Nordic model

[Marmalade]

There's some discussion of the so-called 'Nordic model' in off topic but as this forum is undoubtedly read by a number of authorities and as the main section is easier to access than off-topic I've posted it here.

The 'Nordic model' relies on the publicity of it being accepted by other nations. This is a fairly recent article, one of many, that examines it in depth. Major organisations such as Amnesty have also criticised it competently. The Nordic proponents have criticised Amnesty but their criticisms are of low quality, citing biased studies.

Here's the summary.
(You can read the full article at External Link/Members Only )

The article has also demonstrated the reasons why the Nordic model is not working. First, the Nordic model does not reduce demand, sex trafficking, violence or exploitation. Rather, it acts a policy irritant exacerbating these very issues. Neither does the model contribute to gender equality, because the evidence base upon which the policy approach is based upon fails to acknowledge research that shows that women and couples pay for sex and that men and trans people sell sexual services [86]. If borrowing countries also fail to consider these issues, we claim that this results in uninformed transfer. Finally, the lack of implementation of the law by law-enforcers results in incomplete and inappropriate transfer because of the lack of support for the law by practitioners and a lack of implementation. These identified cracks in the apparently unified and coherent Nordic model, as the name would suggest, therefore undermines its persuasiveness. We therefore urge countries to learn lessons from the problems and challenges of adopting the Nordic model that have been documented here.

[mr.bluesky]

Damn. I thought this was going to be about some big titted blue eyed blond Scandanavian ex model who had turned into a sevice provider .

[Trex]

Damn. I thought this was going to be about some big titted blue eyed blond Scandanavian ex model who had turned into a sevice provider .

 

[hendrix]

Well, this is shit

External Link/Members Only

[Doc Holliday]

Well, this is shit

External Link/Members Only

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=288782.msg3014878#msg3014878

[bedhedred]

Well, this is shit

External Link/Members Only

Start building your contact list of trusted girls now! 

[mcardle464]

Thanks Marmalade for posting this subject.

This is a complex subject, because trafficking should be punished (although we already have laws to do so), but I don't see why adults involved in a mutual transaction should be penalised. I note that it has the usual blindspot that only women sex workers are involved - what a about SPs for the gay market (women or more likely, men)? 

Although Sugar Babes don't think of themselves as sex workers, I expect they would probably fall into a wide definition.  That might have repercussions - surely Seeking would fall under the definition of "pimping" websites like AW?

Diana Johnson MP (Labour) is the one pushing for the Nordic model. Unfortunately my activism brings me into contact with women who claim to be feminists but believe all women who sell sex are addled "skanks" (how feminist is that?).  I can't tell them that I have met escorts with Masters and PhDs, and on the other end of the scale, women who preferred sex work and its high wages and flexible hours to shit zero hours work in a supermarket or call centre.  I expect many people here have had similar experiences.

Incidentally the link above posted by Hendrix External Link/Members Only takes a much more sensible view - I don't think it is associated with Diana Johnson.

Although I suspect the DJ bill will fall, if the Tories take it on board, then it will pass.

We live in draconian times where all sorts of activities are now getting to be socially unnaccceptable if not criminal.

Any suggestions as what to do? Obviously without outing ourselves.

[Trex]

Thanks Marmalade for posting this subject.

This is a complex subject, because trafficking should be punished (although we already have laws to do so), but I don't see why adults involved in a mutual transaction should be penalised. I note that it has the usual blindspot that only women sex workers are involved - what a about SPs for the gay market (women or more likely, men)? 

Although Sugar Babes don't think of themselves as sex workers, I expect they would probably fall into a wide definition.  That might have repercussions - surely Seeking would fall under the definition of "pimping" websites like AW?

Diana Johnson MP (Labour) is the one pushing for the Nordic model. Unfortunately my activism brings me into contact with women who claim to be feminists but believe all women who sell sex are addled "skanks" (how feminist is that?).  I can't tell them that I have met escorts with Masters and PhDs, and on the other end of the scale, women who preferred sex work and its high wages and flexible hours to shit zero hours work in a supermarket or call centre.  I expect many people here have had similar experiences.

