Pushing back against the so-called Nordic Model of sex work

[SnugFinch]

Hi. I'm aware that my views might not be the most popular, but I am posting here in good faith.

Many of you know that Ash Regan has been campaigning to get sex work legislation in place which follows the neo-abolitionist model, or Nordic Model. This so-called Nordic Model claims that it will punish buyers of sex work, while not criminalising sellers, and that this will benefit sex workers and stop sex trafficking.

However, this is untrue. By criminalising buyers, it ensures that the only people who will buy sex are criminals who don't care about breaking the law. And because sex workers have a smaller client pool, they have no choice but to put themselves at the mercy of these criminals, and can end up suffering violence as a result.

This so-called Nordic Model has been law in the island of Ireland for nearly a decade now, and it has made things worse for the women involved, and it has done nothing to stop sex trafficking, as the facts in this article (and the testimony of a former sex worker) prove.

https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2025/02/07/on-problems-with-the-nordic-model-of-prostitution/

Ash Regan's bill has been delayed for the moment, but it hasn't been defeated. There is a growing worry that what happened in Ireland could happen in Scotland. And it could extend to England and Wales as well.

Feminists should want to end violence against all women. So why is there support for the Nordic Model, which has proven to be so hazardous to female sex workers?

I'm curious as to what your thoughts are.

Will there be Q+A? Can you ask her why she meets with the Christian Institute but is refusing to meet with Scot-Pep, Scotland4Decrim and the English Collective of Prostitutes? You know, orgs representing thousands of women across Britain who sell or have sold sex.

And also ask her if she thinks it's possible for prostitution to go underground (lol)

Would you want your family members to work as rubbish collectors?

I would want my family members to do the best job they can get (or set up their own business) apart from things like "chenobyl clean up" or "prostitute" or "unmasked asbestos removal labourer" or "harness-free pylon climber". If those were their only options I would prefer them to be unemployed.

"some women choose to do it freely because it allows them to earn more money they ever could" is "positive" IMHO.

I will not apologize to you.

I think promotoing the myth of the happy hooker - as you are doing - is a really scummy thing to do, even if, very occasionally, it is true (and I have no evidence whatsoever it is true).

I will try to bow out and leave this to the women on here who no much more than I do.

@JamieCannister

I would want my family members to do the best job they can get (or set up their own business) apart from things like "chenobyl clean up" or "prostitute" or "unmasked asbestos removal labourer" or "harness-free pylon climber". If those were their only options I would prefer them to be unemployed.

So if your child said they wanted to work a minimum wage job forever you wouldn't try to push them or help them towards a better job? I find that very hard to believe.

Are you truly telling me that you can think of no job which you wouldn't want your children to do, but whose services you still use yourself? I find this very hard to believe, too.

"some women choose to do it freely because it allows them to earn more money they ever could" is "positive" IMHO.

No, it is not positive. It is factual. It means acknowledging a self-evident banality, without expressing any value judgement on it, without opining on whether it is good or bad, positive or negative, whether it should be allowed or forbidden.

It is a fact. And facts don't care about your feelings (I know that a religious fundamentalist says it, but the phrase fits all kinds of scenarios).

I commented on the episode of an OF "model" who charged her "biggest fan" $10,000 persons for a meeting, then used the money to go on holiday. I have no idea if sex services were provided.
Do I approve of her? No.
Do I think she acted ethically? No.
In fact, I think she was the one who exploited an emotionally vulnerable man by getting him to fritter away loads of money.
But none of this means she was exploited; none of this means she didn't act freely; none of this means she doesn't do this "job" because it allows her to make loads of money.

But of course you dismiss all of this because it doesn't fit your narrative.

I will not apologize to you.

Oh, what a surprise

I think promotoing the myth of the happy hooker - as you are doing - is a really scummy thing to do, even if, very occasionally, it is true (and I have no evidence whatsoever it is true).

Again, your ideological rage clouds your text comprehension skills.

Did I say that all sex workers are happy? No.

Did I say that most are? No.

