, etc.?
If no, then it means the model is a failure, because it would require a level of investment and resources which not even come of the richest countries on the planet can afford.

whether some women choose prostitution freely. That question is a dead end for policy. What matters is the distribution of coercion and constraint across the system as a whole, not the most privileged minority within it.
It depends on how you frame it. You should remember that I did not say that all women choose it freely, and I specifically said that there is a good argument to be made against prostitution if the women choosing to do it freely are very few and unrepresentative.

However, at the same time it is also true that some posters here feel triggered, throw temper tantrums and absolutely lose their shit at the mere suggestion that some women may be doing it freely and/or out of greed.
That's what blind ideological fury does: it blinds people to self-evident banalities.
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
When your only interpretation is that women are always victims, you cannot admit that some women, no matter how few, may actually choose to do it freely.
I have been attacked, insulted, called a trafficker, a pimp and worse for simply suggesting that the women in the Netflix documentary, or the girl in the Spitzer case, who was charging $4,000, were doing it freely not because they lacked alternatives, but because they preferred the easy money to a minimum wage job.
When I then dared point out that men in the same minimum wage jobs do not have an option to charge $$$$$ for OF content or sex work, many posters los their shit. But facts remain true even if you don't like them.

Did you misread the post you replied to?

"Its purpose is not to arrest as many men as possible."

All your comments about convictions are irrelevant as a response to this statement.

"Its purpose is not to arrest as many men as possible."

It's failed miserably then. Catching clients in the first place is difficult enough (any ideas to how it can actually be enforced unless you want the Gov to put cameras in the home of every sex worker?) but even when you do that you need the sex worker to testify in court against her client (and she will need to be dragged along to to court in Scotland to do this for any client convictions to happen, despite Ash Regan saying sex workers won't need to).

Nordic Model N. Ireland has had one client conviction in a decade!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-67802849

Very comprehensive, @CharlieParley

Thank you for this. You said it better than I could.

The OP misrepresents what the Nordic model actually is.

The Nordic model does not claim to make prostitution “safe” for people in it. It never has. Nothing can. Prostitution is widely recognised, including by many survivors, as inherently harmful. The purpose of the model is to reduce demand, disrupt the market, remove criminal penalties from those sold, and shift social norms so that buying women is no longer treated as acceptable male behaviour. Judging it as if it were a workplace safety framework misunderstands its aim.

On the repeated claim that criminalising buyers makes women less safe: there is no robust evidence for this. What is usually cited are small qualitative studies with self-selecting samples. Those can tell us how some people feel, but they cannot establish population-level harm or causation. Both the European Court of Human Rights (2024) and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (2023) examined research and data provided as evidence for this claim and thoroughly rejected it because none of these papers could show any causation between the Nordic Model law on prostitution and the harms people in prostitution experience.

More importantly, the Nordic model is not designed as a simple enforcement tool. Its purpose is not to arrest as many men as possible. It has normative, declarative, preventative and deterrent aims. Its function is to reshape social expectations, reduce demand, and challenge the idea that buying sexual access to women is acceptable. These effects are not captured by arrest or conviction figures alone. They are reflected in declining demand and in fewer men willing to buy once the behaviour is no longer socially or legally endorsed. That kind of change is gradual and uneven, but it is the core purpose of the model, not a side-effect.

Women are not for sale. Equality of the sexes is not possible if men can freely buy access to the bodies of women and girls because he has money and power that they do not. Male sexual urges should not ever be provided infrastructure by any progressive society. No man deserves that and no woman or girl on this planet deserves that. That understanding is the ultimate aim of the Nordic Model.

The current harm reduction approach, where it exists, simply patches the women up and then sends them back to be abused and exploited. Meanwhile organised crime profits from exploiting vulnerable women and children. How on earth can that ever be thought a defensible, desirable practice in the 21st century?

