The "Nordic Model" of prostitution law is a myth....

70 posts / 0 new

Sat, 2013-12-28 13:50

susan davis susan davis's picture

a snip it from an article by May-Len Skilbrei- Associate Professor at University of Oslo; and Charlotta Holmström- Assistant Professor at Malmö University

http://theconversation.com/the-nordic-model-of-prostitution-law-is-a-myth-21351

Values in practice
Ultimately, prostitution laws targeting buyers have complex effects on people far beyond those they are meant to target. In addition to this complicating factor, the Nordic countries also police prostitution using various other laws and by-laws. Some of these regulations do, in fact, assume that the women who sell sex are to be punished and blamed for prostitution. This goes to show that one should be careful in concluding that Nordic prostitution policies are guided by progressive feminist ideals, or that they necessarily seek to protect women involved in prostitution. The most telling example of this the way the Nordic countries treat migrants who sell sex.

In Sweden this is embodied by the Aliens Act, which forbids foreign women from selling sex in Sweden and is used by the police to apprehend non-Swedish or migrant persons suspected of selling sex. This reveals the limits of the rhetoric of female victimisation, with clients framed as perpetrators: if the seller is foreign, she is to blame, and can be punished with deportation.

In Norway, we see similar gaps between stated ideology, written policies, and practice. Even though it is completely legal to sell sex, women involved in prostitution are victims of increased police, neighbour and border controls which stigmatise them and make them more vulnerable. The increased control the Norwegian police exert on prostitution markets so as to identify clients includes document checks on women involved in prostitution so as to find irregulars among them. Raids performed in the name of rescue often end with vulnerable women who lack residence permits being deported from Norway.

Taken together, the Nordic countries’ ways of approaching prostitution have been presented nationally and understood internationally as expressions of a shared understanding of prostitution as a gender equality problem, an example of how women’s rights can be enshrined in anti-prostitution law. But after looking closely at how the laws have been proposed and implemented, we beg to differ.

Issues Pages:

Feminism

Regions:

Mon, 2014-01-06 12:10

susan davis susan davis's picture

because this article meant nothing...these people are wrong...right abolitionist faithful?

all the abolitionists can do is link to news articles and shock style stories of terrible working conditions which under a criminalized regime like the so called nordic model will flourish. they hoist these terrible stories as the norm in the sex industry and its a lie. workers all over the planet are fighting to be allowed to organize ourselves as human beings with rights.

only if we are decriminalized can we fight to end exploitation and improve working conditions in sex work.

Fri, 2014-01-10 01:26

fortunate

There is a new government in Sweden who has always been opposed to the criminalization law. They will accept the 5 year review which an independent group is going to be doing (or currently doing?), but they do plan to remove this law. It is part of their mandate.

So, good luck to those who want to hold it up as an example after this year. Their own government considered it a mistake, i have no doubt the report coming with show it is a collosal failure.

Fri, 2014-01-10 07:04

lagatta

Yes, there is a rightwing coalition government in Sweden now. (The "business-oriented" type of right). What does that prove one way or another?

Fri, 2014-01-10 10:28

Bärlüer

The ideological orientation of the government (to the extent it can even be reduced to a single, unitary basis [an undertaking that's especially hard with the coalition governments typically seen in Europe]) shouldn't be the measure of the policy's advisability. The various policies should be evaluated on their own merits.

I imagine you would be reticent to assess the advisability of the so-called Nordic model (which I take you're a proponent of) based on the fact that it's now being pushed by our Conservative government...

To go back to the topics explored in the article quoted by susan:

Here's a blog post by Wendy Lyon (BTW, I recommend her posts in general and the blog that's hosting them, Feminist Ire; I've found the content there to be consistently interesting) which touches on similar issues (she refers to Skilbrei's article in her post).

Basically, she points out major inconsistencies between what the Swedish government says about its sex industry internally and what it says (or others say) about it when promoting their policy abroad.

