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

And has been pointed out elsewhere, one presumes that any MSP who has previously paid for the services of a sex worker declares an interest before taking part in the debate and vote. It's their lived experience after all.

You don't understand how the Scottish Parliament works at all.

It isn't a case of legislation being put through on the word of one MSP. There are calls for evidence, there are committees set up to hear lived experiences, consultations, engagement etc etc.

And if you actually read through the papers associated with the Committees, you'll see representation from both sides of the argument. I have many criticisms of the Scottish Parliament but it cannot be said that the information is hard to find. I've attached the Parliament's website page for Stage One of the Bill below -

https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/s6/prostitution-offences-and-support-scotland-bill

As an aside, I am unsurprised that you do not support the Bill.

How many sex workers did Ash Regan consult for her bill? None by the looks of it except maybe 1 or 2 who agree with her. She isn't meeting with any sex worker orgs who represent thousands of sex workers across Scotland and rest of Britain. Yet she meets with the Christian Institute to give them a tour of Scottish Parliament to talk about her bill. A few days ago there were about a dozen news articles about how Catholic Bishops support her bill (what expertise do they have on this exactly and why are they so important???)

Source for image- comment on Scotland4Decrim's Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DRnA9JJDX70/

The evidence by Dr Niina Vuolajärvi makes valid points. As well as issues relating to the criminalising the purchase of sex it also covers a part of her bill relating to "sexual exploitation by a third party". Evidence from other NM countries shows this can make living a normal life difficult for sex workers. If a husband in Sweden eats food paid for by his sex worker wife's wages or looks after his children while his sex worker wife is working he can be arrested for "pimping". Also in Sweden landlords are required by law to evict sex workers if the police find out, this has led to sex workers being evicted and made homeless and in one case a landlord blackmailing a sex worker to give him a free service.

Promised support services for sex workers in NM countries like Sweden, N. Ireland, ROI etc have not materialised.

bills.parliament.uk/publications/60710/documents/6485

@KitWyn The female academic - Niina Vuolajärvi - has made a career out of saying things that those men who want to buy/sell the bodies of women and girls want to hear. That's her niche. That's how she makes her living.

Always easier to imply there is some kind of big conspiracy behind it all, rather than admit that maybe it is perfectly possible to look at the evidence and reach, in good faith, a different conclusion from yours, right?

They don't read as scientific papers more a set of lawyer's briefs to defend a guilty client.

May I ask what your academic experience in matters of sociology, migration, demographics, women studies etc is?

She has published in peer-reviewed journals, whose editors must have disagreed with your assessment.

There are of course a gazillion topics where there is no consensus, where things are not clear cut and where different people reach different conclusions.

Which is why I have been shouting from the rooftops: does any one know of other research or other reports which contradict these findings?
it would be interesting to read research and reports showing that the Nordic model works.
Just to be clear, are you or are you not aware of any such research and reports?

What we do know is that these 129 will not be a representative or random sample. By definition she can't access the most vulnerable prostitutes.

I hear you. So the question becomes: how different is the universe of sex workers from the sample she interviewed?
I hear you that she may have overestimated how "happy" sex workers are.
But the main conclusion is not that, it's that the Nordic model doesn't work and actually increases risks and dangers.

So, let's see, if the "happier" unrepresentative sex workers find that the Nordic model has made things more dangerous for them, would you not say that for the most vulnerable ones it is even worse?

I struggle to conceive scenarios in which the "happier" sex workers find that the Nordic model makes things worse, but the most vulnerable and exploited ones find that it makes things better!!! Can you elaborate please?

Same thing for reducing demand: where is the proof that it reduces demand?

We'd also, by criminalising buyers, be telling all women and girls that female bodies should not be rented by the hour, to be used/abused for sex by men. Because such an act is loathsome and wrong. We are (or should be) better than that.

Again: it seems to me you are more concerned with asserting an abstract moral principle, than with bothering looking into whether a reform works, whether it makes things better or worse

The female academic - Niina Vuolajärvi - has made a career out of saying things that those men who want to buy/sell the bodies of women and girls want to hear. That's her niche. That's how she makes her living.

Her 'research' reports are cherry-picked nonsense. They read as if she first decided the conclusions must be "Don't criminalise sex buyers", then she worked backwards from this. They don't read as scientific papers more a set of lawyer's briefs to defend a guilty client.

There's no mind as hard to change as the one whose very livelihood depends on keeping the status quo. Vuolajärvi is the polar opposite of a Terf and Swerf. That's her brand. Pro sex-work and pro-trans.

