Defense of the Nordic Model for dealing with Prostitution (and the right to defend it)

661 posts / 0 new
Last post
Elle_Fury

susan davis wrote:

 ...and if we refuse...death penalty...that'll get rid of the prostitute problem....

I have reported this.

This statement is  a deliberate misrepresentation of the abolitionist position, and should not be allowed on this forum. Susan, if you have run out of arguments, please don't write anything.

susan davis susan davis's picture

hey, read back through this thread...its been said a few times that the happiness and safety of adult consensual sex workers is secondary to the goal of fighting patriarchy...has it not?

what is the price of that? if we are to be considered the reasonable casualty, why are you surprised by my remarks?

in some countries the things i describe in my post are happening...read the GAATW reports....

sex workers are being rounded up into concentration camps with other "undesirables" in greece, sex workers are forced into re-education camps in china.....sometimes are executed in china and korea....

if you read the swedish criminal code it becomes all too clear....abolitionists do not care about the safety of sex workers, they want to get rid of sex workers. in vancouver we have seen the results of the get rid of prostitution approach....

you misrepresent the voices of sex workers fighting for decrim as the pro prostitution lobby and as representing organized crime...i have been called all kinds of names here on rabble....how do you think it makes us feel to know what you really think of us? what do you think the result will be of abolition? how will that play out? do you think no one will die?

susan davis susan davis's picture

as far as running out of arguements, perhaps you should heed your own advice and stop quoting debunked, unethical, disallowed research findings as if they were the bible...

Gustave

Elle_Fury wrote:
This statement is  a deliberate misrepresentation of the abolitionist position, and should not be allowed on this forum. Susan, if you have run out of arguments, please don't write anything.

1 Does that apply also to the misrepresentation of sex workers positions? Should that be allowed?

2 The first misrepresentation of the abolitionnist position is done by those calling themselves abolitionnists. They call for criminalisation of the transaction. They are hiding their prohibitionnist view behind a label that appeals to emotions but that has nothing to do with prohibition. Are you going to report that?

3 If you want to accuse susan to run out of arguments, may I suggest that you first stop the use of ad hominem arguments like the one you made about Dodillet?

 

Elle_Fury

susan davis wrote:

hey, read back through this thread...its been said a few times that the happiness and safety of adult consensual sex workers is secondary to the goal of fighting patriarchy...has it not?

what is the price of that? if we are to be considered the reasonable casualty, why are you surprised by my remarks?

in some countries the things i describe in my post are happening...read the GAATW reports....

Once again, Susan you are misrepresenting what has been written by abolitionists. Abolitionists and radical feminists believe that elimination of patriarchy = elimination of all forms of violence against women, including prostitution. So, ELIMINATING (note: not just reducing) harm done to sex workers is the ultimate goal. "Sex work" exists BECAUSE of patriarchy. Eliminate patriarchy and there would be no "sex work" in the first place. In a patriarchy-free world, women would be having sex with people they WANT/ARE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO, not because they are hard up for cash. It's simple, really.

sex workers are being rounded up into concentration camps with other "undesirables" in greece, sex workers are forced into re-education camps in china.....sometimes are executed in china and korea....

I'm sorry, but no one on this forum supports this practice, and it is very disingenuous to suggest that.

if you read the swedish criminal code it becomes all too clear....abolitionists do not care about the safety of sex workers, they want to get rid of sex workers. in vancouver we have seen the results of the get rid of prostitution approach....

Wrong again. Abolitionists want to get rid of "sex work", not sex workers. Most supporters of the Swedish model want young boys/men to grow up knowing that it is not okay to buy women for sex. Most supporters of the Swedish model want young boys/men to grow up knowing that is important that the women they want to have sex with want them too. Women's sexual desires matter, and it is illogical to think desire is something that can be purchased.

you misrepresent the voices of sex workers fighting for decrim as the pro prostitution lobby and as representing organized crime...i have been called all kinds of names here on rabble....how do you think it makes us feel to know what you really think of us? what do you think the result will be of abolition? how will that play out? do you think no one will die?

 

Prostituted women die because pimps and johns kill them. Pimps and johns kill them in countries where prostitution is legalized and decriminalized too. You can look that up. 

Elle_Fury

I also have to write, I am pretty ticked that the moderators gave me a warning once because I pointed out that those who support prostitution use neoliberal arguments to support this view, yet when a pro prostitution commentator makes the outrageous statement that abolitionists want to give sex workers the death penalty, they are silent. This is very unfair, and I am seriously reconsidering stopping my donations to this pro prostitution rag.

susan davis susan davis's picture

i didn't state it as fact, i am simply highlighting the cost of prohibition and criminalization in other countries.

Elle_Fury

Gustave wrote:

 

1 Does that apply also to the misrepresentation of sex workers positions? Should that be allowed?

Point out where I did this, please.

2 The first misrepresentation of the abolitionnist position is done by those calling themselves abolitionnists. They call for criminalisation of the transaction. They are hiding their prohibitionnist view behind a label that appeals to emotions but that has nothing to do with prohibition. Are you going to report that?