One aspect I found particularly eloquent is the way their prostitution law and immigration law interacts. It sheds considerable light on the actual view the Swedish government holds of sex workers. For instance: a Justice Ombudsman upheld the position of the Migrant Board to deport a migrant sex worker based on her occupation:

Quote:
…prostitution is to be regarded as a dishonest means of support according to the law. Prostitution – which can not occur without a crime having been committed – may also be considered as a prohibited occurrence in one principal element. Unlike the judgement in a previous determination by the Ombudsman for Justice, which related to begging, deportation in this case is considered to be compatible with the Aliens Act.

This emphasizes quite clearly the underpinnings of the Swedish model: a prohibitionist model which singles out sex workers, discriminates against them based on their occupation, casting them in the shadows where they become subject to greater risk of harm, whether perpetrated by persons they interact with in their work, or by the State itself.

Fri, 2014-01-10 10:42

Unionist

Bärlüer wrote:

I imagine you would be reticent to assess the advisability of the so-called Nordic model (which I take you're a proponent of) based on the fact that it's now being pushed by our Conservative government...

Because we have 10,000 threads all dealing with (essentially) the same issue, I'm going to ask you (Bärlüer) to head over here so that I can raise a question about this La Presse article.

Fri, 2014-01-10 11:09

mark_alfred

Bärlüer wrote:

One aspect I found particularly eloquent is the way their prostitution law and immigration law interacts. It sheds considerable light on the actual view the Swedish government holds of sex workers. For instance: a Justice Ombudsman upheld the position of the Migrant Board to deport a migrant sex worker based on her occupation:

Quote:
…prostitution is to be regarded as a dishonest means of support according to the law. Prostitution – which can not occur without a crime having been committed – may also be considered as a prohibited occurrence in one principal element. Unlike the judgement in a previous determination by the Ombudsman for Justice, which related to begging, deportation in this case is considered to be compatible with the Aliens Act.

This emphasizes quite clearly the underpinnings of the Swedish model: a prohibitionist model which singles out sex workers, discriminates against them based on their occupation, casting them in the shadows where they become subject to greater risk of harm, whether perpetrated by persons they interact with in their work, or by the State itself.

Yuck. The "Nordic model" should be fought with full vigour if this is the case.

Fri, 2014-01-10 16:20

fortunate

Here is an analysis of the Nordic model:

http://www.bayswan.org/swed/flashback_sweden.html

The writer refers to this article which i will link here:

http://gup.ub.gu.se/records/fulltext/140671.pdf

In this report we will focus on the conflict between the stated success of the ban and the lack of data that can back up these claims. Because, when reviewing the research and reports available, it becomes clear that the Sex Purchase Act cannot be said to have decreased prostitution, trafficking for sexual purposes, or had a deterrent effect on clients to the extent claimed. Nor is it possible to claim that public attitudes towards prostitution have changed significantly in the desired radical feminist direction or that there has been a similar increased support of the ban. We have also found reports of serious adverse effects of the Sex Purchase Act – especially concerning the health and well-being of sex workers – in spite of the fact that the lawmakers stressed that the ban was not to have a detrimental effect on people in prostitution

I am not sure why I have to make another point, other than the fact that NORWAY has a new government that plans to repeal the law, making it, at that time, irrelevant to use as a model of success for other countries. And here i thought such a thing would be evident by my post, but what do i know, i'm just a sex worker, who listens to me?

Fri, 2014-01-10 16:28

quizzical

fortunate wrote:

Here is an analysis of the Nordic model:

http://www.bayswan.org/swed/flashback_sweden.html

The writer refers to this article which i will link here:

http://gup.ub.gu.se/records/fulltext/140671.pdf

In this report we will focus on the conflict between the stated success of the ban and the lack of data that can back up these claims. Because, when reviewing the research and reports available, it becomes clear that the Sex Purchase Act cannot be said to have decreased prostitution, trafficking for sexual purposes, or had a deterrent effect on clients to the extent claimed. Nor is it possible to claim that public attitudes towards prostitution have changed significantly in the desired radical feminist direction or that there has been a similar increased support of the ban. We have also found reports of serious adverse effects of the Sex Purchase Act – especially concerning the health and well-being of sex workers – in spite of the fact that the lawmakers stressed that the ban was not to have a detrimental effect on people in prostitution

I am not sure why I have to make another point, other than the fact that NORWAY has a new government that plans to repeal the law, making it, at that time, irrelevant to use as a model of success for other countries. And here i thought such a thing would be evident by my post, but what do i know, i'm just a sex worker, who listens to me?

