Researchers investigating prostitution ‘worse than old-school pimps’

[IwantToRetire]

Taxpayer-funded researchers investigating sex work are “worse than old-school pimps” and have “vested interests”, according to feminist campaigners.

The Sex Workers Evaluate Reporting Violence (SWERV) project, a research initiative between the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Brunel University London and the sex worker charity National Ugly Mugs (NUM), has been awarded almost £1 million in taxpayers’ money.

The funding comes from the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR), which is funded by the Department for Health and Social Care.

It allows researchers to explore how NUM’s services and tools, such as its “NUMchecker”, an online system to help sex workers “stay safe and report incidents of harm, crime or violence ... affect sex workers’ safety and mental health”.

But feminists say that the project is a “disgrace” and normalises prostitution.

Rachel Moran, a women’s rights campaigner and the bestselling author of Paid For – My Journey Through Prostitution, told The Telegraph: “A million pounds in taxpayers funding going to ‘research’ designed to legitimise the sex trade is a self-evident disgrace, especially when you consider what it could do if given directly to the women involved.

“There is nothing new here though. Well-heeled researchers have circled like vultures around women trapped in prostitution for decades, making lucrative careers writing up reports which sanitise horrors they’ll never have to experience for themselves.

“They’re worse than the old-school pimps in my opinion, who at least had honesty on their side. They didn’t try to dress their exploitation up as something else.”

Anna Fisher, co-founder of Nordic Model Now!, which campaigns for the abolition of prostitution, said: “NUM is founded on the premise that prostitution is a normal job and that there’s nothing wrong with it per se and any harms are caused by a few ‘bad apples’ or ‘ugly mugs’ – along with other people’s bad attitudes (‘stigma’) and oppressive legislation and law enforcement.

continues at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/08/researchers-prostitution-pimps-feminist-campaigner/

And also at https://archive.ph/yMef7

£1 million for sexworker orgs to help sexworkers, and some people are unhappy about it?

Is it because these orgs support full decriminalisation (the model in Belgium since 2022, NZ and some of Australia and advocated for by Amnesty International, the World Health Org and many anti-trafficking and anti-HIV orgs) and not the Nordic Model?

I think the article make it really clear why - did you read it?

Also not sure why quoting organisations that aren't women's groups is relevant.

It's paywalled, but the sentence I can read has “worse than old-school pimps” and “vested interests”. Same old tired tropes and name calling, and yes I'm familiar with the name Rachel Moran.

The orgs I quoted (who support full decriminalisation of sexwork and oppose the Nordic Model) I believe are relevant given they happen to be the world's largest human rights org and a leading international health org.

More orgs who support decrim including some women's groups are the Royal College of Nursing, Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and Women Against Rape in the UK, Human Rights Watch and the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (examples given in the link below).

British groups made up of adults who sell sex services who support decrim include Scot-Pep and the English Collective of Prostitutes.

https://prostitutescollective.eaction.org.uk/election2024

https://decrimnow.org.uk/open-letter-on-the-nordic-model/ (a list of signatures can be found at the bottom)

Why don't we all say what our interest is?

I am a woman who was worked with sex workers in more than one country for more than one decade. I have never used sex services. I support the Nordic model.

@Christinapple what's your interest?

It's paywalled

If you had read the OP you will see there is a link to the full article.

Just to add most of the groups you seem to think are credible have a long history of being anti feminist.

It may be that you are new to this forum, or even to feminist activism, so aren't aware that in quoting those groups, it only confirms that this is an attack on a feminist analysis.

Have you for instance seen which countries support the Nordic Model and the outcomes.

It may be that you are new to this forum, or even to feminist activism, so aren't aware that in quoting those groups, it only confirms that this is an attack on a feminist analysis.

Good of you to let us all know that there's only groupthink allowed in this echo chamber and that anyone who seeks outside opinions is Doing Feminism Wrong (and probably also Being A Woman Wrong, too.)

Good of you to let us all know that there's only groupthink

It isn't about group think it is about lived experience and (not just on FWR) there are any number of criticisms of the groups referenced for their anti feminist position.

If you and other posters think "Human Rights" organisations can be relied on to safeguard women's rights why not start a thread about it.

I was just suggesting that rather than quoting groups which have had whole threads on FWR criticising them for failing to safeguard women, ie would not be taken as valid criticisms of the Nordice Model, just express what is wrong with what the women who are criticising the funding are saying.

Yes I believe the views of human rights orgs such as Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch are credible and important. I also listed examples of groups that are focused on tackling HIV/AIDs, anti-trafficking, anti-rape, immigrant welfare and those who have lived experience of selling sex. All are opposed to the Nordic Model and prefer decriminalisation, and they provide reasons to backup their stance.

British based HIV Scotland and STOPAids are two more STD orgs who support decriminalisation of sexwork.

For some examples under the Nordic Model, women are still criminalised if they work together, in some NM countries such as Sweden they can't rent property and are evicted if the police or landlord find out what they are doing, social work may see them as self-harm victims and take their children, condoms are still used as evidence so are less likely to be used.

In Sweden, racial-stereotyping and discrimination of women "who look like prostitutes" is accepted and condoned. Bouncers refused entry to Asian-looking women because they "looked like prostitutes", the case went to court and the judge sided with the judge because he was "helping to stop prostitution happening". None of the women were even sexworkers.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230618235559/www.thelocal.se/20130912/50200" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20230618235559/www.thelocal.se/20130912/50200

If you're interested from a health perspective, here is a factsheet from STOPAids:

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230618234849/stopaids.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/STOPAIDS-factsheet-sex-work.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20230618234849/stopaids.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/STOPAIDS-factsheet-sex-work.pdf

Your reply seems to be "well the Nordic Model supporting person I mentioned is a feminist, so anyone who disagrees with her is an attack on feminism". This isn't how to have a debate.

What this comes down to is: do you support the right of men to buy women's bodies, or don't you?

A good friend of mine when I was in my 20's worked as a prostitute and was murdered by a regular client. I don't think it is ever safe or empowered or a positive thing for a woman to do. In the end the woman is always being exploited and abused by a man. I don't know what the solution is but the main focus should be on getting women out of prostitution and by prosecuting the men who exploit these women.

Are you a man? Have you used sex workers?

I think people should be very careful when saying " this right on group support this, so it must be OK" . For many years the National Council For Civil Liberties, later Liberty, supported PIE, not something I would ever have agreed with.

Yes I believe the views of human rights orgs such as Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch are credible and important

I don't. Because Amnesty International is a hugely biased and politicised organisation whose stance is based on an ideology they have signed up to rather than on what the evidence shows. I can't respect such an organisation.

For example, Amnesty International say that oppression women face is based not on their biological sex but on social-cultural factors (they wrote to me directly to tell me that was their position). They also talk about the great work they do on abortion rights, contraceptive rights and intimate partner violence. When asked how these issues are not rooted in biological sex, they repeatedly could not answer. They also supported people to protest at a grassroots women's rights organisation, Filia, who have a strong focus on combating violence against women worldwide. These ludicrous and indefensible positions from an alleged human rights charity are all because of their desire to pretend that TWAW.

So no, their position is not credible or important because it comes from Amnesty International. A position is only credible if it can be evidenced as such, not because of who said it.

I am so sorry, that must have been awful for you and her loved ones. 💐