Once he’s paid for you, you are his to use and abuse
Sisters Uncut on why not the Nordic model :
Some may be be wondering why we are not supporting the Nordic model or ‘sex buyer law’, which is sometimes presented as the ‘feminist’ legal model regarding prostitution. Countries such as Sweden, Norway, and most recently France have implemented ‘Nordic model’-style laws.
Sisters Uncut cannot support the Nordic model, in part because it retains the criminalisation of people who sell sex – in particular, sex workers who are working together indoors for safety. This criminalisation has been extensively documented by sex worker-led organisations, and has also been noted by Amnesty International. The arrest and prosecution of sex workers is a form of state violence against (mostly) women and LGBTQ people, and advocates of the Nordic model are overwhelmingly silent on the fact that the law they are attempting to import retains criminalisation for those who sell sex – silence which does not persuade us that these campaigners meaningfully oppose this criminalisation of sex workers.
Except that the Nordic model is about decriminalizing prostitution, not criminalizing it.
Rosalie Haynes on Sisters Uncut:
I heard the anger in this John’s voice. The look in his eyes. It was hungry, it was murderous. I fought against him when he lunged at me, I tried to be strong. But it wasn’t enough. It never is enough. I was an ant in comparison to him. He was a man that would always tease me about being weak, you know,right before he’d rape me and carry out his sexual fantasies. (I think he liked that. He liked me to be reminded of how small and powerless I was, so then he could feel big and powerful). I was pinned, hurting, I wanted to close my eyes and forget everything. Who I was, who he was, what was happening, my whole life. I guess you could say I wanted to tap my shoes together and go home. That only happens in fairytales. This was far from one. The lives of prostituted girls/women are hardly rosey, are they?
For the next few weeks every time he called me I had to go over to his house. He threatened to hurt my family and friends. Especially my mum. Always. I legit think he was mentally disturbed. He always told me how when he was younger no girls wanted to go out with him & he felt like he missed out on a lot of fun & fooling around.
I think this is why he was obsessed with always buying me, because I was just a child.
She was fourteen. She was pregnant, and hid it from him. One night she had a miscarriage in his bathroom.
He was angry as ever when he came right back and attacked me again because of the “period” mess I made in bath. I tried so hard to clean it all up and to make sure there were no stains but I didnt have enough time. (I also think he had OCD) I tried to fight him all night, crying, hurting and screaming. But I felt too weak and I stopped resisting. He didn’t stop, they never do. He carried on and carried on and carried on.
He smeared the blood from my vagina on my face.
I WAS 14 FUCKING YEARS OLD AND HE PUNISHED ME BY SMEARING THE BLOOD ON MY FUCKING FACE
DO YOU THINK THAT’S OKAY? DO YOU THINK IT WAS OKAY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN?
Amnesty International wants to decriminalize Johns like that. AI wants to make pimps and johns just good participants in capitalist consumerism, and prostitutes workers in an industry like any other industry.
SistersUncut I hope you do realise that you’re supporting the death of women too? Couldn’t really give a toss if people think I’m being extreme by saying that, because personally I’m not & realistically I’m not.
So, “they cut, we blood” yes, for sure we do. But what about the men who make me bleed?
Your support against the Nordic Model means women like me will carry on bleeding.
Their words are still threats to me. But also their words are not heard by me anymore. I have grown deaf to them, see that’s where the lovely thing we like to call dissociation comes in and helps us lasses out.
Every man who’s ever raped me should be in prison.
Every man who’s ever beaten me to a pulp should be in prison.
Every man who’s EVER paid to have sexual access to a womans body and has tortured her sexually, physically and mentally, should be in fucking prison.
We’re always told to listen to the sex workers.
As a feminist group, AS WOMEN, you fucking disgust me just as much as the men who buy and rape me. I hope you are aware that’s a huge level of disgust.
You stand there and preach about refuges and DV services which I fully support. Carry on doing so.
But for some reason exploited women are left out of your activism? But that’s because you don’t class being prostituted as abuse, right? I’m assuming that this is the only answer?
Your support against it means women like me will carry on bleeding. And you’ll make it harder for men to be held accountable. Because like I’ve said many times before, anyone who doesn’t support the Nordic model and is against it, support rapists. End of. That’s how I see it and essentially, that IS how it is. You’ll probably disagree with that statement but I couldn’t really give a flying fuck. Though, I’m also aware you have a habit of ignoring women when they question you. So I won’t hold out for a response.
