Sweden and prostitution

[Aradia]

Has anyone seen this article? It talks about how Sweden has decriminalised the selling of sex and criminalised the buying of sex, at the same time increasing funding for resources to support women to get out and re-educating law enforcement. This has led to a dramatic decrease in prostitution and virtually wiped out sex trafficking. The thing that stood out to me as well was that 50% of government at the time they legislated was women. How far away are we from achieving the same? Sadly I suspect we are likely to be waiting a long time before we see similar in this country.

IMO, the Swedish Model is the different approach that is needed.

The women who are most damaged by the sex trade are those who are trafficked - they are the most vulnerable, the most in need of protection. The trafficking of women and girls is big business for organised criminal gangs all over the world. There is a lot of money to be made - but it has been greatly reduced in countries such as Sweden, where demand for prostitutes has been reduced by legislation and education programs promoting sexual equality for women.

The Swedish intelligence police have stated that they have intercepted communications between these organised traffickers saying that Sweden is not an attractive country for them to traffic women and girls into prostitution because of the laws in place. This is a good thing for all women - women's bodies are not commodities to be profited from by others.

NeoFaust has posted about prostitution before, as has OldLadyKnows

It is very common on prostitution threads for men to appear to promote an "objective" view on prostitution. I'm not too concerned with whether they feel welcome or insulted.

There is no debate around the suffering of women but clearly there is a debate about the best policy to ameliorate that suffering

This isn't the case. It is common for pro-pimp lobbyists to deny that women routinely suffer in prostitution. Many deny there are any trafficked women in the UK, for example. Many say prostitution is no worse for women than many other jobs.

I use the term "pro-pimp lobbyist" because I want it to be clear who will benefit from the policies being put forward by these groups. They shroud their language in "sex workers' rights" and "women's agency" and they do it on purpose. The punters and the pimps are invisibilised in this discussion. They don't want people to think about the thugs and gangsters who exploit and harm women.

Amnesty International is another "respected" organisation that has/or is going to support decriminalisation. But they're coming from it from a different angle - the angle that human beings (men) have a human right to sex.

This is a very difficult thing for me to agree with, when there is very clear evidence of gross abuse of women, girls, and even some men and boys, who are exploited, trafficked and abused within the sex trade. We need to protect these people first.

I look at the problem from the stance of reducing violence against women, not from the stance of people having a right to sex.

I think Amnesty International went a bit bonkers here. I won't withdraw my support from them over this as they do a lot of brilliant work otherwise, but having sex is not a right in my book. It's not necessary for sustaining life. Eating and not starving is a right, have a three-course dinner with lobsters and vintage plonk every night isn't.

Buffy: womenagainstrape.net/content/war-opposes-clauses-criminalise-purchase-sexual-se

I can see how this is a very murky area for advocacy groups, Amnesty being another good example.

Flora, you are right, some people do debate the harm of prostitution. I don't think it's much of a debate in FWR. I just meant that even if we don't accept that overall debate, that doesn't mean there is no debate to be had.

I also agree with being vocal about who benefits from the status quo and certain policies. I'm not sure about calling WAR a pimp lobbyist though. Do intentions matter?

Buffy, I have a rather depressing view that violence is at the very heart of sex. I don't know where it's coming from. I don't know if this is the "natural state" of sex. I don't believe in "natural" things very much, so tend to think that patriarchy is the source of poison in sex. So an industry that sells sex is inherently the industry that sells violence. I am sure that there are punters out there who just want a gentle cuddle, but I am guessing they are a minority. I cringe even at the images that accompany articles on this topic. Like the disembodied feet in heels in red light in that Guardian article.

Saying this, there are all sorts of violence out there. I am prepared to believe that the violence of prostitution is preferable to some to violence of extreme poverty. I am not saying that prostitution lifts women out of poverty, especially in the long term, but I can see how short term relief is possible. In the same way that some financially dependent women stay in abusive relationships in order not to end up on the street or a homeless hostel.

I also feel that it's a question of ethics. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand feminist ethics as ethics of paying attention to how your choices affect the lives of other people. To me, feminist ethics is opposed to the capitalist ethic of free and totally individual choice. So we have to be weighing somebody's choice (when it is actually a choice and not trafficking or just continuation of past abuse as it often is) to relieve their poverty through prostitution against the effect this will have on other women.

Also - I am talking about the developed West only here. Developing countries are a totally different matter. With no social safety net, prostitution can often be the only means of physical survival.

I don't want to romantisise sex workers either. I can't call everything just a matter of perspective. So I say that some people really do not understand that they are oppressed. "Women against feminism" is a prime example. Sex workers are just people, not some kind of perfect noble and all-knowing victims.

Buffy, I think that the question of "what sex workers want" is almost meaningless. They are not some kind of uniform mass. I could not possibly hazard to say anything beyond "like all people, they all want a dignified life without poverty and abuse." How that's to be achieved though is what we are debating.

I think a feminist question would rather be "how do different sex worker choices affect others, including other sex workers"?

Buffy, sorry, I have to run. Did not want to disappear suddenly. But I share your thoughts.