On Ireland, the Bella Caledonia article, which yes, I did read, treats weak enforcement as proof of failure, but that is not how the authorities themselves interpret it. Across the island of Ireland it is estimated that around 100,000 men buy sex annually. Against that backdrop, arrest numbers in the low hundreds over several years do not show that the law “doesn’t work”; they show that it has not been enforced at scale. Both jurisdictions have acknowledged this explicitly. Neither police nor prosecution services in the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland have argued for repealing buyer criminalisation. Instead, they have pointed to lack of resources, enforcement difficulties, and the need to make the law easier to apply. In Northern Ireland in particular, capacity has been directed primarily at trafficking investigations, with little resource devoted to buyer offences. That is a question of prioritisation, not evidence that the approach itself should be abandoned.

And all the links in that article lead to research that cannot and does not show causation. I'd love an explanation as to how, when the door is closed and the punter is alone with the woman, the law that governs prostitution in their country, is going to make him more violent. The violence does not come from the law, it comes from the buyers. Where is the evidence that buyer violence increases under the Nordic Model and decreases when prostitution is commercialised like in Germany or New Zealand? There is none. Is it the good buyer myth again? Good guys don't buy sex. As a radical feminist I do not consider any man who buys access to a woman's body and thereby uses financial or other pressures to buy her consent as a good guy. Good guys understand that consent must be freely given, enthusiastic, informed and reversible. Freely given means no coercion, no control. Reversible means it can be withdrawn without penalties. That does not apply in prostitution. By default then, punters are not good guys. This is made visible on punter websites, although I don't generally recommend reading them because it is just vile how they comment on the women.

A lot of the debate, including in this thread, also keeps circling around whether some women choose prostitution freely. That question is a dead end for policy. What matters is the distribution of coercion and constraint across the system as a whole, not the most privileged minority within it.

Consistently, evidence shows something like this pattern. A very small minority, often estimated at around 2%, believe they can manage the risks and describe themselves as acting with full agency. A much larger group, roughly one third, are driven into prostitution by serious vulnerabilities such as poverty, addiction, homelessness, time in care, or childhood abuse, usually several of these combined. They may make decisions, but those decisions are severely constrained. And the largest group, often estimated at around 60%, are subject to direct coercion or control by pimps, partners, family members, organised crime or traffickers. They have no meaningful agency at all.

Law is not written for the most resilient 2%. It is written to protect the 98% whose involvement is shaped by vulnerability, pressure or outright coercion. Framing the entire system around a small, atypical minority does not expand women’s freedom; it entrenches a market that depends on the exploitation of the many.

It’s also worth addressing countries often held up here as “better” alternatives. Belgium, for example, is frequently praised as a humane commercial system because women are granted certain labour rights. What tends to be omitted is that the same framework allows a woman to refuse what a buyer demands only a limited number of times per month before she can be penalised by a pimp or brothel owner. Given the number of buyers most women see in non-independent settings, that translates in practice into having real say perhaps one day a month, with punishment attached to the rest. That is not meaningful consent or agency; it is regulated compliance.

Similar mythology surrounds New Zealand. Earlier in this thread it was claimed that, after decriminalisation, “the brothels and agencies collapsed” and that “only 45 brothels were left”. That claim is not supported by the evidence. Before decriminalisation, police estimated around 189 licensed commercial sex establishments nationwide. In the first full year after the law changed, 326 brothel licences were granted, with only 12 refusals. Between 2004 and 2012, around 914 licences were issued with a 98% approval rate. (Those are official numbers from the New Zealand parliamentary library as cited by Nordic Model Now.)

That does not indicate collapse; it indicates growth. In addition, New Zealand law allows small owner-operated premises to operate without a licence, which means the total number of commercial premises is unknown, not reduced. Assertions that agencies and brothels disappeared simply are not borne out by the available data.

Finally, on Anna Rajmon’s memoir: it is devastating precisely because it shows how inhumane prostitution itself is. As Dolly96 told us all, Anna was in prostitution both in Czechia, where there is no Nordic model, and in Ireland, where there is. Her account does not demonstrate that buyer criminalisation caused her harm. It demonstrates that prostitution, particularly when mediated by agencies and third parties, is brutal regardless of legal model. Using her experience to argue for buyer impunity is a strange conclusion to draw from her own words.