No sexual predator on this earth deserves the support of any woman OR any organisation to okay them buying their way into a womans body.
Surely, as “feminists” you should know this?
Once we are bought, once that transaction has been made we aren’t safe. We aren’t ever safe when we’re in the company of a John. But once he’s paid for you, you are his to use and abuse for as long as he likes.. He owns your body. He own everything. You know, there are no safe words. Safe words don’t exist in our world. No doesn’t mean no. Stop doesn’t mean stop. All we can do is stay silent and suffer in silence.
You are supposed to be a feminist organisation, right? Fighting for women’s rights? Fighting for women’s freedom? Fighting for women to live a life free from violence? Is supporting the commercialisation of my body a feminist action?
My god.
Isn’t there huge overlap between the anti-SWERF crowd and the anti-TERF crowd? Am I the only one that sees the irony in that?
Well these might be my last words on B&W since I’m already flirting with a banning for being too snarky, or too obstreperous, or too belligerent, or too “dishonest”, or too “virtue signalling”, or too shitty, or too much of an asshole, or too opinionated while male, or something like that… but nevertheless I have some, um, points of disagreement.
What?! What did you say? Amnesty International (you know, the bad guys) are advocating decriminalization. The Nordic Model is about criminalization, just with some supposed hypothetical amnesty (if you’ll pardon the expression) for actual sex workers, that doesn’t work in practice. For example, in countries with the Nordic Model, it is quite common for sex workers to be evicted from their homes. Why? Because they’re usually not wealthy enough to buy their own home, they rent. And if the landlord/lady finds out they are a prostitute they are legally bound to evict them. Otherwise they can be charged with a crime, either as a “brothel owner” or a “pimp”. It’s illegal to knowingly let premises for the purposes of prostitution, or to collect earnings (rent) from a prostitute. So if you find out one of your tenants is a prostitute, you are effectively legally bound to kick them out. Don’t kid yourself that the Nordic Model doesn’t punish sex workers — it absolutely does. This is just one example. Another major problem is that the sex worker is under pressure to protect the anonymity of the client (who is by definition a criminal). So they often have to meet at a place of the client’s choosing, such as their home. This greatly increases the risk to the worker.
If I’ve interpreted this uncharacteristically ungrammatical statement correctly, then it’s — how shall I put this delicately? — not truthful.
Amnesty International does not have, has never had, I dare say will never have, a policy to decriminalize adults fucking children, or assault. The claim is bullshit. I’m sorry to be blunt. But it is. It’s bullshit. Amnesty wants to decriminalize sex between consenting adults, even if financially motivated. It has no policy protecting any adult’s right to fuck a fourteen year old and smear vaginal blood over her face (believe it or not). That claim is bullshit.
I have said it before, and I’ll say it again: If something is inherently illegitimate to ask for in the first place – and I do think sex in the absence of enthusiastic consent (you know, the kind of consent that doesn’t require any kind of monetary compensation) fits into this category – then all the consent in the world (in retrospect) is never going to change that. All this talk about the choice of the individual “sex-worker” is just a red herring to to steer the conversation away from the choice of the buyer and how only an infinitely entitled, objectifying, predatory rape-monster would even consider making such a choice in the first place. There is no possible future in which pimps and johns exist while male entitlement and objectification of women do not.
(The latter being true, the choices of those “sex-workers” who genuinely want to give the johns what they’re after are not entirely unproblematic either. If your ultimatum to other women is “Volunteer to live in a world in which the kinds of attitudes about women that you have to have to be a pimp or john are legitimized, even if it makes you worse off, so that I can chose to cater to them, or have your name pulled through the dirt all over the internet”, that’s definitelya hostile ultimatum, and feminists are right to treat is as such.)
I agree with Silentbob #3 that of course Amnesty probably does not want to decriminalise sex with children.
But if sex work is “just work like any other work”, why should one’s age matter? If a 14 year old girl is physically capable of having sex, then it should be fine, if sex work is “just work like any other work”.