"desired radical feminists" wow this author sure wants to be taken seriously!!!!!!!! i'm not even a feminist and i'm affronted by the misogynist language

Fri, 2014-01-10 16:47

#10

fortunate

quizzical wrote:

fortunate wrote:

Here is an analysis of the Nordic model:

http://www.bayswan.org/swed/flashback_sweden.html

The writer refers to this article which i will link here:

http://gup.ub.gu.se/records/fulltext/140671.pdf

In this report we will focus on the conflict between the stated success of the ban and the lack of data that can back up these claims. Because, when reviewing the research and reports available, it becomes clear that the Sex Purchase Act cannot be said to have decreased prostitution, trafficking for sexual purposes, or had a deterrent effect on clients to the extent claimed. Nor is it possible to claim that public attitudes towards prostitution have changed significantly in the desired radical feminist direction or that there has been a similar increased support of the ban. We have also found reports of serious adverse effects of the Sex Purchase Act – especially concerning the health and well-being of sex workers – in spite of the fact that the lawmakers stressed that the ban was not to have a detrimental effect on people in prostitution

I am not sure why I have to make another point, other than the fact that NORWAY has a new government that plans to repeal the law, making it, at that time, irrelevant to use as a model of success for other countries. And here i thought such a thing would be evident by my post, but what do i know, i'm just a sex worker, who listens to me?

"desired radical feminists" wow this author sure wants to be taken seriously!!!!!!!! i'm not even a feminist and i'm affronted by the misogynist language

I think you should take the time to click the link and read the backgrounds of the authors before you leap to conclusions. Just as people like to invent new words to refer to sex workers, so do researchers need a term to describe this particular type of feminist. The phrase 'radical feminist' has been around for a while. In fact this article was presented in 2011. And the actual phrase isn't 'desired radical feminists', it was 'the desired radical feminist direction." That is an important distinction.

It will be however, 36 pages of things you do not want to know. The first link is a summation in fewer words, also of things you do not want to know, but shorter read.

I would have thought that the first words to grab any reader would have been "the conflict between the stated success of the ban and the lack of data that can back up these claims."

I too have heard a lot of claims about the success of the ban, but there is no actual data to back it up. We do see some repetition of what the proposed ban was supposed to be doing, but no actual research about whether or not that happened. And in fact, as the 2nd link indicated, their research doesn't actually support the claims either.

Fri, 2014-01-10 16:48

#11

Bärlüer

Misogynist language? Numerous advocates of the "Nordic model" self-identify as radical feminists.

Fri, 2014-01-10 17:57

#12

pookie

"radical feminist" is now a slur?

Huh. How about that.

Fri, 2014-01-10 18:12

#13

Unionist

You know, pookie and Bärlüer, I read the article - did you? - and the term "radical feminist" is used throughout as a slur, as in fact synonymous with something like "someone who wants to abolish prostitution at any cost to sex workers".

So while I consider "radical feminist" as something to praise or emulate, it's certainly not used that way by the authors. It would like if Harper called someone a "radical feminist" - not a prelude to inducting them into the Order of Canada.

Isn't it possible to reduce the level of venom in these threads?

Fri, 2014-01-10 19:02

#14

onlinediscountanvils

Having read the article, 'radical feminist' reads to me like a descriptor.

Sun, 2014-01-12 02:06

#15

fortunate

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Having read the article, 'radical feminist' reads to me like a descriptor.

I would agree. The authors of the article are pointing out the arguments from a particular group of people, in this case those who self identify as radical feminists, and/or those who parrot the same idealogy.

I think these articles are good knowledge bases. You can read the original research and conclusions, and then when you read people talking about what those articles are supposedly saying, you can watch them twist and reinterpret the facts to their own way. Most interesting is an analysis of what Melissa Farley did with the study of NZ prostitution reform 5 years after they overturned the laws and regulated the business. The original study could say something as simple as 'many aboriginal sex workers reported that their first sexual (as in non paid) encounter was at 14", and she posts her own article about this research in this way "the study reports that all aboriginal sex workers started working on the streets at 14."