Disagreeing with the Nordic model is legitimate. But criticising it accurately matters. At the moment, much of the argument against it made by the OP and other pro-prostitution posters rests on claims it does not make, and on failures of enforcement being presented as failures of the law itself.

By the same logic, if I say that some people become drug dealers because they have no alternatives, while others because their alternatives pay less and they want the easy money, does this make me an apologist for the drug trade?

That's not the same logic at all. In the drug trade, the drugs are the product which is being bought and sold. In prostitution, the prostitutes are the product which is being bought and sold.

The equivalent parties to drug dealers are the pimps and sex traffickers, not the prostitutes themselves, so your analogy doesn't work at all. Obviously some pimps and sex traffickers do this because the alternatives pay less and they want easy money. Stating that doesn't make you an apologist for prostitution.

Usually it’s Chinese prostitutes that you’re always arguing only do it for a nice apartment and a better car, @JennyShaw. Ringing the changes for the new year?

Yet again the rhetoric can never decide whether sex workers are exploited and oppressed and we should care terribly about their working conditions; or whether they are canny businesswomen in it for the cash and exploiting the poor vulnerable customers in pursuit of a better lifestyle.

If they’re only doing it for a better lifestyle, and are not in any way oppressed or coerced, then they’ll just have to get a proper job like everyone else for that upgraded lifestyle, then, won’t they? Why should the rest of us who do ordinary proper jobs be upset at this? If you argue that sex workers are just doing a job, then either they accept the increased risk of doing business under the Nordic model, or they do something else. Just like when you increase regulation on landlords, and some of them will decide the new market conditions are too much risk for them and they sell up.

If sex workers are exploited, then we should regulate the pimps and customers who benefit from the exploitation, shouldn’t we? Not make it easier for them to exploit the women. BUT, just like the “Dude” above, one thing you never like is to talk about the “customers” - the MEN who buy sex. All the conversation must fall upon the fantasy figure of the sex worker, and never on the punters. So let’s talk about the MEN who buy sex. Who does it, why do they do it, what kinds of men they are, what they do, who they harm and why, what they shouldn’t do, and whether they should be able to do it at all.

After all, with the analogy with vaping, vaping, like smoking, is a nasty, antisocial and disgusting habit that’s harmful to the person doing it, and unpleasant and harmful for everyone else to be around. It would be a good thing for the poor suffering vape customers to simply stop doing it. They might miss the transient selfish momentary pleasure of sniffing up whatever horrible-smelling concoction they happen to like, but both they and everyone else in society would be better off if it was banned and they had to find healthier ways of living, no?

The reason why I care about the customers of vape shop owners is because they are the ones who will be affected most by changes in the law. They will really suffer if a law comes in that is not thought out properly and is counterproductive.

I don't gloss over seedy realities, in fact I have commented on them many times. It is you who doesn't want to understand the realities. Take the 'Romanian girls' that you mention. In Nordic Model Ireland quite a few Romanian women have been arrested by the police, had their money taken from them and then were deported.

There was a case of two young Romanian women, mentioned in the press and in the interim report on the Nordic Model in Ireland. There were many other cases that didn't get the publicity.

The police raided their flat in Kildare in 2018. There were no men on the premises. They arrested the two women. The judge accepted that they weren't being controlled. He took their money away and deported them. How do you think that other Romanian women in similar circumstances would have reacted to this? They would have thought that they need to work alone or they need to get a pimp.

Ireland is part of the EU and anyone from Romania can come to live there. They don't need a pimp to help them to come to Ireland, but in the case of police raids it is the pimp who will be prosecuted not the women. At least in theory. That person will have to be a career criminal who knows how to avoid detection.

I have mentioned the research of Ann Marie O'Connor on this thread before. As well as her research on a small group of 77 drug addicted street-based prostitutes that I have mentioned on this thread she also did research with bigger groups of prostitutes, more representative of prostitutes in general in Ireland at the time. Although things seem to have got much worse for prostitutes in Ireland since the law changes in 1993 and 2017. This is what she wrote.

