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.

@OldCrone your intellectual dishonesty is astonishing.

The topic is about women selling men to sex (heterosexual sex) and you are asking if I would sell homosexual sex to men.

I had already answered that above. The answer is no.
Again, your poor text comprehension skills are bewildering.

I wrote
There may be for men selling sex to men, I don't know. I would not do that

Tell me, what part of "I would not do that" was unclear or did you fail to comprehend?

Now that I have answered your irrelevant, nonsensical, intellectually dishonest, captious question, how will you weaponise it against me? I am curious. Just kidding. I am not.

How does this answer change anything?

Does this answer change the evidence on the Nordic model?

Does this answer make it OK to criminalise sex workers working together for safety?
Does this answer make it OK that more women have been prosecuted for that than men for buying sex?

Does this answer invalidate the research by the (female) LSE academic I mentioned? The posters' silence on those points has been deafening. I wonder why that is.

Please, do tell me.

Why is sex work so dangerous that women need to work together?

Because some clients are violent scumbags? Which, last I checked, no one has denied nor minimised.

Again, you are shifting the goalposts.

Yes, those men exist, yes those men are scumbags, yes, those men make sex work dangerous.

None of this changes the fact that a model which criminalises sex workers working together, and which prosecutes more women for that than men for buying sex, is a dismal failure, which achieves the exact opposite of its promised aims.

Do you disagree? If so, care to explain why?

In fact, did I miss it, or did not a single advocate of the Nordic model on here admit that cirminalising sex workers for working together is unfair and perverse? Why has no advice criticised that? Why?
Could it be because these advocates don't care about women's safety? Could it be because they just want sex work banned no matter what?

your poor text comprehension skills are bewildering.

Says the man who claimed not to understand what I meant, when I asked you, who I know to be male, "If your only choices were stacking shelves in a supermarket or having sex with multiple men every day for money, which would you choose?" and replied:

Were you asking if I were a woman? As a man, it is not for me to say how women may or may not feel selling sex. How would you feel about men saying "If I were a woman, I would do this or would not do that"???
Were you asking as a man? Were you asking if, as a man, I would sell sex to men? Or to women? Or what?

In my question it was quite clear that I was asking you, as a man, whether you would sell sex to men. But I didn't tell you you had poor comprehension skills (which you were actually displaying), I patiently explained with more clarity what my already clear question was asking.

There may be for men selling sex to men, I don't know. I would not do that. But that has nothing to do with your original question

I'll admit I missed the 'I would not do that' in amongst all the angry verbiage. But surely that is an answer to my original question, which was asking you if you would sell sex to men. Or have I misunderstood you again?

Why exactly wouldn't you consider selling sex to men? What about if you were destitute and homeless? You seem to think that some women might choose this, why wouldn't you?

What is the relevance of all of this?

Why are you conflating heterosexual and homosexual sex?

There are people who would do certain things, and people who wouldn't.
Are you learning about this only now?

Would I consider selling homosexual sex if that were the only alternative to starvation for me and my children? Maybe

Would I do it to make more money than in another job? No. Why should I have to justify myself and explain to you why I wouldn't??

Again: what on Earth is the relevance???

What does this have to do with anything. I cannot follow. Can you explain??

I don't "think" that some women choose to sell sex to make more money they otherwise could. I note it. Quite the difference. Again, read the research by that LSE academic!

You are showing the usual pattern of the extremists on this forum: personal attacks while ignoring the inconvenient questions. And no, calling out poor comprehension skills and captious questions is not a personal attack, it's just calling a spade a spade

Why are you conflating heterosexual and homosexual sex?

I'm not. You recognise that there is no market for men to sell sex to women, so if you became a prostitute you would have to sell sex to men. Since prostitution isn't about desire on the part of the prostitute, it makes no difference whether we are discussing homosexual or heterosexual sex. We are simply talking about men paying for sex.

Would I consider selling homosexual sex if that were the only alternative to starvation for me and my children? Maybe
Would I do it to make more money than in another job? No. Why should I have to justify myself and explain to you why I wouldn't??
Again: what on Earth is the relevance???
What does this have to do with anything. I cannot follow. Can you explain??

I'll try.