If you then want to say that a 14 year old is not EMOTIONALLY capable of having sex, then, well, you are implicitly admitting that sex work is NOT just like any other work. It has an emotional dimension, for most of us at least, that makes it different to other activities we count as work. This emotional dimension is precisely why so many sex workers are left traumatised, and why being raped is infinitely worse than being subjected to enforced massage for half an hour. It’s why consent is absolutely imperative.
“Amnesty wants to decriminalize sex between consenting adults, even if financially motivated.”
And that “financial motivation”, as you call it, is exactly why it doesn’t count as “consenting adults”. Genuine consent requires equality between participants. A person selling sex does not actually want the sex (they endure it), whereas a person buying the sex does (they enjoy it). That asymmetry precludes equality and therefore precludes consent.
Silentbob, once again acting as though he cannot comprehend that the vast majority of women in prostitution are coerced into it. Pretending that the article he’s commenting on does not demonstrate this. So that he can pretend to be the “liberal” voice of sanity supporting the free-agents of sex work, and look at the rest of us like censorious prudes who “don’t listen to women.”
You may be annoying, but you’re not stupid. This is conscious on your part. You’re not merely a dissenting voice, you’re a liar.
It’s the dishonesty #3. Is it because you are a man that you ask women to disregard the vast majority who are suffering to focus on the needs of the few who are being, or may be, inconvenienced? I don’t know. What I do know is that most prostituted and exited women do not agree with you.
When brothel owners and traffickers lobbyists first raised the “sex worker” umbrella to include themselves, cam girls, strippers, tantric massage, sex therapists, escorts, and oh yeah the prostituted as well, exited women tried to call out a warning. But you see, exited women can’t afford lobbyists. You may recall one escort business owner even started a company union to exploit and control their human resources just that little bit more.
Each example of legalizing “sex work” has resulted in an increase of illegal prostitution and trafficking as well as the violence against women that goes with it.. Each example of the Nordic model has resulted in a reduction of prostitution and trafficking as well as the violence against women that goes with it. Olease look at this chart.
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2013/01/22/new-research-shows-violence-decreases-under-nordic-model-why-the-radio-silence/
Look, it is simple. The Amnesty International model does not de jure legalize beating a prostituted woman without her consent, but it de facto does. Why? Because criminal law requires proof.
If men are allowed to buy sex, then they are allowed to buy rough sex, and if they beat a woman, then marks of an assault can be explained away as part of their agreement, and it’s he said vs. she said and no evidence an assault happened.
If men are not legally allowed to buy sex with minors, he simply needs to claim the seller committed fraud by claiming the victim was adult.
There’s virtually no chance of prosecution, much less successful prosecution, so there is no legal recourse for the victim.
SilentBob, I’m not going to accuse you of malice, but if you really didn’t figure this out, you’re not thinking deeply enough on the subject for your opinions to have any validity to others. But thanks for being a doofus enough that I could spell out the problem for anyone else who thinks like you, but is acutally wise enough to be silent.
I do accuse him of bad faith based on his extensive history here. I understand that no one else is obliged to do so or agree, but I do not apologize for the accusation.
Silentbob – actually you didn’t interpret the typo-having sentence correctly. (The sentence isn’t strictly speaking ungrammatical; it has a typo in it.) The “what” was a typo. I meant to say Amnesty International wants to decriminalize Johns like that – to decriminalize the Johns, which will make it that much safer for them to do things like what that John did to Rosalie. So no, it wasn’t a lie, nor was it bullshit. I meant it.
Silentbob said
As I understand it the Nordic Model is an approach to handling the problem of the exploitation of prostituted women, not a specific set of laws that have to be enacted. If it is true that the model is indeed implemented in this way anywhere then I would be opposed to such an implementation. It is not a matter of logic that it has to be implemented like this any more than laws against slavery, which is something I consider to be very similar, need to make it criminal to be a slave.
I have no idea how often this happens, maybe you have figures on it. Prima facie this is a problem for the Nordic Model, but, as with any set of laws, the mere fact that problems arise is not a reason for simply abandoning it all together. One might, for instance, judge the that the good done by a piece of legislation outweighs any bad it does. More constructively one might see if one could word the legislation in a way that minimised the problems it caused. One can be even more radical and embed the legislation into a raft of social legislation in a way that minimised the problem. This is the way I would prefer to go; two things that I would support, independently of the current discussion, are a Universal Basic Income and a housing policy that would ensure that everyone could rent a home at a fair rent. If the law was worded so that the rent was considered paid out of the UBI, then there would be no question of the landlord/landlady profiting from prostitution unless he/she insisted on charging more than the fair rent. This would be illegal in itself and would be evidence that he/she was running a brothel.
