"Sex Work Is Work" is a shit slogan.

[ScreamingMeMe]

I know the intent behind it is that sex work is nothing to be ashamed of, and it absolutely isn't. But there isn't a great deal of nuance to it, is there?

For every self-proclaimed "happy hooker" or Only Fans worker, there will be 1000s of women who have been abused and/or trafficed whose "choice" to do sex work wasn't really a choice at all, whose lives are grim and shit.

"Sex work is work" makes no such distinctions. So can we really expect the men who use sex workers to?

I'm trying to think of a better slogan, but can't come up with anything quite as catchy. But maybe simple, catchy slogans aren't possible for complex issues.

"Don't Shame Sex Workers"?

I dunno...

I’m sure I read recently that post Covid Leeds city council are discontinuing the managed zone. There are currently protests against its closure by trans-feminist groups, so we wait to see what happens, I guess.

If the Nordic Model is so great, why is there so much resistance including from those who sell/have sold sex themselves?

Probably for the same reasons that a lot of abused women end up going back to abusive men? Psychological abuse and trauma is complex, and so are trauma bonds with a situation which may be the only form of life that some women know. Some women may resist what they think of as moralising or “rescuing” for all sorts of reasons: that doesn’t mean they aren’t subject to abuse and trauma.

"Germany decriminalised prostitution."

I'm afraid not, Germany has legalised and regulated sex work same as Austria and The Netherlands. This is very different from complete decrim.

This link has a colour-coded world map for quick reference:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_law

[quote MargaritaPie]"Germany decriminalised prostitution."

I'm afraid not, Germany has legalised and regulated sex work same as Austria and The Netherlands. This is very different from complete decrim.

This link has a colour-coded world map for quick reference:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_law[/quote]
Why don't you read the German entry. You'll find it here: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Deutschland

It's far more accurate than that map which does not reflect the situation in Germany today.

The German entry tells you that prostitution has always been legal in Germany, but it was criminalised because it was considered sittenwidrig i.e. an affront against morality and society.

With the Prostituertengesetz passed in 2001 and enacted in 2002, the legality of prostitution did not change, but prostitution was decriminalised across the entire country. No regulations were passed at the time.

Therefore, it was full decriminalisation not legalisation which led to the horrific problems I already talked about.

The Prostituiertenschutzgesetz which was passed in 2016 in order to undo the harm of full decriminalisation was superseded by the Maßnahmenpaket passed in October 2020 which explicitly prohibits (but does not criminalise) "sexual services". This was swiftly followed by Berlin becoming the first Bundesland to criminalise the buying of sexual services.

A new regulation passed in April 2021, called Viertes Bevölkerungsschutzgesetz prohibits and criminalises the buying and selling of sexual services wherever the incidence of Covid-cases goes over a certain limit. In areas of low cases, prostitution remains prohibited by federal law but is fully decriminalised.

There are now widespread demands to introduce the Nordic Model.

That's the state of play today.

What it means is that the damage that was done in Germany was caused by full decriminalisation. It's disingenuous to point to a law introduced very recently and claim all of the problems are due to that. They are not.

Full decriminalisation of prostitution has not improved the situation for prostitutes in Germany but worsened it on every measure. As I stated before.

And since the argument is about the claim that full decriminalisation improves the situation for prostitutes while any other approach does not improve it (or even worsens it), Germany serves as a powerful counterargument to that claim.

And the new Prostituertenschutzgesetz which although passed in 2016 only took effect in 2017, was written in an official attempt to undo the damage of full decriminalisation. It seeks to really treat sex work as work like any other (every trade in Germany is tightly regulated) and to offer protection to those selling sexual services.

However, it is not currently being properly enforced, partially because it is too expensive for municipalities to do so (many couldn't implement the law due to a lack of resources), partially because those selling sexual services do not trust the law and partially because those running the mega brothels, most of whom should now be prosecuted for running illegal brothels (because they shouldn't get a licence because only people not guilty of trafficking and various other related offences can get a licence) are not being prosecuted because the capacity, the money and possibly the will to do so is not there. The new law, so far, has failed to change anything.