I merely said that some choose to do it freely, to make more money they otherwise ever could. Did I say how many such cases there are? No, I didn't.

In fact, I even said that I perfectly understand the argument whereby sex work should still be banned because it is too hard to distinguish those who do it freely from those who don't.

Quite simply, the discussion should be based not on preconception and ideology, but on facts and evidence.
It is amusing, but concerning, to observe your reaction. Your textbook ideological rage reflects the bias which is common when discussing any divisive topic. You completely ignore what your interlocutor says, you accuse them of strawman argument, and you dismiss any point which might challenge your preconceptions.

We don’t argue that the heroin trade should be legalised so that those who “choose” to work in it are “safer”. Isn’t it their free choice to deal in drugs? Why don’t we make it easier for them all round, then?

We don’t argue that trading in bodily organs should be legalised because some people might want to sell a kidney and it’s “their body, their choice”. Why not? Why should we have any ethical problems with this if everyone is consenting all round?

There are plenty of examples of issues where we don’t allow a trade in things that are harmful in society, even if the buyers and sellers think they are all freely consenting and happy.

Admit it, OP: you are just pro- men ejaculating in whatever way they like, and to hell with the consequences. Don’t dress it up in faux concern for “sex workers”. Are you similarly so concerned for drugs mules or black market kidney donors? Or is your concern only involved when men’s penises are?

There are considerable adverse public health consequences to toilets going uncleaned and bins going unemptied. There are adverse public health consequences if people cannot buy ready-to-eat food outwith their homes, even though we might argue that better food than McDonalds exists. It's not always possible to take a packed lunch and even healthy people can faint if they don't eat, before you even consider diabetic people.

What are the adverse public health consequences of men having to use their hands or a Fleshlight instead of renting a woman's vagina, mouth, or anus?

All the jobs you list, there is arguably a need for. There is no need for prostitution.

@catontheironingboard

We don’t argue that the heroin trade should be legalised so that those who “choose” to work in it are “safer”. Isn’t it their free choice to deal in drugs? Why don’t we make it easier for them all round, then?

Except heroin turns its users into zombies and ultimately kills them. Sex does not.

I am not saying there are no good reasons to ban sex work.
I am saying the discussion should be based on facts and evidence.

For example, I cannot think of good reasons to legalise heroin, but I can think of plenty of good reasons to legalise weed. I don't know that it will always work, but I think it at least deserves an honest, open-minded discussion.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate
Shifting the goal posts much??
I don't remember having said much about the consequences of not emptying bins vs not allowing sex work. I do remember pointing out, however, that it is a silly criterion to think that any job we wouldn't want our family members to do should be banned. Do you disagree?
There may be valid reasons to ban sex work. Whether we want our daughters to do it is not one of them.
After all, with your comment are you not implying that there are, in fact, jobs you wouldn't want your family members to do, but which remain legitimate nonetheless? Or did I misunderstand?

If you really want to know, I frame it more as a libertarian issue than a public good issue. People should be allowed to do stuff we may disagree with. Not without limits, of course.

Let me ask you this question: if a woman wants to sell sex, should she be prevented from doing so?
That you disagree or think it's awful is not a valid reason.
If one can prove that such a woman is an unrepresentative case, that most are coerced etc, then that may be a valid reason.

As for the public good, I think that there may be cases, like men with disabilities, emotionally vulnerable men, men going through divorce or other difficult moments, unattractive or clumsy men who never manage to have any relationships, where if the man wants sex and the woman provides it freely then they can both be better off for it.

I have some colleagues who went through terrible divorces in their late 40s. I always wondered if they went to sex workers. I would not have seen anything wrong with that, if of course the ladies in question were doing it willingly and freely.
I also remember, in the pre me-too era, older bosses bragging about what they did with sex workers in ways which were absolutely disgusting. I then refused a job opportunity with one of those people because I considered him a disgusting, despicable human being. One of the things which struck me was this guy commenting on how so many of the girls clearly had pimps, and he was not bothered in the slightest. He would have been fired for saying the same in 2026. And rightly so.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate All the jobs you list, there is arguably a need for. There is no need for prostitution.