“Although financial reasons were given by most of the women for starting work in prostitution, in a number of cases this was not because the women in question were experiencing ‘absolute’ levels of poverty, but rather to improve their material quality of life, for some it was to buy a flat or an apartment, for others “to have a better lifestyle” and/or not to have to “be scrimping all the time”.”

@OldCrone He is quite obviously either a punter, a pimp or a sex trafficker. No other man would spend this much time on a feminist forum arguing that some prostitutes enjoy their work and do it completely voluntarily. Either he makes his income from prostitutes or he likes to use them.

By the same logic, if I say that some people become drug dealers because they have no alternatives, while others because their alternatives pay less and they want the easy money, does this make me an apologist for the drug trade? Does this mean that I think it's glamorous and great? Surely even you can realise how nonsensical what you said is...

Some women do it freely, not because they have no alternatives, but because the alternatives pay less and they want the easy money. The sex worker in the Spitzer scandal charged $4,000. It's not like she was making $40 and that was her only way to survive. Watching how you lot get triggered and try to deny what is self-evident would be funny if it weren't concerning.

As usual, our obsessive pro-prostitution regulars like to paint a picture of “greedy” escorts, Belle du Jour types and go-getting working girls, and like to gloss over the seedy realities of trafficked young Romanian girls stuck in a flat with a pimp, or middle-aged women desperate for cash for their families, or women who are drug-addicted, or controlled by pimp boyfriends, and/or have histories of abuse, trauma and living in the care system. They like to pretend that prostitution is a genuine choice of the empowered woman, as if somehow we don’t know why the vast majority of women do not want to be part of “sex work”.

Neither I nor @JennyShaw have denied nor minimised nor glossed over any of this. You lot should be ashamed and apologise for the intellectually dishonest misrepresentation.

In fact, if your ideological fury hadn't completely blinded you, you would have noticed that one of the very first things I said was that I totally understand the argument whereby, even if some women do it freely, maybe it should still be banned if such women are a tiny minority and if most are trafficked and coerced.

However, you lot disagree with some of the things I have said, so you are now blinded by ideological fury, you ignore everything I said, you put words in my mouth, insult me, attack me, etc. Congratulations!

However, banning something without looking into whether the ban makes things better or worse is a very shallow and hypocritical approach. It absolves the people standing on their high horse, helping them delude themselves they have done the right thing.

I don't care about vape shop owners, I care about their customers.

Yes, and that’s very telling, because in the analogy with vape shop owners, the “customers” are the punters. As with the “dude” above, you really only care that men have the right to buy sex. All the dressed-up justification with the faux-concern about sex workers is only because you’re defending men’s interests in the continuation of the sex trade.

Are you similarly really concerned about the plight of drugs mules and minor dealers, and argue that we should make it “safer” for them to sell drugs, since people will always demand illegal drugs and so we should facilitate a “safer” trade in them?

Are you at all concerned about the women and children that prostitution harms directly (via trafficking or abuse, or living in a family where a woman is prostituted), or indirectly (through the families affected by men’s use of prostitutes)? Or are those women not your concern?

As usual, our obsessive pro-prostitution regulars like to paint a picture of “greedy” escorts, Belle du Jour types and go-getting working girls, and like to gloss over the seedy realities of trafficked young Romanian girls stuck in a flat with a pimp, or middle-aged women desperate for cash for their families, or women who are drug-addicted, or controlled by pimp boyfriends, and/or have histories of abuse, trauma and living in the care system. They like to pretend that prostitution is a genuine choice of the empowered woman, as if somehow we don’t know why the vast majority of women do not want to be part of “sex work”.

Easy. We should care about the safety of workers. When we hear about Chinese migrant workers who were used as cockle pickers and who drowned, how do we respond to that? By banning the sale of cockles?

There are people who pick cockles and have done so for years safely. Migrant workers should identified and helped by the authorities. That doesn't mean deporting them. The traffickers should be prosecuted.

I don't use free choice arguments and I don't use free market arguments. I am always more concerned about the practicalities of legal changes. What happens when you try to ban something?