Incidentally the link above posted by Hendrix External Link/Members Only takes a much more sensible view - I don't think it is associated with Diana Johnson.

Although I suspect the DJ bill will fall, if the Tories take it on board, then it will pass.

We live in draconian times where all sorts of activities are now getting to be socially unnaccceptable if not criminal.

Any suggestions as what to do? Obviously without outing ourselves.

It will be put before Parliament on 29th January. Diane Johnson is happily to put those girls out of work. Sounds like this site will go also, if they use this law.

[Kelgon85]

Without government backing, it won't go any further. Ten Minute Rule bills very rarely succeed. I think the government have enough on their plate right now, with COVID and Brexit. Plus, in response to the Scottish parliamentary consultation, they came out and said they're not seeking to change the law on prostitution anytime soon. We'll see what happens. I think (and hope) we're all worrying for nothing.

These extreme feminist types are incredibly dangerous, though. They're not doing this for "women's rights". They don't like women. They operate because they hate men. Everyone knows it. They are purposely ignoring the mounting evidence that the Nordic Model causes more harm than good. All for their own "anti-men" agenda. They are actively seeking to cause significantly more harm to the very people they apparently want to protect. What kind of alternate reality is this? It’s horrible and vile.

[mcardle464]

Thanks for that reassurance, Kelgon.

I'm not sure that hating men is the sole reason - there's a strong streak of puritanism/calvinism on the British left, which doesn't seem interested in emotion or pleasure. I think some of these anti-sex fundies hate the idea of anyone having fun, and secretly regard men as disgusting beasts whose base instincts can be triggered by the glimpse of a well-formed ankle... mind you, I can think of a few on this forum who might fit that bill...

[Home Alone]

Yes, that's a +1 from me, too.

Sorry about the double negative that's following; I don't think we're worrying about nothing; but I think we just perhaps to breathe deeply and keep cool.

The government's going to have a real lot on its plate in the New Year, rebuilding the economy after a double whammy of Brexit and the introduction of tariffs which look likely - as of now - to lift the cost of living; and Covid-19. Not to mention the cost of Social Care which the pandemic has highlighted.

A bit of 'social tampering' which this Nordic model would lead to would, imo, be an unnecessary distraction for them.

[bedhedred]

Thanks for that reassurance, Kelgon.

I'm not sure that hating men is the sole reason - there's a strong streak of puritanism/calvinism on the British left, which doesn't seem interested in emotion or pleasure. I think some of these anti-sex fundies hate the idea of anyone having fun, and secretly regard men as disgusting beasts whose base instincts can be triggered by the glimpse of a well-formed ankle... mind you, I can think of a few on this forum who might fit that bill...

Sadly this is spot on.

[jordan452]

Here we go again generalising.
 
Exploitation!! they should see post lockdown prices.

[Jerboa]

Yes I love nordic models, when they're 6ft tall, viking barbie look, long blonde braides, deep blue eyes, and have legs that could crush you! 

[signy]

Informative article from SWARM (apologies if we have had it before, but I couldn't see it anywhere).

External Link/Members Only

[Moby Dick]

I don’t pay for sex.....just time and companionship 

[blend57]

Without government backing, it won't go any further. Ten Minute Rule bills very rarely succeed. I think the government have enough on their plate right now, with COVID and Brexit. Plus, in response to the Scottish parliamentary consultation, they came out and said they're not seeking to change the law on prostitution anytime soon. We'll see what happens. I think (and hope) we're all worrying for nothing.

These extreme feminist types are incredibly dangerous, though. They're not doing this for "women's rights". They don't like women. They operate because they hate men. Everyone knows it. They are purposely ignoring the mounting evidence that the Nordic Model causes more harm than good. All for their own "anti-men" agenda. They are actively seeking to cause significantly more harm to the very people they apparently want to protect. What kind of alternate reality is this? It’s horrible and vile.