Mon, 2014-01-27 17:15

#16

fortunate

mark_alfred wrote:

Found an article in Now Magazine that may be of interest: Ins and outs of paying for sex.

From it:

Barbara Keesling wrote:
One of the major health benefits of hiring a professional is the safer sex factor. The only time a sex worker would have unsafe sex is if she were coerced. I think it’s far more responsible to have sex with a professional than an affair. It’s less stressful on the [primary] relationship. No one ever has to worry about me calling their house crying, ‘You forgot to call me on my birthday!’ We all go home healthy and happy.

So, potentially full service sex work could be a saver of marriages.

You may be joking, but I've heard similar things from many different people from different parts of canada and the world lol.

Mon, 2014-01-27 17:57

#17

mark_alfred

Found an article in Now Magazine that may be of interest: Ins and outs of paying for sex.

From it:

Valerie Scott wrote:
One of the major health benefits of hiring a professional is the safer sex factor. The only time a sex worker would have unsafe sex is if she were coerced. I think it’s far more responsible to have sex with a professional than an affair. It’s less stressful on the [primary] relationship. No one ever has to worry about me calling their house crying, ‘You forgot to call me on my birthday!’ We all go home healthy and happy.

So, potentially full service sex work could be a saver of marriages.

ETA: Initially I mistakenly attributed the above quote to Barbara Keesling, which was an error. Keesling also has a quote in the article, but the one above is from Valerie Scott.

Wed, 2014-02-26 13:32

#18

sherpa-finn

European parliament backs the 'Nordic model' of prostitution, which legalises the selling of sex but criminalises buying it

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/feb/26/meps-vote-criminalise-buying-sex-european-parliament?CMP=twt_gu

Wed, 2014-02-26 13:45

#19

lagatta

The main problem here is that the EU also advocates austerity policies that force many women and girls (and some vulnerable men and boys, as well as transgender people) into prostitution, and makes impossible exit strategies involving adequate benefits and housing, as well as job training and other measures for workplace integration.

Wed, 2014-02-26 14:58

#20

Mórríghain

fortunate wrote:

You may be joking, but I've heard similar things from many different people from different parts of canada and the world lol.

The 'a prostitute could save your marriage' idea is an old pro-decriminalization trope. I suspect no one believes it.

Wed, 2014-02-26 15:44

#21

lagatta

It goes back a lot farther than that, to the "mother and the whore" stereotypes (I guess the "Virgin" is the other facet of defining women only by their sexuality and their sexual worth to men). Seeing women as chattel, whatever they did in life.

Thu, 2014-02-27 20:04

#22

Mórríghain

lagatta wrote:

It goes back a lot farther than that, to the "mother and the whore" stereotypes...

Huh?

Thu, 2014-02-27 22:21

#23

lagatta

Stereotypes of the "good girl" reserved for marriage, and the "bad girl" to play with - and in some cultures nuns or others expected to remain "pure".

All of them defined by how they were used by men or male institutions.

Fri, 2014-02-28 15:48

#24

Mórríghain

I understand the whore/madonna complex, I just don't think it applies to the discussed cliché—not these days at least. I suspect tis a given that if one marriage partner is seeing prostitutes the marriage is done.

Sat, 2014-03-01 21:28

#25

zerocarbs

> I suspect tis a given that if one marriage partner is seeing prostitutes the marriage is done.

On the face of it, I'd agree. But the devil is in the details. Early on, probably pretty correct. But any marriage is a series of compomises, and there does a come a point where a spouse truly becomes family. If the straying is a manifestation of increasing distancing, sure it's over. But if it's more along the lines of acting out a temporary frustration... maybe it's a bit extreme to come down like gangbusters. The trust factor can get killed, but even that isn't an absolute. It's not unusual for a sensible couple to realize that a late-age divorce would be so financially disastrous as to be unthinkable. And nothing's black and white in these things. Repeated divorces are a passtime of the wealthy.

Sat, 2014-03-01 21:28

#26

zerocarbs

> I suspect tis a given that if one marriage partner is seeing prostitutes the marriage is done.

Sun, 2014-03-02 02:35

#27

Mórríghain

zerocarbs wrote:

But the devil is in the details....