How many prostitutes did Vuolajärvi interview for her main report "Criminalising the Sex Buyer - Experiences from the Nordic Region"? 129. That's all. How did she find the 129? It's hard to get an answer on this. Some weasel words about fieldwork, personal connections, social media and recommendations from NGOs & colleagues. All very unsatisfactory.

What we do know is that these 129 will not be a representative or random sample. By definition she can't access the most vulnerable prostitutes. They're very tightly controlled, and kept hidden by their pimps and 'owners'. These women don't get to chat with nice 'academics' about their experiences.

So what she uses is a set of 129 interviews firmly skewed towards the 'happy hooker' cliché. Her papers tell us nothing useful about the bulk of this cruel and exploitative industry. Worse, her research gives cover for useful idiots, traffickers, pimps and punters, who can point at her 'conclusions' and argue for decriminalisation.

If we made buying sex illegal, we'd be telling the minority of men that buy sex, that what they're doing is very wrong. Hopefully some of these men will respect the rule of law, and then stop. If none of them do, well, that's further evidence of the punters' moral degeneracy and their shocking lack of respect for society and others in general.

We'd also, by criminalising buyers, be telling all women and girls that female bodies should not be rented by the hour, to be used/abused for sex by men. Because such an act is loathsome and wrong. We are (or should be) better than that.

Consent to sex must be happily, enthusiastically and freely given. Else it isn't consent, and the sex is an act of violence. We should criminalise men who commit such acts of violence.

@OldCrone You seem very keen that men who pay to rape women shouldn't be criminalised. Why is that?

Have I been speaking to a wall until now?

I have explained a gazillion times why it doesn't work, and I have explained a gazillion times that it's not my idea, but the conclusion reached by academics and NGO. I have posted loads of links. The last one just a few posts above.

Have you read any of those? Yes or no?

If you disagree with all the research, if you think it's flawed, if you know of other research reaching different conclusions, like I said, let's talk about it. No one has offered any such evidence, however.

Your question is captious and is asked in bad faith.
It implies I may have some kind of sinister, ulterior motive.
It ignores all the solid research which has led me to that conclusion.

So do you agree that it's not the model itself which is flawed, but the way it's implemented?

No. Those who study it professionally have all concluded that there is no implementation in which criminalising the buyers, which is the very basis of the Nordic model doesn't make things worse.

What can and should change, and needn't depend on whether we criminalise the buyers or not, are things like:

• coming down like a ton of bricks on all the "agencies", pimps traffickers etc. Like I said, how easy is it for a foreign woman with no visa and no proof of income to rent a place? Are there gangs sorting out their accommodation, too?
• not criminalising women who work together and making a distinction between two women working together for safety vs a brothel managed by a pimp who hires "security"
• programs of outreach, education, etc. Like the Bristol police seems to be doing.

If your priority is to actually improve things, then follow the academics' and the NGOs' recommendations of not criminalising sex buyers.

You seem very keen that men who pay to rape women shouldn't be criminalised. Why is that?

In fact, the Bristol police mentioned in the article made a better job at outreach than many Nordic police forces.

So do you agree that it's not the model itself which is flawed, but the way it's implemented?

@KitWyn You have described your moral code. Perfect. Fantastic.
But what do you say to all the academics and NGOs who have concluded that the Nordic model does NOT work?

The Nordic Model isn't perfect, but it's an excellent start.

No, it's not. Again: read the first few pages of that academic's speech to the British Parliament: https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/60710/documents/6485

She explains very well why the model does NOT work.

The difference, I think, is that you seem more concerned with abstract ideals.
I, however, am more concerned with how things are in practice.

You find the sex industry revolting, despicable, immoral..
I don't challenge these views.
I simply observe that the Nordic model makes things worse

So it all comes down to what your priorities are:

• If your priorities are to ban what you find immoral, without bothering looking at the actual consequences, by all means, adopt the Nordic model, and give the finger to all the women who end up in a worse situation because of that
• If your priority is to actually improve things, then follow the academics' and the NGOs' recommendations of not criminalising sex buyers. By all means, come down like a ton of bricks on all the "agencies", pimps traffickers etc who exploit sex workers. But don't follow a model which has failed.

Sadly, I do not see a third option.

To be clear, I am open to it. If there is any research, report, investigation etc that reaches different conclusions, let's hear it. We have heard none of the kind until now.

@Dumbo12 The men were charged with assault, nothing about pimping, nothing about under age sex, they were given suspended sentences.

