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.

I can’t understand you. I speak many languages, punter isn’t one of them.

Julie Bindel has written up the fake "unions" that purport to represent prostituted women. Be wary of any organisation purporting to represent prostituted women. The women in Holbeck weren't in any kind of union.

The take-home I got from the article in the OP is that prostituted women need exit services and better options. Those can exist under any legislative model. Decrim doesn't make exit services appear as if by magic.

The women in Holbeck weren't being invited to speak to Parliament. To have MPs listen to you is a sign of having power and privilege that the women in Holbeck, and indeed most trafficked women, do not have.

NGOs can get tae fuck. Have you forgotten how many of them are quite happy for their male staff to pay to rape children whilst working overseas?

The same Julie Bindel who told a straight-up lie, which was published by Unherd, about Pornhub "having a war r*pe category" (which it never has).

I'm not exactly a fan of PH myself, my point is we need to make sure it is facts we're dealing with and not lies.

If Decrim Now and Scot-Pep didn't "represent" sex workers then why would they have thousands of members (women who sell or have sold sex) in Scotland and across Britain.

In decrim NZ a sex worker won a 6 figure payout after being sexually harassed. Proving that under complete decrim sexual harassment can and will be taken seriously.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/new-zealand-sex-worker-sexual-harassment-b1772944.html

Meanwhile in Sweden...

Asian-looking women were refused entry to a pub "because they might be prostitutes" (they weren't). They took the pub to court and the judge ruled in favour of the pub. So yes, a judge in Sweden has Nordic Model makes it ok to discriminate against women "who look like prostitutes"

https://www.thelocal.se/20130912/50200

<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

What has any of that got to do with the provision of exit services, an analysis of who gets to speak in Parliament, and whether we should listen to rapey NGOs?

Anyone can claim to have thousands of members.

PornHub don't let uploaders use the word "rape" to describe videos, but rape is what some of those videos clearly are. Euphemisms used for rape include "punishment fuck" and "destroy anally". Either they lie in their search engine results, or they offer "war porn". Somehow, I doubt that's going to be the sex scene from Starship Troopers.

It would have saved a lot of time and confusion if you had posted that in the first place. I can agree that there may be limitations to that particular study, but you have said she wrote things that were "untrue". That was a tad misleading on your part, because it invited your reader to conclude that her quoted statistics were entirely fictitious. And they're not, then, are they.

But moving on. I quickly looked into recent publications on mental health in Ireland, and found a relevant document on the HSE website. I quote: One in every four Irish people will experience a mental health problem during his or her lifetime, with depression in particular being a very common condition affecting 450,000 Irish people or one in ten persons at any one time.

But presumably it remains outlandish to even suspect that prostituted women could have mental health problems at a higher rate than the rest of the population in the country they're in.

Very well said.

The 1999 study by Ann Marie O'Connor was an excellent study. She made it clear that this group of 77 drug-addicted women were not representative of prostitutes in general in Ireland. As a study of drug addicts in Dublin it was informative, but when Ruhama decided to pretend that it applied to prostitutes in general in Ireland that was wrong of them. It was untrue.

When Ann Marie O'Connor said that 38% of the group of drug addicts in Dublin had attempted suicide her statistics were correct. When Ruhama and then Rachel Moran said that 38% of prostitutes in Ireland had attempted suicide their statistics were entirely fictitious.

I can't find any statistics to say that 25% of people in Ireland have been diagnosed with depression. I can easily believe that 25% of drug addicts in Ireland have been diagnosed with depression but I don't believe that 25% of prostitutes have been diagnosed with depression. Most prostitutes are not drug addicts.

Maybe it will help if someone explained to you how search engine results work.

You received those results specifically because you obviously did a search for "war r*pe porn" or similar (and I hope your ISP has noticed and passed your details onto police). What the duckduckgo search engine is doing there is quoting your search term and inserting it into a template e.g. "watch [your search result] here on Pornhub!".

1. HTTPS ought to prevent ISP snooping of search engine terms. If it doesn't, the ISP can also see my Mumsnet postings and hence knows already why I made the search.
2. A search for a term doesn't indicate a desire to look at the material. It can indicate a desire to find evidence that the material is available, or at the very least is advertised as available by PornHub.
3. The purpose of a search engine is to return results that exist, not make them up from thin air.

ok then, for the stated intent search for "war r*pe" directly on PH itself and let me know what it says.

If you ever search for rape on PornHub, it will say that they don't have that. It's a lie. Suzzan Blac did the research.

FREE WEBINAR: Why Ash Regan’s “Unbuyable” Bill is right for Scotland. Unravelling the myths around the Nordic Model

2pm GMT Sunday 11 January 2026

I just want to alert you to this webinar on Sunday that is being put on by Nordic Model Now! It will feature Ash Regan MSP herself talking about her 'Unbuyable Bill' with Venessa MacLeod, a survivor of Edinburgh's legal 'saunas' (i.e. brothels). They will also address some of the common myths about the Nordic Model, e.g. that it "forces prostitution underground".