Whether a job is necessary or not is a lousy criterion.

Who decides what is necessary?

I can think of plenty of jobs, services, shops etc which are not "necessary", yet that's not a reason to ban them.

Again, there may be very valid reasons to ban sex work, but whether it is "necessary" or not is not one of them.

Let me ask you this question: if a woman wants to sell sex, should she be prevented from doing so?

That't not what Nordic Model does. Nice try. Nordic Model criminalises the buyer, not the seller. Feminist opposition to prostitution is rooted in the belief that no man has the right to buy sex. It's not about policing women's behaviours, but policing men's.

All the jobs you listed, I accept that someone has to do them and that person might be me or a member of my family. I have waited on tables and cleaned toilets.

Being disabled doesn't confer a right to buy sex. Disabled people can buy sex toys if they can't grt dates, like everyone else. Also, it's strange how no one ever considers disabled women when talking about prostitution. A disabled woman buying sex from a non-disabled man would be taking an enormous risk of pregnancy, genital injury, assault, and murder, to the extent that she de facto wouldn't be able to do so, even if de jure she had that right. That's hardly sexual equality, is it? Reminds me of "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread".

Just because we can't agree on whether working at the Louboutin shoe factory is necessary, doesn't mean that we can't agree that there is literally no need at all for a man to get his dick wet. Really wanting to isn't a need.

When an activity consistently and substantially harms the people who perform it, we should ask what the justification for it is. The greater the harm, the greater the justification needs to be to allow that harm to continue.

Except heroin turns its users into zombies and ultimately kills them. Sex does not.

Bit of a daft argument, I’m afraid. Many STIs have always “turned people into zombies and killed them”. Syphilis was a horrendous killer, and still exists in the sex trade. HIV, anyone? Women often end up with damaged or ruined fertility, or permanently painful or disfiguring conditions from STIs (herpes, PID, genital warts).

Are you suggesting that these simply don’t happen any more in the modern world? Or that they’re all OK now that we have treatments? Because, unfortunately, they do; they still damage people’s bodies or even kill, even in the West; and the sex trade, by its very nature, is a high risk vector for transmission. Risking catching these diseases is not any aspect of a normal job, nor can the risk be managed away with “health and safety”. The kind of men who want to purchase sex are the kind of men who are going to have a high risk of transmitting sexual disease. That’s the nature of the trade: it can’t be eradicated because that’s the entire point of it, no?

Women are also beaten and even killed by punters, as well as risking getting STIs. Not to mention that sexual trauma, rape, and just the all round dissociation required for sex work is also notorious for producing “zombie-like” psychological symptoms. And also that this dissociation and trauma from being a “sex worker” often leads women to seek out illegal drugs as a means of coping (if they were not already in prostitution because of drug addiction anyway). The drug trade and the sex trade are intrinsically linked, and trying to sanitise the sex trade isn’t going to decouple it from the drugs trade because: 1. damaged and traumatised people often seek out sex and drugs as ways of coping with trauma and adverse life experiences; AND 2. criminal and perverse people who are malevolent bad actors in society do the same.

Nasty people seek vulnerable people to exploit. That’s the intrinsic appeal of the drugs trade, the sex trade, and all sorts of criminal activity. It’s a stupid fantasy of terminally online, porn-addled lonely men that somehow the sex trade can be made nice and homely, along with all the titillating tart-with-a-heart myths and fond imaginings of naughty housewives in boudoirs with feather boas entertaining shy yearning boys and all that rot.

We all know perfectly well that in reality, a very significant number of men who like to use the sex trade are unpleasant, nasty men who like exploitation and crime, who don’t care who they hurt, or actively enjoy hurting others; and are perfectly happy with the overlaps between crime, drugs and the sex trade. They like exploiting vulnerable women (and any other vulnerable people), just because they like it. It’s an easy mark. That’s the entire appeal. And for that reason you are never going to sanitise the bad actors and the evil men out of the sex trade because that’s what they like. You can’t sanitise “sex work” because it’s inherently exploitation, and that’s the entire appeal of it to the men who use it.