"Germany legalized sex work in 2002.[65] The 2002 law mandated that sex workers register themselves"

This is legalisation, not decriminalisation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization_of_sex_work

"There are now widespread demands to introduce the Nordic Model."

Every country has Nordic-Model supporters, those in Germany seem to be taking advantage of covid to try and sneak in a permanent criminalisation law.

You talk about decrim being so terrible but a lot of human rights, health, anti-STD, anti-trafficking and sex worker groups themselves are campaigning for it: decrimnow.org.uk/open-letter-on-the-nordic-model/

Are you not reading my comments? Prostitution was not illegal in Germany prior to 2002. What is not illegal cannot be legalised with a law because that would be completely redundant. Prostitution was sittenwidrig (against morality and therefore not an acceptable trade) as per legal determination in 1852 but never actually illegal. Prostitutes, pimps and punters were criminalised in various ways, but again, there was no law making the buying and selling of sexual services illegal in Germany.

I am German. I have met both with German lawyers and prostitutes who are trying to undo the damage full decriminalisation has wrought in Germany. I witnessed what life is like for women in the trade in Germany.

I have already explained to you that the terms used are completely different in German. Stop being so dismissive of local knowledge when all you have is Wikipedia entries in English.

Finally, your link is to a UK website. I'm talking about Germany. And no one is sneaking anything in under cover of Covid regulations. For over 20 years very many people have felt deeply ashamed that the German state has enabled the horrific abuses endured by prostitutes in Germany. They collected empirical evidence of the harms and the worsened situation. Exited women and those currently working in the sex trade in Germany got together to raise awareness about the horror that is prostitution in Germany. They are finally being heard and gaining traction precisely because the promises and claims of the full decriminalisation movement have been proven false.

I guess you're ignoring my points because Germany disproves full decrim arguments so very thoroughly. How anyone could keep on demanding full decriminalisation in the face of the horror this has inflicted on prostitutes in Germany I will never understand.

And MargaritaPie, I'd just like to say a few words about Wikipedia and sources.

"Germany legalized sex work in 2002.[65] The 2002 law mandated that sex workers register themselves"

So [65] leads to a short conference paper called Sex work: European legal frameworks.

Full details as follows:

Author(s): ASHWINI SUKTHANKAR, Ruth Frost, Emilija Mitrovic and Jelena Djordjevic
Source: International Union Rights, Vol. 12, No. 4, Sex workers organising (2005), pp. 8-9
Published by: International Centre for Trade Union Rights
Stable URL: www.jstor.org/stable/41936342

This conference paper does not say that Germany legalised prostitution in Germany. It actually quotes a German prostitute explaining how the labour rights arising from decriminalisation are supposed to work (but aren't). It also quotes a German trade unionist explaining that it was decriminalised and adding that the rates of violence and exploitation in prostitution are extremely high.

Not a word about legalisation, the word itself isn't used either.

Wikipedia is only as good as the volunteers who are writing and editing. And as a volunteer editor myself I can tell you that we're not infallible. But aside that, you should always check that a given source actually supports the statement made. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia and in many research papers they far too often don't.

As this one doesn't.

"How anyone could keep on demanding full decriminalisation"

Did you read the DecrimNow letter I linked above? decrimnow.org.uk/open-letter-on-the-nordic-model/

It also mentions violence/murders against sex workers has increased in N.Ireland and France since they introduced the Nordic Model.

I read that weeks ago. I also read the response from Nordic Model Now who that letter misquotes so brazenly. You'll find their short response and plenty of links addressing many of the full decrim claims here:

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

Again, Germany actually disproves at least one of the claims your letter makes straight off the bat - it was increased demand that increased sex trafficking into Germany and that happened because full decriminalisation turned Germany into the brothel of Europe attracting sex tourists from all over the continent.