It's free but you need to register in advance:

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/why-ash-regans-unbuyable-bill-is-right-for-scotland-tickets-1972612307513

The biggie that most of you seem to be ignoring is that, like for OF, some sex workers do it because they are forced, pimped, coerced, enslaved. But some do it because it is a much easier way to make money. Opening your legs to strangers is easier and more profitable than stocking the shelves at Tesco or getting up at 5am for an early shift in a minimum wage job.

You might say that these women should not have the right to make these choices.

You might say that it should still be illegal because it is too hard to distinguish those who do it out of free choice from those who are coerced.

But you cannot say that no one does it as a free choice.

I have seen a couple of documentaries on this and the main message was always the same: sex with strangers is easier and more profitable than minimum wage jobs.

If buying sex is immoral, what do you have to say about the morality of those women who decide to sell sex simply because it's an easier way to make more money?
Not every sex worker or OF model is a victim of patriarchal and societal oppression.

Also, Amnesty International published this report on the limitations and issues with the Nordic model. But some wise people here have said Amnesty can go f* themselves, so...

https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/EUR3641302016ENGLISH.pdf

The biggie that most of you seem to be ignoring is that, like for OF, some sex workers do it because they are forced, pimped, coerced, enslaved. But some do it because it is a much easier way to make money. Opening your legs to strangers is easier and more profitable than stocking the shelves at Tesco or getting up at 5am for an early shift in a minimum wage job.

There are two problems with this argument.
Firstly, if the sex trade is organised in such a way that punters cant tell the difference between a pimped woman and one who is 'just opening her legs for money', that's a fundamental problem with the industry. The whole thing should be shut down until it can be guaranteed that no one has been coerced. Its a human rights issue.

Second, I don't know any women who are 'just opening their legs for money'. I do know women who for various reasons relating to how poverty works IRL need money now. Even if they got a job at Tesco's they wouldn't receive their first pay check for several weeks, and thats a long term solution.
Thats assuming they are in a position to find work outside of the home, aren't in a coercive relationship, don't have to worry about childcare etc.

"you cannot say that no one does it as a free choice."

Well, I can say anything I want!

I can definitely say "I do not believe that a single woman has sex for money and -

(1) Is 100% fully informed of all risks and consequences that she will face.
or
(2) Would do the job were they able to find another job such as office admin or supermarket til worker which offered the same hourly rate and flexibility
and
(3) Exits the the industry with as good or better mental health than when she entered".

Would you be OK with you mother, wife or daughter taking up prostitution, maybe only for a few months to make some quick money to pay off credit card debt?

@TheInebriati The whole thing should be shut down until it can be guaranteed that no one has been coerced.

If you re-read my post, you will notice that this is exactly one of the points I make! I totally understand how and why one of the positions on this topic can be exactly this, ie that it should be banned because it is too hard to distinguish the pimped from those who do it freely. I understand why some people think that. Whether that makes things better or worse is a completely different matter. Many organisations like Amnesty (not exactly the Pimps' Trade Union) seem to think the Nordic model makes things worse.

Second, I don't know any women who are 'just opening their legs for money'.

Unless your academic studies or professional work have led you to obtain an exposure to this sector which can be considered representative, why should what you know have any relevance? There are plenty of people whose circumstances are real even if you don't know them.
If your experience is relevant and representative, you should explain why.
Otherwise it's completely meaningless

Do you remember the memes about the OF "model" who charged her biggest fan $10,000 for an in-person meeting, then used the money to go on holiday? Did she do it because she needed to or because she wanted the extra cash?
In fact, with OF one could make the argument that there may be at least some cases where it's the women who are exploiting the men, getting them to spend £££££ on them for customised "content" etc.

Netflix has a documentary, I think called "Escorts", on two London sex workers who keep commenting on how much money they can make with such a relatively little time commitment.
I remember a similar documentary at the time of Eliot Spitzer in the US a while back.

I have no idea how many such cases exist. But exist they do. I don't quite understand why you want to deny it?

@JamieCannister Well, I can say anything I want!

Of course you can, but saying it doesn't make it true, and, if you have told porkies, expect to be called out for it!!

Would you be OK with you mother, wife or daughter taking up prostitution, maybe only for a few months to make some quick money to pay off credit card debt?

What does this have to do with anything?
There are plenty of jobs I would not want my family members to do - this doesn't mean they are all illegal or immoral.
I would not want them to scrub toilets, I would not want them to wake up at 4am to collect rubbish, I would not want them to work a minimum wage job. So what?

Is your criterion that any job you would not want a family member to do must be banned???

Note I never said nor implied that anyone could or should do this job.
The points were whether the Nordic model works, and whether there exist women who choose this line of work freely, simply because it is an easier way to make more money. It is beyond me why so many of you feel so triggered by the self-evident banality that some women choose to do it freely, because it's an easier (for them, not for everyone) way to make more money, and specifically to make the kind of money they could never make otherwise.

(1) Is 100% fully informed of all risks and consequences that she will face.