You seem to have the same attitude to being a prostitute as most women, although I think many women would also answer no to the first question. Given that there is a difference in the way sex (the act) is viewed by men compared to women, with men more likely to seek out large numbers of sexual partners, and more likely to desire sex with strangers (to the extent, in some cases, of committing rape), what makes you think there is a significant cohort of women who would choose to have sex with multiple strangers every day in order to earn money, when they are not in real financial difficulty?

You are showing the usual pattern of the extremists on this forum: personal attacks while ignoring the inconvenient questions.

I don't believe I've made any personal attacks. I think I've been a lot more polite to you than you have to me. And I don't think it's really appropriate for you to accuse others of ignoring questions when you've been doing the same.

I have not ignored any questions, I have always answered them, even when irrelevant and captious. Do you really want me to repeat all the inconvenient questions posters here have dodged and keep dodging?

You ask what makes me think there is a "significant" cohort of women who would choose to have sex with strangers for money.
Where did I say significant?
Please do not put words in my mouth.
The intellectual dishonesty on this thread is tiring.

I note that such women exist.
I do not know how many they are.
I have been adamant from the start that I totally see the rationale for a ban, IF such women are an un representative minority and IF a ban works (the Nordic model doesn't work).

I do not know if such women are 1%, 10%, 50% or what. Do you?
But you cannot deny that they exist.
I don't "think", I simply observe.
Take the case I mentioned of that woman running an "agency" where women charged £300 an hour. Sorry not sorry, but if a woman charges £300 an hour then the argument that it's the only alternative to starvation doesn't hold much water. Maybe the women in question only see a tiny % of that money? I don't know. I would like to think that the lady running the agency was acquitted because she was not exploiting the women, but I haven't followed the case.

Tell me, what do you disagree with?

I have been adamant from the start that I totally see the rationale for a ban, IF such women are an un representative minority

They are.

@OldCrone
May I ask what your source is?

I seem to remember the Lse academic I mentioned disagrees with you.

Do a quick Google search on how much "escorts" and "Escort agencies" charge in London.

Are you saying that, for every sex worker charging hundreds of pounds, there are 10 destitute ones charging £10 as that's their only alternative to destitution?

Or are you saying that the women in question get only a small % of that money?

Also, I point you again to SAAFE, the website by sex workers for sex workers, which seems to contradict your (so far unsubstantiated) assertion.

www.saafe.info

This thread is dire. Didn't expect it to get as bad as being harangued by rape apologists.

Is the female academic who argues that the Nordic model doesn't work a rape apologist, too?

Dodging the inconvenient questions and resorting to personal attacks is the oldest trick in the book. If you manage to delude yourself that only villains disagree with you, the corollary is that there is no need to look into what the villain is arguing and why.

Of course things get a tad more complicated when the same arguments are made by female academics who study the topic professionally: a man can always be accused of being a pimp a trafficker a buyer of sexual services etc, but a female academic, what can a female academic be accused of? This must be why her research and her address to the British Parliament, which I have posted here, have been met with a deafening silence.

Would I consider selling homosexual sex if that were the only alternative to starvation for me and my children? Maybe
Would I do it to make more money than in another job? No. Why should I have to justify myself and explain to you why I wouldn't??
Again: what on Earth is the relevance???
What does this have to do with anything. I cannot follow. Can you explain??

If you wouldn’t have sex you didn’t want just for a better car or apartment, why would you think women would be likely to, either?

@catontheironingboard What kind of a question is that?
Why should my very own subjective preferences be representative of anything?

Please, I would invite you to pause a second and think of what you are saying.

I don't want to sell homosexual sex --> hence women should be unlikely to want to sell heterosexual sex????

What is the logical connection?
Why should one follow from the other????

Even if we want to leave aside the difference between homosexual and heterosexual sex (quite the biggie), it still does not follow!!

There are a gazillion things which I would never do but which plenty of women may want to do!!

Once again, once ideological fury blinds certain people, logic goes out of the window.

Why are you so reluctant to admit that some women are not trafficked but choose to do it to make more money? Because it challenges your ideological preconceptions?

I am not asking you to believe me. Read the research on the topic. Read the LSE academic I mentioned. Read the press reports on the case of the woman running that escort agency I mentioned.