You mention vaping. Nicotine addiction is one of the most powerful addictions. Some people will want to ban vapes. Or increase the price enormously. I can see the attraction of that but what would the effects be? One of them could be that large numbers of young people have to pay large amounts of money every week. We have to think about things like that. I don't care about vape shop owners, I care about their customers.

The experts that I am talking about are people like Professor Belinda Brooks-Gordon, Dr Petra Boynton, Emily Kenway and Hilary Kinnell. Also, although not academics are the authors of the book Revolting Prostitutes, which deals with many of these issues, Molly Smith and Juno Mac.

@YetAnotherDude doesn't care about vulnerable men any more than he cares about prostitutes.

He is quite obviously either a punter, a pimp or a sex trafficker. No other man would spend this much time on a feminist forum arguing that some prostitutes enjoy their work and do it completely voluntarily. Either he makes his income from prostitutes or he likes to use them.

The Nordic model hasn't reduced demand just as feminism hasn't changed men's attitudes or behaviour. Blaming the Nordic model or feminism is missing the point; they are both attempts to liberate women, not fix men. Men make their own choices.

@catontheironingboard

"If I should care about the wellbeing of sex workers, then surely you’re making a case that sex work is bad? In which case, we should eradicate it, not normalise it."

My point, that I have made over and over again, is that you cannot eradicate it. There are ways that you can decrease the total number of women in prostitution but the Nordic Model isn't one of those ways. The evidence is that the Nordic Model has not reduced demand.

There is no insoluble paradox here. There are many forms of prostitution, some of which are safe and some which aren't. Women working alone are not safe. Women want to work together, but the law in Britain says that is illegal, and the Nordic Model won't change that.

Sex work as it is in Britain today is bad. Bad in the sense that it is unsafe. Many people have recommended that when 2 or 3 women work together that should no longer be recognised by the police as a brothel. The women should not be arrested.

That will not make things perfect, there will still be problems, but it will make things a lot better. Trying to eradicate it should not be considered an option because it just doesn't work.

But if the Punters were vulnerable to abuse from the sellers, would that not also be a reason to shut down those sellers abusing vulnerable men?

@lurkinginadmiration
Do you always resort to personal insults and attacks when you are proven wrong?

I have calmly explained my reasoning and presented evidence, being respectful and without insulting anyone.

Posters here have put words in my mouth, crafted strawman arguments, insulted and attacked me.
What does this say about me and you?

I ask again: do you insult in a similar way the women who say similar things about the Nordic model?

As for women doing it freely and out of greed, thank you for confirming that, when presented with self-evident banalities which challenge your preconceptions and which you cannot deny, you feel so triggered and blinded by ideological fury that your only option is resorting to personal attacks and insults. This makes you an excellent person.

@catontheironingboard fantasies? What fantasies? The Elliott Spitzer scandal is a well documented piece of news. It is factual that the girl was American, not trafficked, and charging 3 to 4,000 dollars.

So if I point out well documented cases about non-trafficked girls charging loads, and dare suspect that maybe they do it because they want that money, it is an incel fantasy???

If I point out that the men spending thousands and thousands on OF girls may be vulnerable men and at least some of them may actually be exploited... That's incel rethoric?

You lot get triggered and angry when trans activists deny facts and evidence. But you do the same.

Wow - just look how quickly the veneer of being concerned for the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable prostitutes under the Nordic Model turns into fantasies about “call girls”, “escorts” and Elliot Spitzer, and then immediately into incel rhetoric about how actually the women are “freely” doing it out of “greed”, and exploiting “vulnerable men”.

This is what it’s all really about, folks. It’s men’s dick rights dressed up in a thin cover of faux-concern about “sex workers”. We all know it, but it’s always ugly and disappointing to see it so nakedly exposed, as it inevitably is on these threads as soon as our pro-prostitution guests forget that they’re meant to be pretending to be all sad for the wellbeing of the women, and let their real thoughts out for all to see.

I suppose it's cheaper to come on here and be a whipping boy than going to your normal provider.

@lurkinginadmiration

No. And no, you didn't out argue me!

You are welcome to disagree with me on the pitfalls of the Nordic model. But note there are plenty of women who share my views : do you folks insult those women the same way?