Actually they could very easily get this passed by including it in one of the COVID-19 bills. Simply make the case that COVID-19 could be spread through WGs as they would see multiple men per day and hence WGs need to be seen as super spreaders. So they could win an argument for including an anti-prostitution clause to a COVID-19 bill and then simply write that clause to implement the Nordic model.

Thinking about it, I suspect this is why the Labour MP in question has chosen to put this forward now. She has (correctly in my opinion) realised there is a window of opportunity to sneak the Nordic model onto the statute books.

[bdyno]

I don’t pay for sex.....just time and companionship 

I think this is the official story for all of us isn't it....that's why all the various sites usually have the disclaimer of anything happening being between consenting adults.

I may be being naïve, but I don't see how a new law could change that?

[Moby Dick]

Glad I don’t visit the Scandinavian countries too often.
Drink is also ridiculously expensive, never had any fun there.

[bbois77]

I may be being naïve, but I don't see how a new law could change that?

Very naive, latest laws in Europe have very low thresholds for criminalising sex buyers.

[Moby Dick]

Marriage is the most expensive and inflexible way of paying for sex.
Let’s ban that too.

[Kelgon85]

Actually they could very easily get this passed by including it in one of the COVID-19 bills. Simply make the case that COVID-19 could be spread through WGs as they would see multiple men per day and hence WGs need to be seen as super spreaders. So they could win an argument for including an anti-prostitution clause to a COVID-19 bill and then simply write that clause to implement the Nordic model.

Thinking about it, I suspect this is why the Labour MP in question has chosen to put this forward now. She has (correctly in my opinion) realised there is a window of opportunity to sneak the Nordic model onto the statute books.

Hmmm......I don't know, I see that as a bit of a stretch.

If this does happen one day, it wouldn't surprise if they go after porn next.

[blend57]

I think this is the official story for all of us isn't it....that's why all the various sites usually have the disclaimer of anything happening being between consenting adults.

I may be being naïve, but I don't see how a new law could change that?

Easy. Bring in laws regulating platonic companionship. The law would recognise that there is a market for platonic companions who accompany people to public events, business events, etc. However, you simply bring in price caps. These would be justified as being necessary to prevent lonely vulnerable people from being exploited by devious men and women.

Set the maximum price at £50 per hour.

If the police find someone paying £150 per hour, then they will say that:

1) The man is clearly paying an escort for sex and therefore should be arrested, prosecuted and convicted for exploiting a vulnerable woman for sex.
2) The woman is clearly a nasty devious scam artist over charging the vulnerable lonely man for companionship. Therefore she should be arrested, prosecuted and convicted.

I know it sounds far fetched but stranger things have happened.

[blend57]

Hmmm......I don't know, I see that as a bit of a stretch.

If this does happen one day, it wouldn't surprise if they go after porn next.

If only it was. If a bill is going through the process (committees, debates, etc) then it is not unusual for amendments to be added at the behest of MPs. It is a case of waiting for a bill that could be amended to see if the Nordic module can be added as an amendment. For a COVID-19 bill, the justification would not be because prostitution is evil but because of its capacity to spread disease.

[ruggedscot]

Marriage is the most expensive and inflexible way of paying for sex.
Let’s ban that too.

would probably answer a lot of issues that would, you would soon see a lot of women worse off.

[bdyno]

Easy. Bring in laws regulating platonic companionship. The law would recognise that there is a market for platonic companions who accompany people to public events, business events, etc. However, you simply bring in price caps. These would be justified as being necessary to prevent lonely vulnerable people from being exploited by devious men and women.

Set the maximum price at £50 per hour.

If the police find someone paying £150 per hour, then they will say that:

1) The man is clearly paying an escort for sex and therefore should be arrested, prosecuted and convicted for exploiting a vulnerable woman for sex.
2) The woman is clearly a nasty devious scam artist over charging the vulnerable lonely man for companionship. Therefore she should be arrested, prosecuted and convicted.

I know it sounds far fetched but stranger things have happened.