All these men, or male-apologists, who are at pains to reassure us that they are only just thinking of women’s safety, and her body her choice (snort!) yadda yadda, are either deluded fantasists sitting at their computers all night, or they’re bad actors too. Prostitution is evil, like all trade that exploits bodies for money. Dressing it up in faux-concern doesn’t fool any of us. It would be nice if you weren’t fooling yourselves, though. I suspect you are.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate

"That't not what Nordic Model does. Nice try. Nordic Model criminalises the buyer, not the seller. Feminist opposition to prostitution is rooted in the belief that no man has the right to buy sex. It's not about policing women's behaviours, but policing men's."

That's not true though. In every Nordic Model country women are arrested for working together. In Ireland, for example, a number of women have received prison sentences. Which is interesting, because no men have received prison sentences for paying for sex.

There are few convictions of men and the end result is that there has been no decrease in demand. There are just as many prostitutes in Ireland today as there were in 2017 when the Nordic Model came in but their lives are made worse. Why would anyone want that?

@catontheironingboard

"All these men, or male-apologists, who are at pains to reassure us that they are only just thinking of women’s safety, and her body her choice (snort!) yadda yadda, are either deluded fantasists sitting at their computers all night, or they’re bad actors too. Prostitution is evil, like all trade that exploits bodies for money. Dressing it up in faux-concern doesn’t fool any of us. It would be nice if you weren’t fooling yourselves, though. I suspect you are."

It is people like you who are fooling yourselves. You talk as if a ban would work. It doesn't work. And it does make life more difficult for the women involved. There are many female academics who say that the Nordic Model harms women, but you seem to think they are all male-apologists who are only pretending to be concerned with women's welfare.

As I say on every one of these threads: your entire argument rests on an insoluble paradox. Either prostitution is bad for sex workers, or it isn’t. Either it’s a woman’s free choice, or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways, yet your argument wants to have it all ways round.

If sex work is free choice and isn’t in itself damaging and it’s just a transaction between consenting buyers and sellers and so on, then tell me, why should I care if sex workers’ lives are made worse, just like I don’t care if drug dealers’ lives are made worse by drugs laws? Or if restricting tobacco advertising makes like more difficult for tobacco executives? Or if slapping VAT on vapes makes it harder for people who sell vapes?

If I should care about the wellbeing of sex workers, then surely you’re making a case that sex work is bad? In which case, we should eradicate it, not normalise it. You can’t have the argument work that we should all care terribly about sex workers’ experiences and difficulties, but actually there’s nothing wrong with it anyway. You can’t claim that sex workers are uniquely vulnerable but then say sex work is inherently fine. You can’t claim that it should be de-stigmatised and treated like any other job, but also that somehow we don’t get to apply the same moral standards to it that we’d apply to every other job.

I don’t approve of selling vapes to people, of porn, of MLM, of all sorts of racketeering and profiteering. If you want “sex work” to be thought of as any other trade where people are freely buying and selling things others consider harmful, then you can’t also make some kind of claim that feminists should somehow feel uniquely obliged to listen to sex workers, any more than feminists are obliged to listen to the woes of vape shop owners or arms dealers.

No, the only reason you berate women and feminists in particular about sex work is that you know perfectly well that this claim rests on the fact that sex workers are exploited women. Then you want to switch it around to claim that feminists should approve of it as empowering choicy choicy special women choice — even though if it were actually empowering, no-one doing it would need any special pleading about how the laws around it were making their lives so bad. I don’t see feminists being berated to think of the poor female arms dealers, or the women’s union of vape shops.

We all know this. I’m so sick of the disingenuous tone and pretend rhetoric of concern. <Oh feminists, why won’t you think of the servicing of men’s dicks?>

Oh, yeah! Tell us all about Dr Brooke Magnanti again? And Amia Srinivasan’s terrible book (which our longstanding friendly pro-prostitution posters clearly haven’t even read)!