And you know this... how, exactly? Because you have studied the sector and interviewed thousands of sex workers? Or because that is your ideological preconception, and you feel so strongly about it that you don't feel the need to substantiate that in any way?

(2) Would do the job were they able to find another job such as office admin or supermarket til worker which offered the same hourly rate and flexibility

This is a lousy argument. Of course jobs which involve more risks and which not anyone can do (anyone can work at Tesco, not anyone can do sex work) will pay more. Of course no one would have worked as a mercenary, sorry, private contractor in Iraq if it had paid minimum wage. So what??

I don't follow what you're trying to get to. I mean, it's not like it's society's responsibility to make unqualified jobs so well paid that no one would ever be tempted to choose jobs which are illegal, immoral, and/or risky!!

(3) Exits the the industry with as good or better mental health than when she entered".

That may well be true, I have no idea, but again: i) how do you know? ii) what does this have to do with anything? I don't think anyone has claimed that sex work improves your mental health

You clearly aren't aware of Amnesty's background on this issue, or the fact that a pimp called Douglas Fox was responsible for writing its pro-decrim policy:

https://thefeministahood.wordpress.com/2015/08/24/what-amnesty-did-wrong/

Plenty of women who currently "work" in prostitution will say they are happy and independent, but that's marketing. They won't attract as many clients if they tell the truth.

The testimony of former sex workers, on the other hand, is very different. Those who are out and speak freely are far more damning in what they say.

You don't seem to have read any of this thread before posting. There's plenty of commentary here that makes nonsense of your claims.

@dolly96 The report in your link makes a number of factual errors.

The preamble of the UN Convention defines prostitution as incompatible with human dignity, but then article 2 is about punishing the exploitation of prostitution, not prostitution itself. Nowhere does it say nor imply that selling or buying sex service should always be criminalised. Otherwise the UK would be in violation of that convention. Is it?? It sees to me that this argument was used either out of ignorance or out of bad faith - not sure which is worst.

It then mentions some research that links decriminalisation to an increase in sex trafficking, but other studies reach the opposite conclusion, so evidence is at best mixed.

You don't seem to have read any of this thread before posting. There's plenty of commentary here that makes nonsense of your claims.

I could say the same.
There is plenty of commentary in the thread highlighting the dangers of the Nordic model, from Asian women kicked out of a club because they looked like prostitutes (they weren't), to Romanian women deported because they were sharing a flat to work in, with no pimp, but they go deported anyway, to women saying that criminalisation has attracted the worst and most dangerous customers, to plenty of commentary that suggests the very opposite of what you claimed - and which you have chosen to ignore.

I also note your deafening silence on the point of the women who choose to do this freely because it allows them to earn more money, more quickly and with less effort than a minimum wage job. But this doesn't fit your narrative, so you have ignored it.

Can we agree that that (women choosing to do it freely to earn more money) is at least the case for some OF models? Or not even that?

What does this have to do with anything?

I want to judge your character, and I now have evidence that you are a massive hypocrite who does not want your mum, wife or daughter to consider prostitution, but is happy for other women to consider it.

Would you prefer your wife to become a prostitute or to clean toilets or flip burgers? Imagine she has to do one of the three, which one?

I am sorry, but any man who has anything positive to say about prostitution, at all, is a fool (at best), and if they are not up for pocketing half the money from their wife selling sex then they're a hypocrite too.

"the dangers of the Nordic model, from Asian women kicked out of a club because they looked like prostitutes (they weren't)"

That seems to be quite an incredible danger of the nordic model.

Why are you so keen to justify the "happy hooker" myth?

@JamieCannister That seems to be quite an incredible danger of the nordic model.

Yes, do cherry pick the least serious issue, while ignoring the more serious ones, like women reporting that criminalisation has attracted the worst and more dangerous clients. That's what people debating in good faith and without prejudices do.

I want to judge your character, and I now have evidence that you are a massive hypocrite who does not want your mum, wife or daughter to consider prostitution, but is happy for other women to consider it.

??? I am not "happy" for other women to consider it.
I was simply pointing out that it is quite nonsensical to use as criterion whether one would want their family members to do the same job.

Would you want your family members to work as rubbish collectors?
Are you a hypocrite if you don't, but still have your rubbish collected by those workers?
Presumably you wouldn't want your kids to work a minimum wage job forever? Does this mean you are a hypocrite if you attend a shop or restaurant and get served by adults who have been doing that minimum wage job for a long time??

I am sorry, but any man who has anything positive to say about prostitution, at all, is a fool (at best), and if they are not up for pocketing half the money from their wife selling sex then they're a hypocrite too.

You are blinded by ideological rage, which is clouding your text comprehension skills.
What would I have said about prostitution which is positive? Please clarify.

Saying that the Nordic model makes it worse is not saying anything positive.
Saying that some women choose to do it freely because it allows them to earn more money they ever could is not saying something positive.

I ask again: what would I have said that's positive? Can you either clarify or retract and apologise? Thank you!