Surely they can't put price caps on something where quality is an issue to try to stop a different aspect of the product?

Isn't it a bit like them wanting to stop speeding drivers, so they put a price cap of say £50k on a car because the only reason you'd want to spend more than that is for a supercar which is designed to break the law?

The likes of Rolls Royce etc would soon argue that their models aren't designed around speed, they're luxury items.

[blend57]

Surely they can't put price caps on something where quality is an issue to try to stop a different aspect of the product?

Isn't it a bit like them wanting to stop speeding drivers, so they put a price cap of say £50k on a car because the only reason you'd want to spend more than that is for a supercar which is designed to break the law?

The likes of Rolls Royce etc would soon argue that their models aren't designed around speed, they're luxury items.

Hhhmmmmm......... I agree with your argument. And understand, I would not want such a price cap to be introduced. That said, there have been proposals for there to be a minimum price for alcohol. So if you can get away with a minimum price for something, then in principal. you could have a maximum price.

Or we could simply just run with the minimum price. Instead of the Nordic model, simply introduce a minimum price for a punt. Make it £200 per hour. The argument could be that only those who can afford to pay £200 an hour can be trusted with punting as they are the ones who make sure that they only visit the willing and non-trafficked WGs. Granted such an argument would be flawed but since when as that ever stopped a government doing something foolish (Just where were those WMDs in Iraq?).

[signy]

Or we could simply just run with the minimum price. Instead of the Nordic model, simply introduce a minimum price for a punt. Make it £200 per hour. The argument could be that only those who can afford to pay £200 an hour can be trusted with punting ...

This is effectively what would happen. Prohibition; the powerful and wealthy still have places they can drink good alcohol, the poor die from moonshine consumption. War on drugs; when were the rich ever charged for snorting masses of cocaine? the poor addicts are arrested and charged with dealing because they share when have stuff. Prostitutes would still be available for those with money and power, but ordinary punters would be targeted.

The main difference is that with banning the gangsters really take over and the police and politicians can collect even bigger bribes.

[bdyno]

The main difference is that with banning the gangsters really take over and the police and politicians can collect even bigger bribes.

This is always a major thought I have with this sort of thing.  It's a similar argument I've seen with the legalisation of cannabis.  Legalise it, so you remove the gangster element.  You can then also tax it.  The counter argument to legalisation in that way is the practical one where the tax would effectively put the prices up - and would probably become a heavily taxed commodity like tobacco, alcohol and petrol.

With prostitution/escorting, obviously there's an element of it that needs to be removed, but it isn't known as the oldest profession for nothing.  No matter what they do to try and stop it, it will always continue in some way, shape or form.  Getting tougher on it will only remove the honest portion of the business, the shady side that needs removing will continue.

[Moby Dick]

This is always a major thought I have with this sort of thing.  It's a similar argument I've seen with the legalisation of cannabis.  Legalise it, so you remove the gangster element.  You can then also tax it.  The counter argument to legalisation in that way is the practical one where the tax would effectively put the prices up - and would probably become a heavily taxed commodity like tobacco, alcohol and petrol.

With prostitution/escorting, obviously there's an element of it that needs to be removed, but it isn't known as the oldest profession for nothing.  No matter what they do to try and stop it, it will always continue in some way, shape or form.  Getting tougher on it will only remove the honest portion of the business, the shady side that needs removing will continue.

Agreed.
The honest / consistent providers who pay tax etc will have to pack it in or go underground (working for pimps).
Lost income tax revenue, more people claiming benefits, and I expect there will be a rise in trafficked WG, pop up brothels, charging what they like because demand will out strip supply.
I think there are enough laws in place to stamp out the pimps and traffickers. Use the tax income paid by the legit WG to enforce the current laws. Don’t introduce new ones targeting consenting adults.

[Itsnotshy]

I suspect we'd see a lot more 'legit' massage establishments opening. No condoms on the premises as they can be used as evidence by the police and a rise in bareback being offered as an extra.
One of the reasons I believe the WHO and royal college of nursing are against the Swedish sex buyer law.
I say Swedish rather than Nordic as the Danes and Finns rejected the law, unlike the Norwegians.