Tell me again: if sex work is all a tickety boo free market and empowering free choice, why should I care if the women who do it have their lives made more difficult, any more than I care about whether landlords’ lives are made worse by the new renters’ bill? Or any more than I care about whether regulations around vape sales make it more difficult for vape shops?

Why should I care about sex workers as a feminist, if sex work is fine? It’s a genuine question. Can you answer it?

@selffellatingouroborosofhate That't not what Nordic Model does. Nice try. Nordic Model criminalises the buyer, not the seller.

In theory it criminalises the buyer only. In practice it also criminalises girls working together without any pimp.

Feminist opposition to prostitution is rooted in the belief that no man has the right to buy sex. It's not about policing women's behaviours, but policing men's.

No, it is also based on the belief that women do not have the right to sell sex. In theory, you lot say that women are still free to do so. In practice, the Nordic model criminalises women in some cases (see above) and makes sex work riskier by attracting the dodgier and more dangerous clients.

Being disabled doesn't confer a right to buy sex.
I never said it does. Nice try - nice intellectually dishonest strawman.
I said that, if a man in those condition wants to buy sex, and a woman who freely chose to sell sex wants to provide sex to that man, they are both better off for it. That is a very different concept. Shame on you for misrepresenting what I had said.

A disabled woman buying sex from a non-disabled man would be taking an enormous risk of pregnancy, genital injury, assault, and murder, to the extent that she de facto wouldn't be able to do so, even if de jure she had that right. That's hardly sexual equality, is it?

Yes. I hear you. And your point is? Life sucks. It's unfair. Blame God(s), evolution, chaos - take your pick. Should men not do what women cannot do as safely? I don't follow your train of thought.

Oh, and you forgot that sex tends to be more important for men than for women. Not in all cases but in most.

Just because we can't agree on whether working at the Louboutin shoe factory is necessary, doesn't mean that we can't agree that there is literally no need at all for a man to get his dick wet. Really wanting to isn't a need.
Lack of sex can affect a person's mental health and well-being, though.
Funny how this is often repeated in the threads where a woman complains about a dead bedroom. And no, of course this doesn't mean that anyone has a right to use another person's body.

When an activity consistently and substantially harms the people who perform it, we should ask what the justification for it is. The greater the harm, the greater the justification needs to be to allow that harm to continue.

We can agree on this. Which is why, if sex work is to be banned, it should be banned if it can be proven that the cons outweigh the pros, that most women are trafficked, that those who chose to do so freely are a tiny minority, etc. But the feminists who outright deny that any woman could ever choose to do this freely are driven by ideological fury and impervious to facts and evidence.

@catontheironingboard Bit of a daft argument, I’m afraid. Many STIs have always “turned people into zombies and killed them”. Syphilis was a horrendous killer, and still exists in the sex trade. HIV, anyone?

Really? What is the incidence of syphilis and HIV in the UK now? Any evidence that the incidence among sex workers is significantly higher than in the general population? Didn't someone post comments by medical doctors suggesting the very opposite?

The Gov website mentions 9500 diagnoses of syphilis in 2024. Every case is a tragedy, but it's not an epidemic, and there is no indication it is linked to sex work.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tracking-the-syphilis-epidemic-in-england/tracking-the-syphilis-epidemic-in-england-2015-to-2024#trends-in-heterosexual-men-and-women

No one denies that sex work carries risk. The question is not that, the question is: who decides what risks other people are allowed to bear? If a woman wants to sell sex, she should be prevented from doing so because YOU think it's too risky? And don't tell me the Nordic model doesn't prevent women from selling sex: it has criminalised women working together, and many say it has made sex work more dangerous, not less.

The drug trade and the sex trade are intrinsically linked, and trying to sanitise the sex trade isn’t going to decouple it from the drugs trade

I'm not saying it's false, but: how do you know this? I know you think this, I know you WANT to think this, I know it fits nicely with your ideology and preconception, but how do you know how true it actually is?

