Punish the men who pay for sex

[cupcaske123]

Great article on the dangers of sex work and Labour's pledge to halve violence against women.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/25/punish-the-men-who-pay-for-sex-rather-than-the-women-lured-into-that-life

I've worked with prostituted women, in more than one country, for decades. I don't need to listen to you. I've seen what happens. It's not a job.

So have many others, you aren't the only one. There is a very strong resistance to the Nordic Model including from sexworkers themselves and those who work with them and I think all views should be considered including decriminalisation.

Of course there are sex workers who want buying sex decriminalized. They don't want their customers being arrested because it hurts trade.
It's not unlike saying drug dealers want buying drugs discriminalized. That applies even if they are slaving away for the cartels who are keeping most of the profits. They just want to keep their jobs and avoid getting killed for not moving enough product. The same can be true of trafficked women.

and orgs about human rights, health, HIV/STD and trafficking support decriminalisation too.

Why would a HIV org (e.g. HIV Scotland, STOPAIDs, UNAIDs) support decrim and oppose the Nordic Model? Could it be in practice the Nordic Model spreads STDs just as much as outright criminalisation and because condoms are used as evidence in the Nordic Model?

The reasons why a large number of people and orgs support decrim and oppose the Nordic Model should be listened to as well.

In 2022 Belgium passed decriminalisation, showing that the Nordic Model isn't the only option to be considered.

Source, UTSOPI the Belgian Union of Sex Workers.
https://www.utsopi.be/our-work/decriminalisation

I take no issue with any of that, only with the idea that sex workers being in favour of decriminalization is proof of anything other than self interest.

Strange how they might want to prioritize their own safety. Don't want to be alone in a flat with a man you don't know? Want to have your friend in the next room to make sure you are safe? Tough. Not allowed.

Strange how they might want to prioritize their own safety.

Anti-Nordic men always highlight this part. Like women's safety is really important to them. I've read hundreds of reports of rapes, robberies, beatings, kidnapping and more from prostituted women, going about their 'job'. From punters and pimps. I've seen a pregnant woman beaten by her 'boyfriend' because she didn't bring in enough money for his drugs.

Safety my arse. Throw all the pimps, punters and traffickers in the deepest hole in the ground you can find as far as I'm concerned. No need for women working together if the violent men can't get near them. The only reason they need protection is male violence.

Sorry, but I'm not sure why you posted this in response to what I said.

Throw all the pimps, punters and traffickers in the deepest hole in the ground you can find as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure what system you are advocating but it's not the Nordic model. In Sweden punters were only ever given a fine. The nearest seems to be the American system. America has an enormous prison population and enormous social problems.

Are you saying that 'Anti-Nordic men' are pimps, punters and traffickers? Pimps, punters and traffickers beat women therefore we don't have to listen to them when they talk about women's safety.

Alright, don't listen to any men then. If that's what you want. Most of the experts who are against the Nordic model are women. The only one that I can think of is Professor Nicola Mai who, despite his name, is a man.

Listen to Professor Belinda Brooks-Gordon, Dr Petra Boynton, Teela Sanders, Laura Agustin, Melissa Gira Grant, Molly Smith, Juno Mac, Emily Kenway, Amia Srinivasan and Brooke Magnanti.

The Nordic model does not reduce the number of pimps, punters and traffickers. The American model doesn't either.

When you said that sex workers are motivated by self interest, you seem to think that they are greedy and uninterested in society.

Women don't want to be arrested, especially if they have children. If they work for a pimp and the police turn up, they can tell the police that they are not involved in the organisation of the establishment and then theoretically the police will leave them alone. It isn't illegal to be a sex worker.

If they say we work together and don't have a pimp then they are guilty of brothel keeping. Pimps don't want decrim because then women won't need them.

The choices for sex workers are work for a pimp, work with other women and risk being arrested, or work alone and risk being attacked. Women who are estate agents, health workers or social workers can work together. They have been attacked too. Why should sex workers not be allowed to?

That's not what I meant.
The person I responded to was claiming the alleged fact that sex workers want buying sex decriminalized is proof that such decriminalization is beneficial to society. I was just saying that it can more likely be explained by them wanting to keep their clientele. That's hardly greedy. It's perfectly understandable.

I have nothing against sex workers and do not want providing sex for pay criminalized under any circumstances.
I only want traffickers and punters punished.

That's not what I meant.

Of course it bloody wasn't. @SuePine69 is treating this like 6th form debating. I don't have to read a load of apologists. I've worked with, been friends with, supported and loved people who've worked in prostitution for decades, in more than one country. Pimps and punters are criminals, regardless of whether it is codified. They are abusive scum and arguing statistics misses the point. They are doing something so reprehensible, that it should be criminal.