And Amnesty International took advice on prostitution and sex trafficking from a dude sentenced to jail for sex trafficking. I know what I make of their support of this letter.

Anyway, nothing to say about my comments?

I would strongly urge anyone who is interested in the situation in Germany to read this letter by a recently retired German policeman who spent nearly three decades working in this field. He gives some data on how the nature of women working in prostitution in Germany has completely flipped since 2002, to the point where now about 90% are in exploitative, often abusive situations. That's mainly because 90% of women are now immigrants, most of whom were trafficked into the German sex trade.

nordicmodelnow.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/helmut-sporer-statement-in-english-1.6.21.pdf

His letter was very interesting Charley. It expresses what I somehow suspected but could really verbalise; that there is a conflict between the interests of a small group of verbal, independent prostitutes and the majority of prostitutes who are often foreign, abused and extremely vulnerable. I can see that the first (probably tiny in comparison) group may benefit from decriminalisation or possibly some kind of legislation around it.

However, demand increase and shift of general attitudes/behaviour of men is likely to massively worsen the situation for the much larger and more vulnerable group. Trafficking would also increase massively on the back of it.

I highly doubt that any attempt to register prostitutes, to introduce health checks or pension rights would ever benefit trafficked, young, extremely vulnerable and abused women who seem to be the biggest group. This group would continue to be under the radar but it would increase as pimps would try to make more money on the back of it.

To some extent it may benefit the independent prostitutes. But is that really the right thing to do?

As for the details, I agree that it is so complex and that you really have to have a good understand of the local framework to be able to assess it. Margarita, I admire your passion but it really is essential to fully understand the local regulations and circumstances in order to fully be able to evaluate the local situations. In the Swedish case, even the local support organisation seems to have misunderstood Swedish law.

Generally, German and Swedish law are both driven by a massive underlying source” work (Förarbeten in Swedish) whereas the Anglo Saxon system is driven by case law.

In Sweden (and I guess Germany?) you can also have things that are forbidden under civil law (like a pedestrian crossing a zebra crossing at red light) but which aren’t mentioned in the criminal law section. This means that although they technically are illegal, there is no criminal case and no penalties.

An absence of punishment under criminal law is fundamentally different from any kind of legalisation which I understand to mean some kind of legal framework outlining how something should be done (workers rights etc).

Legalisation or anything which tries to make sex work actual work, drives up demand.

The 'workplace' becomes flooded to meet that demand, which in turn leads to reduced prices paid. So who gets rich?

Demand drives up trafficking. Sex trafficking is the most lucrative business on earth, at least 70% profit for sex workers. They get rich.

I cannot endorse Amnesty International's stance on this, I support abolition entirely. I recently read Sex Trafficking by Siddharth Kara, which was quite enlightening as to the financial benefits for governments.

I wholeheartedly do not believe that you can buy consent to sex. Actual consent I mean, not induced, coerced forbearance. If the punter wouldn't be the prostitutes choice for a sexual partner, without money, then it's not real consent. It's purely an indication of how low society values young women in our society.

Traffickers get rich, NOT SEX WORKERS

I really dislike how in libfem circles, the only sex workers considered worth listening to are the ones who enjoy it/make loads of money from it/think it's empowering. G-d forbid a woman might be doing it purely to survive, or not enjoy it. I did cam work for a bit but had to stop due to health issues, and I'm glad I'm not in a position where I have to do it to survive, because I did not make a lot of money from it. The site where I posted my videos deducted a $45 admin fee for overseas members. I mainly did it because I am insecure, not gonna lie. Only a few women rake it in from OF and you have to 1) put out content very frequently and 2) be prepared to do porn. Unless you're famous already.

