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.

This is a fascinating and thought-provoking thread, thank you.

The thing is, I can imagine that if you asked just about any woman working as a prostitute if she supported the Swedish model, the answer would be no, wouldn't it? Because that would be taking away her livelihood - how, then, would she repay her debt to her pimp/trafficker, support her children, pay for her drug habit, fund her PhD, or whatever?

It's like if you had a group of fruit-pickers who were being exploited, working in appallingly unsafe conditions etc and you said to them, "Okay, we're going to automate the whole process so there will be no more need for fruit-pickers," they'd be up in arms.

So I guess what I am trying to say is that even if the voices in favour of legalisation are the voices of the "pimp lobby", I'm not convinced that the voices of prostitutes themselves would be so very different.

I think in order to get the support of prostitutes themselves, there would have to be much clearer avenues of rehabilitation open to them. But it's hard to see what kind of rehabilitation you could offer a woman who's happily earning £500 a night servicing merchant bankers in five-star hotels. And while those women are a tiny, tiny minority, they're the vocal ones.

And part of me thinks, who are we to stop those women making money in this way if they choose? If we can eliminate exploitation by pimps and traffickers, if we can make the process safe, and/or put in place wage structures that reflect the danger inherent in the work (as we do with workers on oil rigs, firefighters etc), if we have support structures in place that help women leave the industry when they choose, then why couldn't it be made okay?

I don't like the idea of men buying sex with women, I don't for one moment support the idea that they have a human right to sex, but I do think there is validity in the argument that if a woman makes a genuine choice to sell her body, she shouldn't be prevented from doing so.

I do a lot of work for women in prostitution who find themselves in need of a lawyer. The women I meet in the CJS have uniformly said they want to exit - although I recognise that this may suffer from What You Tell Your Lawyer Syndrome - and the women I meet in the immigration system just want to be believed.

It makes me angry when I see organisations comprising people who do not sell sex (pimps, "managers," lap-dancers etc) claiming to be the One True Voice of those who do, because the women I work for have zero voice. Saying this on twitter or similar gets you accused of "whorephobia."

Buffy I think "demand" is demand for sex absolutely on the punter's terms: when he wants it, with whom he wants it, and what acts will be involved.

The steak/burger analogy is vile, but that's exactly what it is, it's like the man thinks, "I'm hungry, I know if I ask my wife to cook me a meal she will say no and I can't be bothered to make myself a sandwich, so I'll browse some menus and decide what I want to eat and where, knowing my order will be fulfilled to the letter. Plus I get an extra frisson of pleasure from eating out that I don't get when I eat at home."

My ex was a habitual user of prostitutes, and that was pretty much his thought process. Just thinking about it makes me want to bath.

Only read the first few posts so apologies of this been answered already and apologies if this a is dumb question but how can one be decriminalised and not the other?

Isn't that like saying its legal to sell drugs but not to buy them?

OK that makes sense. Told you it was a dumb question

It's not a dumb question, it's actually at the heart of a lot of debates, with drugs as well. Basically if you want to reduce a certain activity (whether drugs or prostitution), is it better to punish the person selling or the person buying?

In both cases there is a growing feeling that the more vulnerable side of the equation (the sellers in prostitution and the buyers in drugs) should not be prosecuted. The question then is whether you prosecute the other side of the transaction, or do you just decriminalise the whole activity and try to regulate it in other ways.

What's interesting is that there are a lot of different experiments going on in drugs policy around the world, to provide some evidence so that good policies can be made going forward. It doesn't sound like there are lots of different models for prostitution, is that right?

The law here is a bit random, it's made up of little bits of different statutes. There's a remarkably good summary on wikipedia here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_Kingdom

The two main models available seem to be the Nordic model and the New Zealand model, which involves full legalisation, including of pimping, although coercion remains a crime (good of them).

Germany adopted the NZ model and this happened: s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/welcome-to-paradise/

What troubles me about this whole debate is how everyone claims to know what the 'sex workers' want. But - and this is my interpretation as someone who conducts research with excluded groups - I don't hear their voices in this. I hear them being spoken for by various groups and for various (implicit and explicit) reasons. Including us, here. This concerns me greatly.

But one voice of a sex-worker organisation was cited right near the beginning of the thread - and then universally shouted down as nothing but "pimp lobby", because they dared to say the opposite of what we say "for" them. And obviously we know better than they do.

To be sure, that's only one organisation, and it doesn't speak for all or, AFAIK, even most sex workers. But it's a start. If someone has information or a policy statement from another organisation consisting of sex workers themselves, then we can consider that too. And if it gives the opposite POV, we can talk about why.

But you can't have it both ways. You can't say how important it is to listen to what sex workers themselves say, and then immediately reject and vilify them the moment they fail to say what you want them to say. Doing so in response to that Guardian article, which was about highlighting exactly that problem, is particularly ironic.