@NotBadConsidering

You wrote

instead of prioritising the millions of women who are trafficked, abused, drug affected, raped and murdered daily can only come from someone with highly questionable motives.

and I pointed out that

"millions of women murdered daily" in sex work is literally bs.

So, do tell me, what did you mean? Did you mean that millions of women are trafficked daily but not millions are murdered daily? Trafficked where?

In the UK? Out of a population of 69 million people, millions of women are trafficked daily?

In Norway and Sweden? They have a population of about 16m people. Out of those, millions are trafficked daily?

Or maybe did you mean worldwide?

I mean, what’s even your argument?

That the Nordic model doesn't work. Oh, and this isn't "my" argument, it's the argument of academics and NGOs who studied this and know more about it than you and me combined

Have I missed your proposed solution?

I don't have a silver bullet magical solution. This doesn't mean we should accept one, the Nordic model, which doesn't work and makes things worse.

You think that because men haven’t been prosecuted then the model doesn’t work.

Yes, I think that a model which criminalises the women who work together for safety, and which prosecutes more women for doing that than men for buying sex, does not work. Do you disagree? If so, why? Again: why have I heard not a single advocate of the Nordic model acknowledge that this is crazy? Why?

Why are you so keen for men to not be prosecuted?

Where did I say I am keen for them not to be prosecuted?

Why do you want them to get away with it?

Where did I say that?

Would you support a working model that made sure men abusing women by buying their bodies would be prosecuted?

Of course. But why are you so reluctant to accept that the Nordic model does NOT achieve this?

I don't want to sell homosexual sex --> hence women should be unlikely to want to sell heterosexual sex????
What is the logical connection?
Why should one follow from the other????
Even if we want to leave aside the difference between homosexual and heterosexual sex (quite the biggie), it still does not follow!!
There are a gazillion things which I would never do but which plenty of women may want to do!!

@YetAnotherDude if you are simply not able to see the very obvious — indeed plain as the nose on your face — connection there, then really, there’s nothing any of us can do to help you.

Let me gently suggest that you have a very strange view of women that you really need to work on. Women are not, as many men indeed liked to think in the remote past, some kind of subservient creatures placed on earth with the sole purpose of providing heterosexual sex. Sex one doesn’t want is sex one doesn’t want, whether homosexual or heterosexual. There is literally no kind of default animal willingness to service a fat smelly old man you don’t want, in preference to a woman you don’t want, just because one is heterosexual sex and the other not.

The fact that you can’t remotely see how this question applies to you seems like some significant cognitive deficit here — as well as a real failure of understanding other people. Women are people, like you. They aren’t unknowable service animals who are mindlessly oriented towards sex and money. You seem to be struggling to comprehend this, to be honest.

@catontheironingboard

Women are not, as many men indeed liked to think in the remote past, some kind of subservient creatures placed on earth with the sole purpose of providing heterosexual sex.

Where on earth would I have said or implied that?

Sex one doesn’t want is sex one doesn’t want, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

Where on Earth would I have said or implied that??

The female academic I mentioned made very similar points to mine. Will you accuse her of the same monstrosities and put the same nonsensical bs in her mouth, too?

Women are people, like you.

Where on earth would I have said or implied anything different?

They aren’t unknowable service animals who are mindlessly oriented towards sex and money.

Where on Earth would I have said or implied that??

The fact that you can’t remotely see how this question applies to you seems like some significant cognitive deficit here

The author of an unhinged, nonsensical, illogical rant accuses me of cognitive deficit!!

Tell me, do the academics, including many women, who study this and agree with me suffer from cognitive deficit, too?

Why has not a single advocate of the Nordic model here commented on the findings of the LSE researcher?

Calling out a model which criminalises the women who work together for safety and prosecutes more women for that than men for buying sex means... that I think women aren't people????

It’s very clear from every single one of your posts, @YetAnotherDude , just how much you fail to understand that women are real people.

And I suppose you will hurl the same accusation at the female academics who say the same things I have said on this thread, right?

@YetAnotherDude
I don't want to sell homosexual sex --> hence women should be unlikely to want to sell heterosexual sex????
What is the logical connection?
Why should one follow from the other????
Even if we want to leave aside the difference between homosexual and heterosexual sex (quite the biggie), it still does not follow!!