I don't hate sex workers, I hate the men who beat, rape and kill them. And they can't go to the police because they risk arrest. One grooming gang victim did go to the police about her abuse and was arrested because they thought she was a prostitute. The police do not give a shit. To quote one policeman: "They are shite killed by shite, who gives a shite?"

Sorry wrong thread!

"Amnesty International took advice on prostitution and sex trafficking from a dude sentenced to jail for sex trafficking."

Mumsnet had a live webchat with Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International UK to answer questions regarding Amnesty Int's 2014 decision to support full decrim.

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

This is her response to whom they consulted to make that decision:

"Our global research HQ consulted a range of groups across Latin America, Asia and Africa. This contains dozens of sex worker groups and dozen more women's rights groups who work at international, regional and domestic level. Here in the UK we're finalising our consultation at the moment but it will definitely include those representing sex workers and women's rights groups."

She was also directly asked if Amnesty "work with pimps":

"We don't work with pimps for financial gain or for any other reason. One of the many brilliant things about AI is that our members pay their subs and that pays for our human rights work."

I think there is a more fundamental question to ask than “is sex work work?” And that is “why is a man being able to orgasm inside another person so important, so prioritised and normalised by society that there is an entire industry in place to service that urge?”

Sex is not a human right. The vast majority of men have working hands. Fleshlights and sex dolls exist. No one will die if they don’t cum. So why do we bow down to the male orgasm and in doing so, allow the exploitation of women and girls (and some men and boys) and the harms done to women as a sex class to continue?

(I put the emphasis on men because they are overwhelmingly the clients, even when the person they are using to ejaculate into is male.)

I never thought I would say this but… it almost seems like in the UK, the radical feminists are all left wing and the lib-fem are more middle/middle-right. I appreciate that the US is fundamentally different.

Here people seem to be arguing that the concept of prostitution should be legalised in a way that suits the more independent, vocal women and some high end escorts. All relatively “nice” and “clean” and choice etc. Those same people seem to have very little consideration for the trafficked women, the migrant women (black job market, hello!!!), the abused women etc.

Which of these two groups (independent, high end or illegal, trafficked migrants) do you think have support and lobby groups? And the pimps of the second group also seem to be chipping in. Seriously, words fail me.

@MargaritaPie

"Amnesty International took advice on prostitution and sex trafficking from a dude sentenced to jail for sex trafficking."

Mumsnet had a live webchat with Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International UK to answer questions regarding Amnesty Int's 2014 decision to support full decrim.

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

This is her response to whom they consulted to make that decision:

"Our global research HQ consulted a range of groups across Latin America, Asia and Africa. This contains dozens of sex worker groups and dozen more women's rights groups who work at international, regional and domestic level. Here in the UK we're finalising our consultation at the moment but it will definitely include those representing sex workers and women's rights groups."

She was also directly asked if Amnesty "work with pimps":

"We don't work with pimps for financial gain or for any other reason. One of the many brilliant things about AI is that our members pay their subs and that pays for our human rights work."

Gosh Amnesty International have a short memory, don't they?

Advised by Alejandra Gill, the Madam of Sullivan, sentenced to 15 years for sex trafficking and exploitation credited not just once but twice as an expert advising Amnesty International on its prostitution. Gill was pivotal in shaping AI policy. Gill is a convicted sex trafficker, pimp and exploiter of over 200 women.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/22/pimp-amnesty-prostitution-policy-sex-trade-decriminalise-brothel-keepers

(The only thing I got wrong was the sex of the pimp.)

on its prostitution policy^.

quote from above link:
"Amnesty’s draft policy also cites as evidence a report written by the NSWP; a report annexe written by the UNAids “advisory group on HIV and sex work” – which is co-chaired by the NSWP; and a World Health Organisation (WHO) report in which Gil is personally acknowledged as one of the “experts” who helped develop its recommendations. The organisation’s logo is on the report’s front cover, alongside those of the WHO, UNAaids and the United Nations Population Fund."