[blend57]

This is always a major thought I have with this sort of thing.  It's a similar argument I've seen with the legalisation of cannabis.  Legalise it, so you remove the gangster element.  You can then also tax it.  The counter argument to legalisation in that way is the practical one where the tax would effectively put the prices up - and would probably become a heavily taxed commodity like tobacco, alcohol and petrol.

With prostitution/escorting, obviously there's an element of it that needs to be removed, but it isn't known as the oldest profession for nothing.  No matter what they do to try and stop it, it will always continue in some way, shape or form.  Getting tougher on it will only remove the honest portion of the business, the shady side that needs removing will continue.

When California legalised cannabis they put so much regulation that only a few of the growers could actually go legit. A number of the honest ones decided to leave the business and the others simply decided to carry on as illegal growers.

With prostitution in the UK the basic act of prostitution is legal, it is just establishments like brothels that are not legal (as well as activities like street walking and kerb crawling). So when people talk of legalisation it is unclear what they would actually be legalising. I suspect brothels and rub and tug parlours.

[Strawberry]

When California legalised cannabis they put so much regulation that only a few of the growers could actually go legit. A number of the honest ones decided to leave the business and the others simply decided to carry on as illegal growers.

With prostitution in the UK the basic act of prostitution is legal, it is just establishments like brothels that are not legal (as well as activities like street walking and kerb crawling). So when people talk of legalisation it is unclear what they would actually be legalising. I suspect brothels and rub and tug parlours.

Decriminalisation is the option preferred by most sex worker organisations, this would allow sharing of premises. Legalisation could mean regulation which could cause issues for example reducing flexibility, dictating location, services, healthcare rules this may be imposed by people with little understanding of the paid sex environment. Enforced registration may not be possible for some, would there be a threshold or do you need a licence even for 1 booking, 3, 6, 9, to advertise, would authorities just turn up although I am aware the police do make friendly visits to brothels, and in some areas have liaison officers.

[Marmalade]

External Link/Members Only

Prostitute wins damages for sexual harassment in 'world first' case 

You can’t give prostitutes legal protection unless you legalise (or ‘decriminalise’) prostitution. Laws against prostitution use legal force to protect the rights of consenting adults.

Focus on real victims: don’t criminalise a whole industry.

[Doc Holliday]

If this does happen one day, it wouldn't surprise if they go after porn next.

Their first attempt at meddling with this didn't exactly go well?

[MurrayHewitt]

I think this is the official story for all of us isn't it....that's why all the various sites usually have the disclaimer of anything happening being between consenting adults.

I may be being naïve, but I don't see how a new law could change that?

Usually when a punter is arrested in these countries they confess sharpish in order to get their fine and get it over and done with. Few cases seem to come to trial however with the punter protesting his innocence. If they did, and the punter refused to admit he was paying for sex, and the WG refused to say he was - then what evidence would they have for a prosecution? I'm aware the Swedes apparently intercept communications which hopefully wouldn't happen here but even if they did euphemisms could again possibly protect you at trial. You'd need balls to go through it all though.

I'm also interested how the porn industry is affected in these countries - if a director pays a couple to have sex on camera he's still paying them to do sex isn't he? Is making porn banned in these countries? If not then maybe punters just need to register a business and bring a camera with them to punts...

[sparkus]

External Link/Members Only

[LittleMan86]

Clients & moderators of clients forums:
1. Ban on site LARPers (Radical Feminists & their male allies who infiltrate these forums only to post misogynistic anti SWer hateful crap) & delete their shit.
2. If need be donate to their charities.
3. Get your MP to put forward a 10 minute bill saying decriminalisation as per NSW is the way forward.
4. More but I won't divulge.

[LittleMan86]

Make no mistake. First they'll come for the street workers, then the agency girls, then the independents, then the sugar babies, then the cam models, then the Pornstars, then the OF & glamour models, then any other how they see fit.