That is terrible, but it has nothing to do with the Nordic model.
You don't need the Nordic model to prosecute pimps and traffickers
In fact, the Bristol police mentioned in the article made a better job at outreach than many Nordic police forces.

Absolutely, it is sad to see that misogyny remains so at large. I gave witness statements and sat in over 10 hours of witness statement by a girl of 15, she had been initially trafficked and pimped by her sister and sisters boyfriend, at age 12. She apparently "owed" the pimp and his friend, so they beat her up. I assisted in removing her from this situation. The men were charged with assault, nothing about pimping, nothing about under age sex, they were given suspended sentences. This was decades ago and as far as I can see, nothing has changed.

Yet what I described are my daughter's observations, and experiences, based on when she was there about 10 years ago. Legal or not, this is what happens.

And the now joyously empowered prostitutes could do whatever they wanted. Including not being raped, beaten or murdered, and then choosing to marry a kind, rich & handsome punter. Everyone lived happily ever after.
The End.

If a man has to pay for sex, it is by definition unwanted sex. If the woman desired both him and the sexual act, no payment would be necessary. Unwanted sex is an act of violence. We know this.

Meaningful consent cannot be bought. True consent requires happy enthusiastic and un-coerced agreement to sex. That doesn't happen, that can't happen, in prostitution.

The Nordic Model isn't perfect, but it's an excellent start. Men who buy sex are, thankfully a minority. But they are a vile, repulsive & abusive minority without respect for women. Their choices make the world worse for all women and girls, not just those they 'buy'. Sex buyers should be criminals, because of the severe harm caused by their behaviour. It would be justice.

You added this with an edit. This is against the rules. Edits are meant for typos, not to change the content.

You're welcome to report my post.

But to be clear, I didn't change the content, I just added another short comment, and forgot to put ETA in front of it. Lots of people do this with their posts, and I wasn't aware it was against the rules. But if you think it is, report it and see what MNHQ says.

This is about street sex work which since 2007 is already illegal, in Britain it makes up a small minority- most takes place indoors now.

@OldCrone

"There. I've answered your questions. Now perhaps you could answer mine. Why do you think that the only solution to the Nordic model not working as intended is to make everything legal so that punters, pimps and traffickers can do whatever they want, regardless of the harm to women?"

It's not true that with decriminalisation punters, pimps and traffickers can do whatever they want. With decriminalisation the women can do whatever they want. If they want to work without a pimp they can do that. They don't need a pimp. They can work together for safety, making the rules for themselves and keeping the profits for themselves.

As I said earlier on in this thread, in Ireland the police have been very busy since 2017. There were lots of arrests, many fewer prosecutions and few convictions. So the only way they can get the number of convictions up is to give the police more powers, but I don't believe that the people of Ireland want that.

Have you seen what estate agents do to keep themselves safe? In America some of them take concealed weapons when they meet up with potential clients. There have been murders and abductions of female estate agents in this country. You would hope that they would establish the identity of a male client before they go to meet him, maybe take a photocopy of his passport or something.

Sex workers can't usually do that, although I have read that some of them do. They have money on the premises which makes them a target for gangs. Social workers and health workers are also advised never to be alone with a man. But we stop sex workers from being able to use the same means to keep themselves safe as estate agents, social workers and health workers.

You are right in thinking that surveys can't be taken at face value. Proponents of the Nordic Model are very keen to say that the surveys show that it is working in Sweden. They are very selective in which of these statistics they tell people about. So for example MP Sarah Champion in a debate in 2018 said

"There is extensive evidence of the effectiveness of the sex buyer law in reducing demand. In Sweden, which was the first country to adopt an “end demand” approach back in 1999, anonymous surveys conducted in 1996 and 2008 revealed that the proportion of men in Sweden who reported paying for sex dropped from 13% to 8% in that period. The most recent study of prevalence rates found that 0.8% of men in Sweden had paid for sex in the previous 12 months, which is the smallest proportion recorded in two decades and the lowest in Europe."

Everything she said is incorrect. Like most statistics, these ones rise and fall. Proponents of NM tell you about the falls but they don't tell you about the rises. The drop from 13% to 8% isn't 'the proportion of men in Sweden who reported paying for sex', it is the proportion of men in Sweden who reported having paid for sex at some time in their life.