Funny how no one comments about the OF "model" who charged her "best fan" $10,000 for a meeting then used the money to go on holiday. Is she an exploited drug addict? Or someone who chose to do that freely because she wanted the money?

either deluded fantasists sitting at their computers all night, or they’re bad actors too
Again: you know this how?

The one shortcoming of NM as implemented to date is that permitting microbrothels without permitting pimping is hard to implement as effective and clear legislation. I'd love to see the UK be global leaders in doing that.

I’m quite sure that there are people who freely choose to accept the risks of smoking, vapes and eating carcinogenic ingredients. Should we not strictly regulate these with the aim of eradicating them, just because some people freely choose the harm?

If I freely choose to smoke and accept all the risks, should we not regulate tobacco even though all the overwhelming evidence is that it’s harmful? Are you one of those nutters who thinks that somehow women throughout history have not wanted to become prostitutes because they somehow didn’t see how wonderfully empowering it is?

Perhaps I should go on a web forum and loudly declare that I don’t think tobacco should be regulated until “it can be proven that the cons outweigh the pros”, because I don’t see any harm if a willing buyer wants to purchase some cigs from a willing seller? I’d make myself look quite stupid though, wouldn’t I? Your posts on MN about sex work are the equivalent. They just make you sound like an utter fool 😆

It's only amusing that you link to the govt report titled Tracking the Syphilis Epidemic but have somehow in your urgent denialism, omitted to read the title.

@catontheironingboard Either prostitution is bad for sex workers, or it isn’t. Either it’s a woman’s free choice, or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways

Why? Surely there will be cases where it is a free choice and cases where it isn't. Are you implying that it must be either always a free choice for all, or always a coercion for all? It doesn't make sense.

If I should care about the wellbeing of sex workers, then surely you’re making a case that sex work is bad?

??? What kind of nonsensical argument is that??
Do you only care about the wellbeing of those working in "bad" industries, whatever that means?? I care about the wellbeing of, I don't know, nurses doctors and builders not because their sectors are bad, but because it is ethical and in everyone's interest that they do their job in the safest way possible.

I’m quite sure that there are people who freely choose to accept the risks of smoking, vapes and eating carcinogenic ingredients. Should we not strictly regulate these with the aim of eradicating them, just because some people freely choose the harm?

The comparison with smoking doesn't hold because there is no way to substantially reduce the risk from smoking, because smoking is chemically addictive, and because it causes substantial harm to those around smokers.
If you could prove that comparable risks and dangers apply to sex work, too, then, by all means, sex work should be banned.

Are you one of those nutters who thinks that somehow women throughout history have not wanted to become prostitutes because they somehow didn’t see how wonderfully empowering it is?
Whatever substance you are on, please stop its consumption

Perhaps I should go on a web forum and loudly declare that I don’t think tobacco should be regulated until “it can be proven that the cons outweigh the pros”,
I never said that sex work should not be regulated. Yet another intellectually dishonest strawman from activists blinded by ideological rage

Your posts on MN about sex work are the equivalent. They just make you sound like an utter fool 😆

You don't substantiate your claims, you put words in my mouth I had never said, and I am the utter fool. Sure.

Should men not do what women cannot do as safely? I don't follow your train of thought.

1. If they had any sense of solidarity, they wouldn't. 2) A civilised society considers fairness in its laws and policies. That's why it's illegal to build a new building with customer toilets unless a wheelchair accessible toilet is provided, because either everyone can pee or no one can. It's why we "design out crime" when changing street layouts, even though some groups are more affected by assault than others.

Oh, and you forgot that sex tends to be more important for men than for women. Not in all cases but in most.

Wow, we are actually getting the "but men have needs" argument to justify legalising pay-to-rape, on a feminist forum.

Men want to rent women's bodies because they want to have sex without having to be a decent enough person for a woman to want to have sex with them and without risking being reported the police as rapists. They want to use money to turn a "no" into a "yes". They want to use money to compensate for their utter inability to treat women like fellow humans. They don't have that right.