So do you cut and run, taking your due with you, or live a few decades in misery? What was the old excuse?... oh yes, the children. Hmm, a terrible reason to shore up a failed relationship. Me, I'm a simple girl; you screw me over, I'm gone.

Sun, 2014-03-02 06:23

#28

lagatta

Me too. And of course I've suffered financially for it. But zero carbs, living with someone whose behaviour disgusts you? (I want to make clear this is not specifically a matter of straying, "seeing prostitutes" or any other specific; people have different values, and certainly far different views on permanent or serial monogamy, polyamory, open marriages or whatever and that is perfectly fine and good).

Better not to acquire too much stuff in the first place, so that one is always free to go. Kind of horrified by zerocarb's attitude.

Sun, 2014-03-02 09:37

#29

zerocarbs

@ Mórríghain - well, you were pretty hard on Cu Culainn -"She appeared to the hero Cu Chulainn and offered her love to him. When he failed to recognize her and rejected her, she told him that she would hinder him when he was in battle. When Cu Chulainn was eventually killed, she settled on his shoulder in the form of a crow."

Sorry, but it sounds like a young person's perspective. Thirty years and counting here... it's not black and white, and we've both made compromises. For the sake of the child? Yeah, he's mentally ill, and a struggle for both of us.

Sun, 2014-03-02 10:19

#30

lagatta

I don't know about M, but I'm certainly not a young person.

As a young person, I decided never to have children, precisely not to be stuck with a man who might treat me badly.

Sun, 2014-03-02 15:48

#31

Mórríghain

A young person's perspective, I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted—I choose flattered. In fact I've a couple of decades on thirty and long ago passed the point where women are supposed to stop counting and start lying about their age—I can't be bothered to do that. After all, tis been a couple of millenia since Cu Chulainn and I crossed views; he was a bit of a hound but as I said, "It is at the guarding of thy death that I am; and I shall be."

Sun, 2014-03-02 17:30

#32

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Found an article in Now Magazine that may be of interest: Ins and outs of paying for sex.

From it:

Valerie Scott wrote:
One of the major health benefits of hiring a professional is the safer sex factor. The only time a sex worker would have unsafe sex is if she were coerced. I think it’s far more responsible to have sex with a professional than an affair. It’s less stressful on the [primary] relationship. No one ever has to worry about me calling their house crying, ‘You forgot to call me on my birthday!’ We all go home healthy and happy.

So, potentially full service sex work could be a saver of marriages.

ETA: Initially I mistakenly attributed the above quote to Barbara Keesling, which was an error. Keesling also has a quote in the article, but the one above is from Valerie Scott.

Oh, the "if he can't get it at home, he'll go elsewhere" trope. How very progressive. Because, you know, men are such dogs, they really can't help themselves. They've gotta have it when and how they want it. So if you're a good little woman, you'll accept that and just be glad that there isn't a homewrecker on your doorstep having an emotional meltdown. Or that the "pro" he goes to isn't trying to take your man away from you. Really, you should just count yourself lucky, sweetheart, that he doesn't up and leave you for not fulfilling his desires.

Sarcasm aside, I find this idea so utterly insulting to both men and women that I can't even express it.

Sun, 2014-03-02 18:14

#33

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

zerocarbs wrote:

> I suspect tis a given that if one marriage partner is seeing prostitutes the marriage is done.

On the face of it, I'd agree. But the devil is in the details. Early on, probably pretty correct. But any marriage is a series of compomises, and there does a come a point where a spouse truly becomes family. If the straying is a manifestation of increasing distancing, sure it's over. But if it's more along the lines of acting out a temporary frustration... maybe it's a bit extreme to come down like gangbusters. The trust factor can get killed, but even that isn't an absolute. It's not unusual for a sensible couple to realize that a late-age divorce would be so financially disastrous as to be unthinkable. And nothing's black and white in these things. Repeated divorces are a passtime of the wealthy.

I don't know that all marriages are series of compromises. Mine isn't (relationship duration of 18 yrs and counting). My thinking is that when a marriage starts to feel like hard work, it's probably doomed.

And yes, for both the people in my relationship, infidelity of any kind is a deal-breaker. I know that isn't the case for every marriage, but it's never seemed like an excusable error (in the case of infidelity not being previously agreed to by the partner) to me.