People have pointed out that even if nobody had paid for sex since 1999 the 13% figure could not have dropped to 8% in less than 10 years. So something has gone wrong somewhere. Part of the problem could be that in the 1996 survey there would have been old men who were young men during the Second World War. They would not have been able to participate in the next survey in 2008 because they would have been to old. If there was a culture of paying for sex among conscripts in Sweden in the 1940s that could explain why the 1996 figure is high and the 2008 figure is lower, nothing to do with the 1999 law. Sweden conscripted lots of men during WW2 even though they were neutral.

The proportion of men in Sweden who reported paying for sex rose from 1.3% to 1.8%. The proportion of men in Sweden who reported having paid for sex at some time in their life dropped in the same period but then increased in the next survey. The 0.8% for the 2014 survey is not the lowest in Europe. That seems to be a complete fabrication. Then you have to add the statistics from the same surveys about the proportion of Swedish women who have been paid for sex at some time in their life, which show an enormous increase.

@OldCrone Nitpicking isn't clever.

You added this with an edit. This is against the rules. Edits are meant for typos, not to change the content.

Regardless, it is not nit-picking at all.

The article seems to imply 3 things which are wrong:

• You need the Nordic model to prosecute street prostitution. You don't.
• You need the Nordic model for outreach programs and to help sex workers. You don't.
• The Nordic model meets its promise of helping sex workers. It does not. See the academic I mentioned. In fact, the Bristol police seem to be doing a better job at it

A more appropriate description would have been:

Bristol police is prosecuting what is already illegal under the English model, and engages in a commendable outreach program, doing a better job at it than the police forces of Nordic countries

It just makes you look as though you don't understand what's being discussed.

Funny. I think the above proves I am not the one with a poor understanding.

If the law was changed, then the term would be accurate. Thankfully there are people like Ash Reagan trying to change the law! Looks like everyone wants the same thing then, doesn’t it?

What you are talking about is rare, what is more common is women working together without pimps, making the rules for themselves and keeping the profits for themselves. It will always be illegal in New Zealand for gangs to control women through drugs.

It’s a good article. It shows that if there’s the will, then the tide can slowly be turned. It has to be chipped away at slowly and make men think twice before going looking to purchase sex.

@OldCrone Read the article and the quotes from the police about why they use this term.

I did. The article says

we primarily take the Nordic approach - so we look to safeguard the women and disrupt the men who are coming into the area to purchase sex.

There is nothing "Nordic" about this. Buying sex in the streets is already illegal under English law. In fact, it may have been illegal since before the Nordic model was introduced.

So acting against the men who buy sex in the street, i.e. acting against the men who break English law, has nothing to do with the Nordic model.

Establishing rapport with the sex workers is commendable, but you don't need the Nordic model to do that.

In fact, the LSE researcher concluded that the police in Nordic model countries tends not to do that in practice!

Read the article and the quotes from the police about why they use this term.

Nitpicking isn't clever. It just makes you look as though you don't understand what's being discussed.

Unusually, the 'similar threads' are actually about similar topics and recent. Like this thread from November about Germany, described as the 'brothel of Europe'.

Article about politicans in Germany rethinking the decision to legalise prostitution | Mumsnet

'Brothel of Europe': Germany reopens debate on sex work | Euractiv

A renewed debate over prostitution has emerged in Germany after Bundestag President Julia Klöckner described the country as the “brothel of Europe” earlier this week, and Health Minister Nina Warken backed a ban on purchasing sex.

Germany’s Health Minister Warken, a Christian Democrat, said that Germany “cannot remain the brothel of Europe” on Wednesday. Like Klöckner, she called for adopting the so-called Nordic model, which criminalises the purchase of sex while decriminalising sex workers. That model is in place in Sweden, Norway, France, and Ireland.

“Like other countries, Germany needs a criminal ban on buying sex for clients,” Warken said, adding that sex workers should remain exempt from prosecution and exit programmes would be expanded.

“It is not only about prohibition; it is also about prevention, exit programmes, and prosecution,” Wege told Euractiv. While bans are always contested, she argued that “sometimes we need strong signals to reset boundaries”.

That title is highly misleading.

There cannot be a Nordic approach in England because the Nordic model is based on criminalising the buyers.
However, buying sex is legal in England.

So the police cannot act against something which is legal!!

What the Bristol police is doing is acting against buying and selling in the street, which is illegal in England.

So, if anything, the Bristol police applies the English model, if we wanna call it that, not the Nordic one.

Note that these are just facts. Regardless of your opinions on this matter, regardless of what you think of the Nordic model, English police cannot apply a model which criminalises something which is legal under English law.