And the basis of the ECP's support for legalisation of brothels should be obvious to anyone who has the slightest clue about the issue. One of the most obscene things about current prostitution law in the UK is that it's legal to buy sex, but illegal for the person selling sex to do many of the things they need to do to make themselves safe. Foremost among these is working together in a single establishment. Good old sexual shame making sure the punters can get what they want as long as we can keep it underground and pretend it doesn't exist.

And do people really think that because a prostitute is not working in a building called a "brothel", she's less likely to be being exploited by a pimp?

Obviously there are arguments to be had, and a range of employment situations possible, with prostitution as there are in any industry. But the ECP seem to believe that prostitutes would be better off overall with the right to work in larger groups under a single roof, and I see no reason to doubt them.

Do you include exited prostitutes in that, Homer? Because their voices are out there - but quickly disparaged by those who might make money out of the sex trade.

Rebecca Mott's powerful words have already been posted on this thread, I would also include Rachel Moran's words, and all of Space's words. I would also include the words of Melissa Farley and Sheila Jeffreys - all of whom are vilified by the pro-pimp lobby, for no good reason other than they speak out for exploited women.

Welcome to MN, of course, Homer. Or did you NC to contribute to this thread, maybe 'cause the feminists are all so scary?

Sabrina -

Of course the voices of ex-prostitutes are important too. We should be open to building up the most complete and accurate picture we can of what the people actually affected say they want. And of course there will be contradictions and a range of views within that.

The only thing I would say is that we'd have to recognise the limitations of single testimonies by individuals. I don't know what the membership is of the ECP or the international Prostitute's Collective of which they are a part, but obviously if you have an organisation with thousands of members who broadly back its main policies, that holds more weight and accounts for a greater range of the profession, than one single statement by an individual. We can after all, find plenty of individual "happy hooker" stories too, but something tells me noone here is likely to be very impressed by those.

Two questions for you though:

1. Have Melissa Farley, Rachel Moran and Shelia Jeffreys all campaigned for the Swedish model of criminalising purchasing sex? Genuine question - I don't know. I just ask because people sometimes confuse the question of being pro or anti that model with the question of whether prostitution is bad, or just how bad it is. Stories of how bad it can be do not in themselves necessarily support the idea that that is the best model for dealing with it.

1. I'm not sure who you mean by the "pro-pimp lobby". It seems to be just a silly emotive kneejerk term you to describe anyone who diagrees with the consensus here. But whoever they are, can you point to any examples where they've "vilified" the people you mentioned?

Silly emotive term? Not really, for the reasons explained upthread.

The term pimp lobby was discussed upthread.

Here is Rebecca Mott talking about the vilification she has experienced:

rebeccamott.net/2014/11/

I wouldn't put much stock in the pimp lobby organisations being representative. Laura Lee spoke at the Northern Ireland Justice Committee earlier this year as a representative of the International Union of Sex Workers and Pimps . She said in her oral evidence that she was speaking for the "vast majority" of women in prostitution. When asked how many members her organisation had she didn't know. She later wrote to the Justice Committee to state that there are 10 members. She didn't say how many were pimps but at least one member is certainly a pimp.

Thanks. That's awful.

Do you think the ECP are among those harrassing her in that way?

That's an odd question.

Buffy -

But I don't think the ECP are pretending that everything's fine and dandy in prostitution, are they? On the contrary, they seem as open as anyone about the existence of abuse - they just feel that fuller legalisation, with removal of barriers to safety such as not be allowed to work together in brothels, is the best solution to get rid of abuse. IIRC they've campaigned for greater help for those wishing to leave prostitution, among other things.

I suppose the basic difference between them and others, such as most of the opinions being expressed here, is that they believe prostitution CAN, at least in theory, be a valid choice that somebody makes, free of coercion and abuse. I suppose at the end of the day you either believe that or you don't, and if you don't you're never going to accept them as a valid party to the debate.

I'm not sure whether I do.

Flora -

The ECP were the original subject of the "pimp lobby" accusation upthread - not sure whether that was by you or someone else. Later it was claimed that "The Pimp Lobby" have vilified people such as Rebecca Mott. I asked for an example and you obligingly gave one.

It therefore makes sense to clarify whether people are claiming that the ECP, who were described as part of this "pimp lobby" (and were indeed the reason why the term even came up), are guilty of such vilification.

That is of course the problem with such terms of abuse being thrown around so freely. It becomes hard to tell who's actually being tarred with such a broad brush.

Except no-one has claimed that every member of the pimp lobby has been vilifying people such as Rebecca Mott.

I suppose the basic difference between them and others, such as most of the opinions being expressed here, is that they believe prostitution CAN, at least in theory, be a valid choice that somebody makes, free of coercion and abuse. I suppose at the end of the day you either believe that or you don't, and if you don't you're never going to accept them as a valid party to the debate.

That's not correct. You can be opposed to prostitution even if you believe some people in theory or in reality might make a genuine choice to be in prostitution. This could be because too many women in prostitution are abused and exploited and the industry is inherently abusive and exploitative. Also because is negatively affects how people in society view women which affects all women.