As for the fact that some women do it freely and out of greed, it is you lot who have been out argued. Your unwillingness to admit a self evident banality which challenges your preconceptions is pathetic.

Do you post in other threads as HowsItGoing? Similar masochistic traits: repeatedly getting comprehensively out-argued, but you just keep coming back for more.

@lurkinginadmiration your poor text comprehension skills are not my fault.

Your intelectual dishonesty in putting words in my mouth is not my fault.

I did not point to any "benefit".

Highlighting that some women do it freely and out of greed is not pointing a benefit.

Highlighting the many NGOs, researchers, academics, experts etc, many of whom female, who point to the limits and shortcomings of the Nordic model is not pointing a benefit.

Highlighting that the Netflix documentary makes it clear those two girls were doing it freely and for money, but still their life style seemed sad rather than glamorous, is not highlighting a benefit.

Saying that there may well be an argument I ban it outright if the women who do it freely are too few and unrepresentative is not pointing a benefit.

But I don't expect the dogmatic to have the open mindedness to understand.

A poster called 'JustAnotherDude' railing at length about the benefits of prostitution for all concerned on a feminist forum principally frequented by women. From one male to another - it's just not a good look, 'Dude'.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate

the glimmer of hope that the "big winner's story" provides is part of what lures people in in the first place, [...] most are at median $180/month

I don't disagree at all.
But this can make you say that those who make big money are an unrepresentative minority.
It can make you try to convince women who want to do it that it's not worth it.

It cannot lead you to deny that some women do it freely and out of greed.
Come on, if you have to pay the rent it's a necessity. If you charge $4,000 per meeting it's greed.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate

Trains can and should be made safe for women.
Of course they should. But, come on, be realistic, there will always be situations where it is more dangerous for women

There is no way to make purchasing or selling sex safe for women.
The women charging loads because that is the only way to make the amount of money they want to make disagree with you.
Do you really think they are all either coerced or too stupid to appreciate the risk?
Do you really think not one of them appreciates the risks but accepts them because she wants to make that kind of money?

Women can and do work in both these trades.
In minuscule amounts. How many women work in removals?

Women entering the SAS and SBS is just a matter of time. It's a given that men will outnumber women
Sure. We'll see. How many women do you think were in the commando which kidnapped Maduro in Caracas?

The funny thing is that, when it comes to trans women and sports, this forum is all about highlighting the biological differences between men and women. Now it seems you are doing the opposite! That's what ideological fury leads to - a complete disregard for facts and evidence.

Also, neither construction nor removals involve paying someone who doesn't want sex to do it anyway.

Again, you are assuming that no one does it willingly.
You think there is no proof for the $10,000 OF model. Fine.
But there is proof that the girl in the Elliott Spitzer scandal (the US attorney who was caught hiring call girls) charged between $3,000 and $4,000. And she was not trafficked. Was she doing it because patriarchy societal oppression unfairness etc etc etc? Or was she doing it because she wanted the money?

And note there are plenty of similarly unqualified men who have no option to leave minimum wage job and charge $$$$ for that kind of work. Yes, there is unfairness and inequality, but not always in the direction you think.

Is irrelevant to a class-based analysis of how pornography and prostitution harm women, just as harping on about a National Lottery rollover winner is irrelevant when discussing the harm caused by gambling. There will always be a tiny minority who manage to make big bucks

Let me get this straight: so now we have gone from "no woman does it willingly" to "I am not going to admit that some do, I am just going to say that it hurts women" ? In other words, once proven wrong, you shift the goalpost??

Multiple things can be true at once.
It may be harmful for most women, many women may be coerced (I have no clue how many), but some women may choose to do it freely.

Your refusal to acknowledge self-evident banalities which challenge your preconceptions is very telling.

In your view of the world, women are always victims.
A woman who chooses to do this not because she's forced but because she wants the money doesn't only shatter your preconception, it turns it around completely, by showing that some women may in fact do unethical things out of greed. I remain of the opinion that, with OF, there are many women exploiting vulnerable men convincing them to fritter away loads of money.