In that link dreamingbohemian there is no mention of pimps at all or the harm they do to women in prostitution. They mention "brothel-keeping" only in references to two or more women in indoor prostitution (minimising). They describe trafficking as where women have been "kidnapped and raped" thereby ruling out other types of coercion and trafficking. So yes, I would say WAR are pimp lobbyists (and they also support Julian Assange).

Pimp lobbyists (the intentional ones) have been very effective at recruiting respectable organisations to their cause. "Sex worker" groups are often involved in the reports published by others and then put forward as neutral or objective accounts of the experiences of women in prostitution. It's very disappointing that these organisations do this. I don't believe it's always intentional, sometimes it's just wooly-winded pursuit of harm reduction. I say wooly-minded because if you were going to look at the harm caused to women in prostitution, the first question really should be how the pimps are involved in any organisation you are involved with.

I'm very interested in what Autumn has raised, the question of structural violence, i.e. poverty and marginalisation as a form of violence. I very much subscribe to this view, although I mostly deal with this in foreign contexts. If anyone is interested, this is a good layman's explanation of it, I think: www.structuralviolence.org/structural-violence/

I think this goes back to the OP actually is the Swedish model only possible if we get enough women in power? I think it might also have to do with the broader Scandinavian approach to social problems though they have higher levels of welfare, better health care, etc., which means lower levels of structural violence for their people.

So perhaps the concerns of at least some of those against this bill would be addressed if we did a better job generally of addressing violence and oppression -- if the police did a better job of handling sexual violence, if health services were better, if victims had more help.

Installing the Swedish model without the underlying welfare and health and justice system that Sweden has could be a problem.

That's really interesting Flora, thank you. I agree that 'wooly-minded' is a good term here.

Urgh, WAR have also attacked Eaves in that report as racist. While making no mention of the racism which underlies a great deal of prostitution. In fact, instead of noting that the use of "exotic" and "foreign" in ads for prostitution is evidence of the racism, they criticise Eaves for discussing it in the context of trafficking. Enough said AFAIC.

I am not saying that prostitution lifts women out of poverty, especially in the long term, but I can see how short term relief is possible.

I agree there are huge issues with poverty in many countries however I think the notion of prostitution as relief is misleading for a number of reasons.

• The amount of money prostitutes make is much lower than the general perception of them having sex a few times a week for £100s a time. We've had women on here speaking in support of prostitution whose own experience is anal sex for £30 a time, with £12 of that going to the pimp/boyfriend.

• Women are subject to economic coercion by pimps to get them into prostitution and keep them there. There is often some real or notional debt that the woman must repay.

• Only a relatively small number of women can earn money in prostitution - young, attractive and able bodied. Women not in that category can only earn money if they are willing to do things no-one else would do.

• Women who turn to drugs to cope with the dissociation necessary to industrialise the sexual experience end up just earning to pay for the drugs. It's a vicious circle.

I agree about the problems of who gets to say who "sex workers" are and what they think. I agree with this:

This means that we cannot hope to know what it is like to sell sex if we've not done it, so we should not impose our own feelings of what it must be like and how they should feel about it on people who do.

However, I also believe that if we can think about how we would feel in the same position, we should not assume that women in prostitution would not have the same feelings. Men often talk about women in prostitution not having "hang ups" about sex or being more comfortable / less prudish than other women. However, many women in prostitution have experienced sexual abuse or talk about dissociating themselves from the sex or use drugs or alcohol to help them dissociate. There is also a high incidence of mental health problems among women in prostitution. I think it is a fairly safe assumption that most women who find themselves in prostitution feel the same way about it as any woman not in prostitution would feel.

I agree with that Buffy and I'm not anti-theory.

I think women who think about prostitution should try to put themselves in the position of women in prostitution and think about how it would feel. An exercise might be, if you are in a crowd of random strangers like a supermarket or on a train, look at 8 - 10 random men (not choosing the best looking, just the first 8 or 10 you spot) and think about having sex with them on their terms every day. What would your life need to be like for you to make that choice?

So do we actually think that demand has suddenly disappeared or there is still trafficking with those trafficked still being in danger if not more so. And with technology I just googled Swedish Escorts and there seems to be plenty so cannot see how people can claim the law has made much difference except on the street. The fact the research with monkeys and money showed that male monkeys educated in the use of money started exchanging currency for sexual favours. If a lower primate reacts in that way I cannot see how laws will make any difference. It is illegal for guys in the UK to solict on the street so pretty much shows that there is about 0% chance of change happening. So long as it is illegal you will find traffickers in the best position to profit from it. Where as if it is legal sex workers are more likely to report crimes as in New Zealand.

So can you end demand? Not likely so what is the best way to protect women who work in the industry? Really for me common sense suggests that the best protection is a law that doesn't criminalise. At least that way men may report suspected trafficked victims where as if they are criminals you can be certain that wouldn't.

Yes Buffy agreed.

On a similar note, for those who think legalise, regulate and tax, think about what that means for the women involved. Women in the German mega brothers typically have sex with the first four or five men each shift to pay brothel fees. If they are paying tax, the next two might be for the taxman. Add more regulation and more sex acts must be carried out to pay for those. It's grim.