So if I understand correctly a convicted sex trafficker, Alejandra Gil a woman now age 71 from Mexico, was amongst those who gave their views for a report for the NSWP which was amongst the reports taken into consideration by Amnesty Int?

And this fact somehow discredits Amnesty Int completely? Even taken into account Amnesty Int have, as mentioned above, consulted dozens of sex worker groups and women's rights groups local and international?

Alejandra Gil's views would have been one person's views amongst hundreds or even thousands of views, I find it hard to believe Amnesty went with what she said alone, it almost feels like clutching at straws.

If you're doing research that involves consulting a huge number of people all over the world it's inevitable to come across a bad apple here or there.

The claim Nodic Model Now makes wasn't that Amnesty International was advised only by a pimp. It was that an influential voice during the drafting was a pimp, a member of a group who exploit women for their own gain and who should therefore not be advising anyone on policy designed to protect prostitutes, i.e. their own victims from exploitation. Which is the point made in that article of course.

You responded to that by claiming it wasn't true. It is true. And downplaying the pimp's influence by pointing to her being 71 is ageist nonsense. A great many influential people are old. Many powerful people are old. Their power and influence don't magically disappear by stating their age.

I didn't mean anything at all by stating her age. The point of my last post was Amnesty Int have consulted dozens of sex worker/women's rights groups local and international. Doesn't that count for anything?

I think it is shameful sorry. The work that is not the folk. Porn is too.

@MargaritaPie

I didn't mean anything at all by stating her age. The point of my last post was Amnesty Int have consulted dozens of sex worker/women's rights groups local and international. Doesn't that count for anything?

I've got to thank you for persisting, MargaritaPie. Thanks for motivating me to look again at just how Amnesty International went about writing that policy.

So, I was more right than I knew. Amnesty wasn't just advised by one pimp, Alejandra Gill, before writing its draft policy. The policy itself was drafted by another pimp called Douglas Fox. Who very helpfully (or unhelpfully from Amnesty's perspective) even wrote a memo of his involvement. Coz he's very proud of his work.

And after that policy (written by a pimp don't forget) was leaked, a large number of feminist groups, survivor's groups and anti-trafficking organisations protested against it. Members were given a scant three weeks to respond to the leaked proposal, a truly astonishing time limit for something as important as this. The majority of those who responded called for more consultation and of the other respondents, almost as many called for an abolitionist approach like the Nordic Model as were calling for full decriminalisation.

But Amnesty International ignored all criticism of its policy proposal removing only its brazen claim that having sex is a human right and criminalising buyers was a human rights violation. It also omitted all reference to any testimonies and research that contradicted its views.

One of the most egregious examples of its bias towards pimps and punters comes at the end of its resolution on prostitution:

“States can impose legitimate restrictions on the sale of sexual services”

The whole resolution is framed as supporting prostituted men and women. But although it demands that states must not impose legitimate restrictions on the buying of sex (i.e. criminalise pimps and punters), Amnesty International is fine with states criminalising the very sex workers it claims to support. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

There's is then a whole lot of dishonesty and underhand tactics in how Amnesty adopted the policy, including misrepresenting international human rights laws, misrepresenting research, ignoring opposing voices, ignoring survivor testimonies, carrying out a sham consultation denying members a chance to properly engage, inviting those who profit from, traffic and exploit prostitutes to advise on how their victims should be treated and all without even nce acknowledging the conflict of interest inherent in that.

And on and on.

Anyone who wants to read up on how Amnesty International adopted its policy on prostitution will find a comprehensive analysis here:
thefeministahood.wordpress.com/2015/08/24/what-amnesty-did-wrong/

I also recommend reading Julie Bindel's book The Pimping of Prostitution to anyone who wants to understand just who the organisations are that are campaigning for full decriminalisation.

So from the bottom of my heart, thank you again, MargaritaPie. Without you I wouldn't have found this analysis and I wouldn't have been able to share it here on MN.