Agreed.
The assumption seems to be that if you don't support decriminalization of buying sex, that means you're in favour of rules against prostitutes working together.

The majority of 'I am/was an escorts AMA' Ops here on mumsnet, claim to have done so willingly for the money. Some regret it, some don't. But hardly anyone was actually coerced.

It was a way of making a lot of money relative to few hours of work. They all had the choice of some minimum wage drudgery, but they chose sw because it paid more.

Regardless of one's feelings on sw on the whole, to pretend it's mainly coerced or trafficked women is to be completely untethered from reality. Not to mention the not-insignificant amount of men/tw who engage in sw, who are certainly not trafficked.

Ugh it's the thought of having to shag or give a BJ to some guy that hasn't bothered to wash. 🤢 🤮 would be enough to put most women off .

To imagine AMA posts on MN are the same as statistics is what is untethered from reality.

Young males absolutely do get trafficked.
You don't even know the basic facts about the industry, clearly.

Nobody actually knows the true numbers, because victims rarely tell. Then there's the reality that while a sex worker may not be working for a pimp right now at some point s/he probably was.

Newsflash- sexworkers have a right to deny consent, and also have a right to end the booking and ask the client to leave for any reason.

In an ideal world.

If anyone acts without consent there's a word for that, sexworker or not.

You are aware sexworkers can refuse consent and be raped the same as anyone who isn't a sexworker?

and secure a conviction ???

Trafficked sex workers can't refuse consent, women with pimps can't refuse consent, women who will starve or have a habit, can't refuse consent, women being threatened with violence can't refuse consent.

Sex work by its nature is more conducive to sexual assault and abuse as these women are often powerless and the men who pay don't have any respect for them. They may also have kinks and abusive fantasies.

To suggest that women can simply say no, comes across as very naive.

I think for me a big piece of this is also that the law plays a significant role in setting out what our expectations and standards are as a society. I understand that people feel that pragmatism sometimes needs to be prioritised but if the buying of sex is decriminalised then we as a society are saying that it's acceptable, when it isn't.

I think this myth of joyful sex workers is deeply harmful; if it was true we would see a much higher number of sex workers from wealthy and middle class backgrounds, which isn't the case. Even sex workers who 'choose' sex work are often doing so because they have little other option or are in financial straits. That's not a free and fair choice.

In New Zealand, decriminalisation, a sex worker won a 6 figure payout in a sexual harassment case.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55298303

In a report on Nordic Model Sweden by UN HIV and the Law, where large amounts of funds are given to attempt to police the buying of sex (which btw leaves less money for social work services as the money has to come from somewhere) in the first 2,000 arrests of buying sex suspicion only 2 were convicted (because they admitted to it, and they received a low fine).

Turns out even throwing large amounts of funding to policing it and having the police stalk and watch the homes of sex workers (this is what they do btw, Nordic Model country police make hoax bookings posing as clients to find their addresses) "evidence to prove a crime is nearly unattainable. Workers do not consider themselves to be victims and are almost always unwilling to testify against their clients".

https://hivlawcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FinalReport-RisksRightsHealth-EN.pdf page 38

So if you aren't wasting resources to give a low fine to the 0.2% of arrested sex buyers, you can actually focus on securing a conviction for sexworkers who are victims of e.g. sexual harassment.

This just goes to show how little people understand about prostitution. A sex worker can tell a man to wash, or she can wash him. They can and they do.

There is a difference between oral sex with a condom, oral sex without a condom and CIM. CIM means 'cum in mouth'. Most sex workers don't do CIM and the ones that do charge a lot more for it.

In addition, many sex workers only do domination. If you don't believe me, read the book 'Paid For' by Rachel Moran. Although Rachel Moran is pro Nordic model it is interesting what her actual experience was.

She did domination nearly all the time, having penetrative sex only 'sporadically' and even then that was only after the change in the law in Ireland in 1993 that restricted options for sex workers.

She said that oral sex for the women she knew was always with condoms, and there was one woman she knew who always refused to do oral sex. She didn't like it so she didn't do it. This is the reality.

This. I'm ignoring the apologists because their motivation is very clear. If they only comment on FWR to tell women off for not liking paid 'consent' (i.e. rape) and that men should be allowed in all women's spaces, I can safely assume they are a misogynist, not worth my time.

I don't have to read books to understand, I know and have known many many women who have done it. From a woman who owned her own dungeon and never had sex, to many street level (desperate and scared) prostituted women.

Trigger warning for the next bit.

I've had to talk to one's bereaved sister after she died of an overdose. Caused by the drugs she was so desperate to source that she went to work crying and tear-stained. She still found punters because rapist men enjoy that.