But I am not a free marketeer. I fundamentally don’t care about men getting to buy sex. I don’t think anyone should have the right to sell it, just like I don’t think illegal drugs should be legalised just because some people happen to like them. I think tobacco and vapes should be banned, and that regulation should aim to eradicate the entire market. I don’t think people should be able to buy organs, or surrogate babies, or indeed any parts of anyone else’s body. And I don’t care about whether men want to, or who wants to, or indeed what kind of faux-argument you want to put forward that somehow claims that immoral markets somehow become okay if an individual buyer and seller happen to be consenting. I don’t think markets are value-free. I think that it’s evil to commodify people’s bodies and humanity, without exception. We really don’t agree on any of it, and you aren’t going to somehow persuade me that an immoral trade is okay and empowering just for wishful thinking.

Here’s a thought experiment: we could deregulate the sex trade entirely, but every man purchasing sex should have to have a sign hung round his neck declaring him to be a sex purchaser. Would you be happy with that? If not, why not?

How about "I pay to rape women" tattooed on his forehead?

I’m good with that 👍😆

@HildegardP It's only amusing that you link to the govt report titled Tracking the Syphilis Epidemic but have somehow in your urgent denialism, omitted to read the title.

Fair enough, wrong choice of words. I was wrong. Kudos to you for calling me out on that

I get it that acting like a smartarse "well, actually" kind of person can be satisfying, but there is no indication that 9,000 cases in a population of 58 million is a health emergency (when's the last time the PM talked about syphilis?), nor that it is intertwined with sex work. If it is, can you show how?

@selffellatingouroborosofhate
Should men not do what women cannot do as safely? I don't follow your train of thought.

1. If they had any sense of solidarity, they wouldn't

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...
That is deranged, unhinged, out of touch feminism of the worst kind.
Actually, that may be the best argument to convince women not to sell sex or content on OF sister, you shouldn't do it, because men cannot make as much money doing the same, so out of solidarity you shouldn't do it.

Men shouldn't work in construction or removals because women cannot do it?
I shouldn't take a train late at night because it wouldn't be as safe for a woman?
Male soldiers should not join special forces because it would be more dangerous (and less effective) if women did it?
What kind of nonsensical reasoning is that?

Some things can and should be equalised, like access for the disabled, as you mention. Some things are practically too hard to equalise. Yes, it sucks, but, not, it's not my fault.

Wow, we are actually getting the "but men have needs" argument to justify legalising pay-to-rape, on a feminist forum.

Still no comment about the women choosing to do so freely, and specifically no comment about the OF "model" who charged her "biggest fan" $10,000 dollars for a meeting then used the money to go on holiday. Wow, it's almost as if evidence which challenges certain preconceptions were conveniently dismissed and ignored. How odd. Who'd have ever thought.

At least be honest: you don't want women to sell sex. Ever. Even if you could have absolute certainty that a woman is doing so freely, that she's charging loads of money for it, and that she's doing it because she wants that money too badly, you still wouldn't want her to do it, right? Please be honest about it.
Because these cases contradict the feminist preconceptions, the narrative that women are always exploited. Because these cases highlight that some women can be greedy and act unethically (according to most) out of greed. So anything which challenges strongly held ideology must be ignored and dismissed.

Again: how odd that no one has commented on the $10,000 OF model. How most odd. How most odd that no one commented whether in that case he exploited her or she exploited him. I wonder why the deafening silence.

At least @catontheironingboard has been more honest in admitting clearly that no one should have the right to sell it.

@catontheironingboard Here’s a thought experiment: we could deregulate the sex trade entirely, but every man purchasing sex should have to have a sign hung round his neck declaring him to be a sex purchaser. Would you be happy with that? If not, why not?

There is nothing wrong in having a preferred sex position for consenting sex with one's loving partner - I suppose we can all agree on this, right? Yet would you want men and women to carry a sign saying what their favourite sex position is?

There is nothing wrong in not having had sex for a while, or in having had a lot of it. Yet would you want men and women to carry a sign saying how often they have done the deed this month?

And don't tell me no because patriarchy - would you want women to wear these signs in female-only spaces??

Need I go on?