Mon, 2014-03-03 00:11

#34

zerocarbs

@timebandt- "I don't know that all marriages are series of compromises. Mine isn't (relationship duration of 18 yrs and counting)"

Really? Are married to a Ken Doll? Or is he at some point going to say, "Congratukations - you've won ever battle, but you've lost the war."

I have violent disagreements with my wife at times, but we work them out. I think that's an indication that we both have personaitlies (thank Loki).

Mon, 2014-03-03 11:23

#35

DaveW

Globe comes out for Dutch model, basically:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/prostitution-shou...

The old rules were imperfect, but they did function. Striking them down was easy for the Supreme Court; replacing them, a job it left to politicians, will not be. What comes next could be a better system, though it is guaranteed to be messy and far from perfect. But to govern is to choose. And on balance, we believe that legalization and regulation, not criminalization, are the way to go.

Mon, 2014-03-03 12:42

#36

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Actually, zerocarbs, my partner is a highly opinionated artist, complete with foibles and odd habits. As am I. And get this - we work together! We just happen to be on the same page to a large degree, and compromise of anything but the most trivial has been pretty much unnecessary. There's generally a win/win, and to me, that doesn't count as a compromise because neither has had to give anything up.

When we co-write, we sometimes have differences of opinion, but generally solve it via consensus - which is not the same as compromise. We understand each others' strengths and weaknesses (and our own) and that certainly helps.

Characterising marriage as a war with serial battles that somebody has to win or lose? Dude, you're doing it wrong.

[ETA: I just want to note the dynamics of this exchange: zerocarbs makes a blanket statement about relationships. I disagree, and reference my own experience. I say nothing about zerocarbs personally, just that I disagree with his/her assessment. zerocarbs responds to disagreement by calling my partner plastic and suggesting that my relationship is probably in trouble that I'm too delusional to see, oh, and that my partner and I do not have personalities, reference the violent disagreements he has with his partner that proves that they do, indeed have personality.

So to break it down further: Statement, disagreement, personal attack.

Feel free to disagree with me, but lay off on the personal remarks, eh?]

Mon, 2014-03-03 15:00

#37

Mórríghain

Timebandit wrote:

But any marriage is a series of compomises, and there does a come a point where a spouse truly becomes family.

I believe all relationships involve compromises of one sort or another however for people in a marriage, or marriage-like relationship, the desire on the part of one or both partners to hire prostitutes is a deal breaker. Yes there may be exceptions to this rule – so-called 'open relationships' – but that's all they are... exceptions which make the rule.

Mon, 2014-03-03 16:00

#38

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Morrighain, I didn't say that. zerocarbs did.

What sort of compromises are usual, then? Do you mean small domestic compromises - like folding the towels this way instead of that way - or are you talking about bigger compromises?

Personally, I don't even consider little domestic issues compromises. Why sweat the small stuff? The only time I've ever felt that I've had to make a non-trivial compromise, it soon became clear the relationship was not worth staying in.

Mon, 2014-03-03 23:30

#39

zerocarbs

"sex worker rights- A place for sex workers and their allies to discuss issues around, and advocacy of, sex workers' rights." Near as I can figure, neither Timebandit, Mórríghain, lagatta, quizzical are sex workers nor are at all sympthetic or knowledgeable about their issues. Although Mórríghain deserves full marks for being at least focussed and intelligent. The last few postings seem to be devoted to why married men should avoid prostitutes. Wouldn't mind hearing Susan and Fortunate's thoughts on the issue.

Tue, 2014-03-04 03:29

#40

Mórríghain

@Timebandit, regarding the quote; oops, my bad.

Compromises just come with relationships. I've never known people who were in relationships who hadn't compromised something but as to specifics I can only speak for myself and I'm not talking about domestic trivia. I compromised career aspirations, my partner packed her bags and moved about a thousand miles so we could be together (this was not as simple as it may seem, it involved more than just deciding to go)—as you can see, not trivialities. Hindsight tells me we made the correct compromises, we're still together and very happy.

On another note; zerocarbs, thank you for the compliment but do you think I am unsympathetic toward the plights of prostitutes? Also, I've not stated in any of my previous posts that married men should not hire prostitutes. I've said that those who do will likely face consequences, don't you think?