There are several situations under which this is true. Drug addicts are under pressure to protect the anonymity of their suppliers; blackmail victims are under pressure to protect the anonymity of their blackmailers…. If we go down this road there are an awful lot of laws that we would have to scrap.
Well this is one of those situations where the victim, the fourteen year old, is under pressure to protect the anonymity of the client (who is by definition a criminal). It may well be the case that this could arise, whether or not the Nordic Model is in force. However the Nordic Model makes it clear that this is illegal. The perpetrator could not claim that he thought she was eighteen and that she had consented to this. Moreover it is less likely to arise in the first place for a number of reasons. Personally I think that the priority should be to protect people like this young lady and the try to ameliorate any other problems if and when they arise.
As an “anti-anyone-who-proclaims-gendered-spaces-yet-excludes-people-whose-declared-gender-does-not-match-their-assigned-at-birth-gender” (is that “anti-TERF”?), I can say:
1) I see no logical connection between such a stance and the idea that prostitution is a form of slavery; of “ownership-of-another-person”; and should not be lent any form of legitimacy via legal sanction
2) I personally have found myself on the chopping-block in these parts for my stance with respect to the so-called “feminism-vs-transgender conflict”; yet have never faltered in feeling an inner “hoo-rah” on reading Ophelia’s fisking of proponents of pro-sex-work legalization.
Just saying – please, watch how broad a brush you’re painting with there.
@Kevin:
There is no logical connection, it’s just usually part of the package when dealing with the fun fems (read the Orbit’s manifesto). Transwomen are disproportionately affected by the sex trade, largely due to the homelessness and poverty that they suffer after being exiled by their families. Now this isn’t an issue to the privileged little shits in their ivory little blogging towers, but there’s a jarring irony when they talk about sex work being work at one moment and then transwomen of colour the next.
Just a disclaimer before I get started on this: I’m pro-legalisation on principle, but anti it on practicality.
What I mean by that is that I think when we delve deep into the whole why somebody consents, whether it is for money or for lust, we’re second guessing people’s decisions and really they aren’t our decisions to second guess. In an ideal world where we could guarantee no slavery going on, then prostitution should be legal.
On the practical side, we can’t guarantee no slavery is going on, there are various public health questions, and prostitutes, even if legalised, are subject to all sorts of discrimination. The industry is riddled with abuse, to the point where former prostitutes are often survivors rather than retirees, and this cannot be ignored.
Further there is the issue of rape. It is bad enough that judges push purity culture in rape cases by giving lesser sentences if the victim was promiscuous, I hate to think would would happen if the victim was a legal prostitute.
For an example of that in action, from the US in 2014…
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/05/justice/texas-rape-sentence/
I’m not entirely certain legal bans really help with all of this, but then I’m not the one with all of the data on the issue, and those making those laws presumably are. I’m not willing to risk an increase in all of those practical issues because it makes me feel uncomfortable in terms of theoretical basic principles around consent.
In other words, over time my position has evolved to the point where I’m not pro-legalisation in anything but the theoretical sense, at least until we can deal with the practical issues with prostitution on a societal level.
Throat cleared, okay…
Emily Vicendese
Child labour laws would probably find that it would be a dangerous occupation, and thus highly illegal even in the 16 to 17 age bracket. We don’t ban mining for example despite the fact that it is a high risk occupation,
Further there is the issue of the age of consent. If the prostitute is below the age of consent, then her consent cannot be bought because it cannot be given. Sex with an underage sex-worker would thus automatically be rape.
Theoretically the sex worker herself under this metric would not be criminalised, but rather treated as a straight up victim. In a way legalisation could theoretically help in this case. Unfortunately, we come back to that dickhead judge in Texas, and theory and reality don’t always exactly mesh.
Back to the OP:
I have to agree with Silentbob on this one. It is not a fair representation of Amnesty’s position – and it kind of weakens the article as a whole. It is a bit of a nit to pick, but it does kind of taint the argument.