Abolitionists call themselves abolitionists because of the connotations associated with the term prohibition (in other words, women are people, not an inanimate thing like alcohol) and because they see prostitution as a form of female enslavement. And yes, we should feel both the emotions of anger and sadness about female enslavement. But thanks for calling the women who support this feminist position "emotional". Your true colours are showing.

3 If you want to accuse susan to run out of arguments, may I suggest that you first stop the use of ad hominem arguments like the one you made about Dodillet?

 I pointed out she had an agenda, like you pointed out about Kajsa Wahlberg. So it's okay for you to do it, but not me. Alright then. Sealed

Gustave

Elle_Fury wrote:
 Point out where I did this, please.

There was nothing personal in that remark. I did not scan you contributions. I have no idea if you did it or not. Some others did, that's for sure.

Elle_Fury wrote:
Abolitionists call themselves abolitionists because of the connotations associated with the term prohibition (in other words, women are people, not an inanimate thing like alcohol) and because they see prostitution as a form of female enslavement.

I've never heard that argument before.

Wiki:

Prohibitionism is a legal philosophy and political theory often used in lobbying which holds that citizens will abstain from actions if the actions are typed as unlawful (i.e. prohibited) and the prohibitions are enforced by law enforcement.[1] This philosophy has been the basis for many acts of statutory law throughout history, most notably when a large group of a given population disapproves of and/or feels threatened by an activity in which a smaller group of that population engages, and seeks to render that activity legally prohibited.

Elle_Fury wrote:
And yes, we should feel both the emotions of anger and sadness about female enslavement. But thanks for calling the women who support this feminist position "emotional". Your true colours are showing.

Ad hominem argument. Also, as we say in french, "Faire pleurer Margot."

My true colors are that I think many prohibitionnist activists act like moral entreprenors. They use emotions as arguments and call heartless people who are not lured. Some sex workers are enslaved, some are not. I never called whatever feminist position emotional. It's the appeal to emotions, as you just did, in defending the position that is problematic. 

Elle_Fury wrote:
 I pointed out she had an agenda, like you pointed out about Kajsa Wahlberg. So it's okay for you to do it, but not me. Alright then. Sealed

You certainly haven't shown that for Dodillet, but I guess you're maybe talking about Susan. It's obvious Susan has a agenda, at least her own as a sex worker. She's not hiding anything.

Elle_Fury wrote:
I pointed out that those who support prostitution use neoliberal arguments to support this view, 

 I never quite understood what is meant by "neoliberal arguments". What's the difference with the classical liberal arguments of liberty, equality of rights and limiting the intervention of the State in private affairs when they have no consequences for the collectivity?

 

Gustave

Elle_Fury wrote:
Abolitionists and radical feminists believe that elimination of patriarchy = elimination of all forms of violence against women, including prostitution.

I would like to propose a very simple thought experiment.

Step one

Imagine a closed society with equality of women and men. Differences on all variables are not anymore statistically significant in all spheres of life: economics, politics, science, control of institutions, etc. The society got rid of patriarchy. Not one citizen would even think about it anymore.

Life goes on otherwise, with people playing with the kids, exchanging goods and services, going to concerts, backpacking, seducing that attractive guy next door.

Step two

A non-patriarchal society could be more or less equal in the distribution of assets. It could be a class society, unless we consider classes as a patriarchal institution, a more equalitarian peasant society, a commune or whatever, but with no patriarchy in it.

Very unequal societies tolerating misery will always have a supply side of survival prostitution, even without patriarchy. You’ll supply anything when confronted to death. So I would suggest considering the perfect equal society, each citizen having the same assets at the starting point.

 

What could be expected about prostitution in such a society?

I think we all agree that inequalities are an explanation factor of prostitution. For some, it’s the sole factor so prostitution would disappear: no patriarchy no prostitution. For the others it’s a main factor so prostitution would drop quite a lot. The available bits of data we have tend to show that there is less prostitution in societies where women’s equality is higher.

The fascinating thing about prostitution is that it solves the inequality factor quite rapidly, at least for the sex workers themselves. Once started, you can rapidly raise over the average income so the reasons that got some there are no longer applicable from then on.

If prostitution continues to exist in the equal society, it would certainly be at much higher equilibrium price, thus lower quantity, and among people having no problem with the idea of sex as a commodity. I’m not talking about women’s body as a commodity. That would be contrary to the non-patriarchal principal.

Suppose a sex worker in a market with an equilibrium price rising from 250$ today to 500$/h in the equal society. I hardly see an argument for her/him to quit.

 

quizzical

oh ya it's all economics....like it's supposed to mean squat!

Elle_Fury

 

 I never quite understood what is meant by "neoliberal arguments".

Basically, this political philosophy ignores the existence of  systematic oppression and class inequality and boils everything down to individual choice. That some sex workers "choose" sex work is all that matters to neolibs. They do not bother to think about all the factors that lead to the making of this "choice"- i.e. the economic and social inequality between men and women and/or the socialization of how oppressed groups view themselves- i.e. women are socialized from birth to see themselves as sex objects to be used by men . See: the media:https://genderandsociety2013.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/tom-ford.jpg Neoliberals tend to also want to get rid of most social goods and to commodify every aspect of human interaction so there is nothing left that has any intrinsic value. In terms of how it has impacted feminism, see here:http://theleftsideoffeminism.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/reflections-on-fem...