Tue, 2014-03-04 08:22

#41

lagatta

zerocarbs, you are correct, actually, we were getting off topic and should have found another thread on "deal-breakers" vs healthy compromise in relationships - and those do not at all necessarily bear on sexual mores. I'd been thinking that, but didn't know exactly how to do it.

Tue, 2014-03-04 10:03

#42

zerocarbs

Mórríghain wrote:

On another note; zerocarbs, thank you for the compliment but do you think I am unsympathetic toward the plights of prostitutes? Also, I've not stated in any of my previous posts that married men should not hire prostitutes. I've said that those who do will likely face consequences, don't you think?

Sorry, I was over-generalizing. But not being an expert, I have no idea what percentage married-men typically make of their customer base. If it's, say 80%, that's a problem if it's ruled out. I know you didn't suggest this, but some variation of the Nordic model forbidding married-men from accessing sex workers could be a total disaster. Anyway, the whole issue confuses me, which is why I lurk here trying to sort things out, and I wish there were more active sex workers contributing their thoughts.

On a personal note, I also engineered a trans-Atlantic move at one point, uprooting wife and family. Kind of wish I'd never come back, but that's another story.

Tue, 2014-03-04 10:31

#43

quizzical

zerocarbs wrote:
"sex worker rights- A place for sex workers and their allies to discuss issues around, and advocacy of, sex workers' rights." Near as I can figure, neither Timebandit, Mórríghain, lagatta, quizzical are sex workers nor are at all sympthetic or knowledgeable about their issues. Although Mórríghain deserves full marks for being at least focussed and intelligent. The last few postings seem to be devoted to why married men should avoid prostitutes. Wouldn't mind hearing Susan and Fortunate's thoughts on the issue.

putting my name into this thread is bs, i made 1 post about an article talking about radical feminists being the only ones against prostitution and you think you can bring me into this thead and hack on me?!!!!!

you petty much just shut yourself down by personally attacking.

Tue, 2014-03-04 10:58

#44

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I posted in order to call bullshit on the "a sex worker might save a marriage" nonsense. From there it went off topic.

So while it's true that I'm not a sex worker, and that this is the sex work forum, it's still not okay to make personal attacks instead of arguments. Check the board policy - it applies to all forums.

M - I didn't say that compromises never happen in marriages, just that it isn't necessarily always the case, as zerocarbs pontificated.

Tue, 2014-03-04 12:03

#45

DaveW

DaveW wrote:

Globe comes out for Dutch model, basically:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/prostitution-shou...

The old rules were imperfect, but they did function. Striking them down was easy for the Supreme Court; replacing them, a job it left to politicians, will not be. What comes next could be a better system, though it is guaranteed to be messy and far from perfect. But to govern is to choose. And on balance, we believe that legalization and regulation, not criminalization, are the way to go.

to quote my own post above: can we get back to the subject here?,

seems to be a lot of sniping; not interested.

Tue, 2014-03-04 19:46

#46

quizzical

not interested in not being able to have a balanced dialogue nor being sniped at or about

Tue, 2014-03-04 20:10

#47

Mórríghain

If we weren't so keen on having our lives regimented by sets of rules this whole Nordic/Dutch model debate would not be happening. I can't think of any activity that our existing – or now defunct – prostitution laws address that isn't addressed by another law in our Criminal Code, in other words our prostitution laws are redundant. Remove prostitution completely from the Code, charge the criminals with real crimes and regulate the business like a business.

Tue, 2014-03-04 20:27

#48

mark_alfred

Here's a publication from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Network that may be of interest: Sex Work Law Reform in Canada: Considering problems with the Nordic model

Tue, 2014-03-04 20:32

#49

zerocarbs

Mórríghain wrote:

If we weren't so keen on having our lives regimented by sets of rules this whole Nordic/Dutch model debate would not be happening. I can't think of any activity that our existing – or now defunct – prostitution laws address that isn't addressed by another law in our Criminal Code, in other words our prostitution laws are redundant. Remove prostitution completely from the Code, charge the criminals with real crimes and regulate the business like a business.