I've already tried to explain this to you, and @catontheironingboard has had a go at explaining as well, but as you still seem to be struggling, I'll have another go.

It doesn't matter whether it's homosexual sex or heterosexual sex. Being paid to allow repulsive men to stick their cocks in your orifices is just as unpleasant for women as it is for men.

You seem to be under the impression that it's somehow less unpleasant for heterosexual women than it is for heterosexual men. I have no idea why you would think this, unless you think that women are just vessels to service men's sexual desires. If you saw women as full human beings you'd realise that this is just as unpleasant for women as it is for men.

@OldCrone You seem to be under the impression that it's somehow less unpleasant for heterosexual women than it is for heterosexual men.

I have never said that. I have never commented on how pleasant or unpleasant sex workers find it to have sex with strangers. I imagine they will have their share of bald, ugly, fat, repulsive customers. All I have said is that not all sex workers are trafficked and some make a conscious, free, informed decision to do sex work because this can make them more money than the alternatives.
It does not follow that they must find it pleasant to open their legs to fat ugly customers. It is perfectly possible that some may accept to have sex with fat ugly customers, of the kind they would never touch with a bargepole outside of sex work, because they still think this is better than whatever alternative they may have had.

The SAAFE forum I had mentioned has many threads along these lines https://saafe.info/main/

You seem to be under the impression that it's somehow less unpleasant for heterosexual women than it is for heterosexual men.

No. I said that you cannot compare homosexual and heterosexual sex. I would not have homosexual sex regardless of how attractive the man in question may be. It is shocking that such a banal difference needs to be spelled out.

Had you said something like: "would you have sex with a fat, ugly woman for money? No? Then why do you think women would with fat, ugly men?" the comparison would have been less nonsensical.

It still would not have followed that what I do should be representative of anyone else, but at least the comparison would have made a modicum of sense.

I said that you cannot compare homosexual and heterosexual sex. I would not have homosexual sex regardless of how attractive the man in question may be. It is shocking that such a banal difference needs to be spelled out.

But this isn't about sex, as in having sex with someone you find attractive. I haven't asked you whether you would have a homosexual relationship with an attractive man. This is about allowing men to use your body to do things that give them pleasure.

The sexual preferences of the prostitute are irrelevant.

It's shocking that I have to spell this out to you.

Why should what I do or not do be representative of anyone else??? Why??

What is your point? That no one chooses sex work freely?

That the sex workers who post on SAAFE are all lying or deluded?

That those who charge hundreds and hundreds of pounds for a single "session", like in the case I mentioned which went to trial, lied when they said they were doing it freely?

Yes, quite.

You lot seem to be confusing an is with a should.

All I have done is merely note that SOME women choose to do It freely.

How can merely observing something be a reflection of my character???

It's like saying that noting that some people choose to become drug dealers because the alternatives pay less makes me a despicable advocate of drugs. Nonsense.

What is happening is common with this thread and with evidence-allergic ideologues.
I have said something you don't like.
This triggers you.
Ideological fury blinds you.
You come up with all kinds of nonsense which have nothing to do with my original statement.

This is how "some women choose to do It freely" becomes "I don't think women are people". Pathetic, really. But self evident to anyone reading the thread.

The same cognitive biases lead you lot to ignore all the inconvenient questions.

Why can't anyone here bring herself to admit that it is wrong and perverse to criminalise women working together for safety, and that a model which prosecutes more women for that than men buying sex is sickening and achieves the exact opposite of what promised???

Why hasn't anyone commented on the female LSE academic and her research? Maybe because when a man says certain things you can accuse him of being a pimp trafficker etc, but when a woman says the same you can't?

I mean, if evidence is on your side it means that academic will have been guilty of so many errors and omissions that it must be super easy to debunk her, right? So why ignore her altogether? Why dodge the question? Why?

"Your comparison with selling kidneys doesn't, either.
Selling a kidney is an irreversible action.
Sex work is something you can try for a while then leave. I have no idea in how many women it might leave psychological scars, but you can leave it."

Those of us who work in mental health or social services have a very good idea about the psychological scars. And more.