Coudln't agree more. We are so over-policed it's ridiculous, especialy since we're now in this age where everything that gets mentioned on your record stays there forever. Some 13-yr-old kid in the U.S. stands to have his entiire llfe destroyed because he threw a snowball at a cop car.

http://rt.com/usa/cop-snowball-felony-chicago-168/

cheers

Wed, 2014-03-05 21:34

#50

fortunate

Timebandit wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Found an article in Now Magazine that may be of interest: Ins and outs of paying for sex.

From it:

Valerie Scott wrote:
One of the major health benefits of hiring a professional is the safer sex factor. The only time a sex worker would have unsafe sex is if she were coerced. I think it’s far more responsible to have sex with a professional than an affair. It’s less stressful on the [primary] relationship. No one ever has to worry about me calling their house crying, ‘You forgot to call me on my birthday!’ We all go home healthy and happy.

So, potentially full service sex work could be a saver of marriages.

ETA: Initially I mistakenly attributed the above quote to Barbara Keesling, which was an error. Keesling also has a quote in the article, but the one above is from Valerie Scott.

Oh, the "if he can't get it at home, he'll go elsewhere" trope. How very progressive. Because, you know, men are such dogs, they really can't help themselves. They've gotta have it when and how they want it. So if you're a good little woman, you'll accept that and just be glad that there isn't a homewrecker on your doorstep having an emotional meltdown. Or that the "pro" he goes to isn't trying to take your man away from you. Really, you should just count yourself lucky, sweetheart, that he doesn't up and leave you for not fulfilling his desires.

Sarcasm aside, I find this idea so utterly insulting to both men and women that I can't even express it.

Many women think the men are looking for just sex. Most sex workers know that they are not. Based on the observations of someone who deals with a variety of men daily, imo, their reasons for seeking out sex workers is either sexual services OR companionship, or a combination of both. Most sex workers can see that men aren't seeking a bj because the wife at home doesn't put out, he's seeking intimacy, given in a way he understands it should be.

If men believe that intimacy equals love when they don't get intimacy they see this as their companion not loving them. Most of them understand that a sex worker isn't providing love, but some don't, that is why a percentage of men who visit sex workers claim to have fallen in love with them. They haven't been able to tell the difference between love and sexual desire/intimacy/release. The same thing would happen to that percentage of men if they and their spouses communicated more and were intimate more. That man would not seek the services of a sex worker, not fall in 'love' with her, and not lose interest in his relationship.

There will always be the 'dogs', those guys who feel their masculinity depends on the quantity of women they sleep with, but the majority of men (at least the ones who choose to see mature, imperfect providers) aren't looking to add notches to the bedpost. They just want to feel like they matter.

Wed, 2014-03-05 21:57

#51

fortunate

lagatta wrote:

zerocarbs, you are correct, actually, we were getting off topic and should have found another thread on "deal-breakers" vs healthy compromise in relationships - and those do not at all necessarily bear on sexual mores. I'd been thinking that, but didn't know exactly how to do it.

It probably should be a different thread topic, but it is an interesting idea. It should be said, since asked, that altho physically seeing a sex worker for sexual services would be an infidelity, it really cannot be seen in the same light as an affair, which tends to involve the heart.

For myself, I am opposed to financial cheating. I think that if you decide to be a couple, that financially obliged to be fiscally responsible to each other. Unless of course both sides have independent income to be spent however they please. Seeing an escort or sex worker is a lot of money (done right) and the decision to spend joint income this way should not be taken lightly.

As well, if a relationship would be nutured by spending time together, then why is one side taking time away that could have been spent with their partner? I think many women see it less about the sex acts as it is about the time taken, as well as $$ that their partner could have spent with and on them. You can't grow a flower by denying it attention and nutrients.

Besides all of that, when women find their spouses have sought sexual release outside of their relationship, they often blame the woman, not the husband. If that woman is a sex worker, and therefore did not seek out the attention of that husband, they often then have to blame sex work entirely. If not for the easy way it is to access a sex worker, their husband wouldn't have gone outside, so even all sex workers become home wreckers. Considering that many wouldn't take the other woman's husband unless they were paid to do so, it is a false argument to blame sex workers for the demise of the institution of marriage lol