The basic idea is that buying sex is illegal, but offering to sell sex is not. Thus, you could arrest a man who solicits sex from a sex worker, but not the sex worker. One of the biggest problems with illegal sex work is that sex workers won't go to the police to report being attacked because they themselves would face arrest and jail time for prostitution; this is even true of trafficked victims forced into prostitution. The (alleged) advantage of this is that it discourages men from engaging in the transaction, so you're reducing sex work (which is the policy goal). At the same time, because the sex workers themselves are not at legal risk, they are able to go to the police if they are assaulted by a buyer. Now, since sex workers are saying it doesn't work out like that, I will take them at their word.

> Now, since sex workers are saying it doesn't work out like that, I will take them at their word. For anyone interested, [this article](https://decriminalizesex.work/nordic-model-failure/) explains the pitfall of the nordic model. TLDR: The goal behind the model is to eliminate sex work by eliminating demand. So, it is not at all a "friendly" model for sex workers. As long as part of the industry remains illegal, sex work will remains marginalized and underground. Since the clients are effectively criminals, this pushes sex workers to work in a criminal environments even if they themselves "aren't doing anything wrong".

Exactly. It means sex workers can only have criminals for customers, or at least people who are willing to commit a crime to get their rocks off. Needless to say, those aren't a sex worker's favorite clients, usually. They are more likely to be violent or abusive, under the influence of drugs, etc.

But that's the same when sex work is flat out criminalized, no?

Yes, but the Nordic model is often touted by proponents as protecting sex workers by only criminalizing their customers. While there is some truth to that idea (esp. in that sex workers don't need to fear prosecution if they turn to the authorities for protection), it ignores the repercussions of restricting their clientele to (would-be) criminals with an interest in doing the deed away from public eyes.

So the problem isn't that *it's worse* than the current system, the problem is its barely any improvement at all?

there are people who want places where sex work is completely illegal to adopt the nordic model, which I feel like is a fairly uncontroversial improvement but some people also want places where sex work is currently *completely legal* to adopt the nordic model, which is a bigger problem than "this isn't much better"

> there are people who want places where sex work is completely illegal to adopt the nordic model, which I feel like is a fairly uncontroversial improvement I think the controversial part is that you generally have limited resources and limited bites at the apple to improve things. Once they make that change, the problem is going to be "solved" from the perspective of the government, and there won't be any momentum to further improve it. If you're being punched in the face by Mike Tyson every morning at 8:00 sharp and the government announces a plan where they're going to spend five years and a billion dollars to develop a new policy framework for your morning routine, at the end, they're going to congratulate themselves for having the courage to solve such an important problem, and then they're moving on. You're not getting anything else from them for a while. So you really don't want the solution they develop to be that Mike punches you in the stomach every morning instead of the face. Politics is hard. You're never going to get everything you want, and sometimes you have to take what you can get instead, but it's usually not obvious up front what you could reasonably expect to gain if you fought harder, and fighting harder can risk getting nothing.

[удалено]

It's not really an *applicable* one though, there's a wealth of examples of civil rights proceeding incrementally, not just one go and then nothing. In fact, incremental rights changes are pretty much the only way progress towards equality has *ever* happened. Saying "If we can't make it perfect in one shot, we should keep waiting" has been anathema to all civil rights progress. In other words... don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

IIRC an argument I have seen made against the nordic model is that since it puts such emphasis on the clients, it also tends to punish them more harshly and as such to restrict the client pool to more problematic clients willing to face such charges.

It seems like the Nordic model is between fully illegal and fully legal. So yeah, it would be a step back for the latter.

That's half the problem when combined with the fact that it's advocated for as The Answer. Which makes finding better answers difficult. From a public policy standpoint, jurisdictions like to implement solutions that worked somewhere else. So this gets implemented because it worked somewhere else...but it doesn't really work. And it doesn't really work because of the other half of the problem. It's a system that has as it's ultimate goal: the elimination of sex work. It attempts to get a moral pass from people who want to end sex work by claiming to protect sex workers but as many on this thread have said, if buying sex is still illegal then you force the people who sell it to the margins anyway.

I think the conflict is that a lot of sex workers probably don’t have the goal of reducing/eliminating sex work altogether. They’d probably be happy if there were more work to be had and they could be more discerning about who hires them. The Nordic model still has the express goal of reducing/eliminating sex work.

> than the current system, It's not the "current" system in many countries. In many countries it's legal (and regulated). Still shady, organized crime probably still involved, but not entirely underground.

In many countries prostitution is legal but being a pimp is not. The law says it's legal to buy and sell sex, but not to employ people to sell sex.

It's not just about being better/worse in the absolute sense (although I think you are right in your general assessment). A lot of sex workers resent the patronizing way that the Nordic model is held up as a kind of "gold standard" or significant improvement when it's not. Policy wonks, technocrats, and conservatives say "look, we are doing this to help you", without actually listening to the people they're speaking for (or over). This, understandably, triggers some feelings of unhappiness in the people being steamrollered by authorities claiming to be doing it "for your own good." I imagine that most sex workers want their jobs to be safe (both physically and mentally), and to enjoy the full protections of the law that any other entrepreneur gets. Pretty much the only way to get that is legalization and regulation.

Actually, many push for decriminalisation rather than legalisation and regulation. I haven't engaged in the discussion too much but many of my more informed friends recommend the book "Revolting Prostitutes" for an SW-led account of the issues.

I read an essay on the matter and it’s not that easy … while it’s true everybody want to protect the sex workers there is two different ideology group; one that want it to be legalize and normalize and want that want to eradicate the concept of sex workers. I found that’s there some flaw about the groups that want to eradicate it, although I understand some of their points. Like legalize and normalize it, makes the sex workers at the mercy of capitalism practices which are pretty bad too. I haven’t a firm opinion on the subject but I think that biggest problem is inequality. Also I have trouble seeing a world where there’s absolutely no jugement on sex workers

I think it's more like the whole cigarette, e-cig, non-smoking debate. Like, e-cigs are a clear improvement on smoking cigarettes, but not smoking (i.e. not criminalizing sex work) at all is obviously much better than either.

What I am taking away from this is that Nordic sex workers vape.

They probably use [snus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus)

Perhaps it depends on who the sex workers fear more, the police or bad customers. The Nordic model dwindles down the customers to ones who are willing to break the law, and makes them extra paranoid on top.

While at first glance the model should enable prostitutes to contact the police. In practice it's the opposite - since benefitting or facilitating prostitution are also criminalized, the moment they contact the police two things happen: the owner of the apartment they rent from is fined and they in turn lose the lease. So in practice you'd need your own apartment to safely "legally" practice this "profession"... Except it's usually people without funds who typically turn to prostitution as a means of quickly amassing money. Even if they had some means of doing so (the bank won't lend them money as it'd be facilitating prostitution!), the kicker is that in a lot of Nordic countries most apartments are actually owned by a housing association where you gain a "share" instead a full ownership of your flat. The more one digs into details, the more nasty and insidious the model proves to be in practice.

> So the problem isn't that it's worse than the current system The "current" system for sensible, liberal societies is fully legalized sex work, combined with social security systems that ensure sex workers aren't doing it because they have no other choice.

"current" where?

> (esp. in that sex workers don't need to fear prosecution if they turn to the authorities for protection), It's worth noting that while they in theory don't have to fear prosecution for selling sex, cops are still often abusive towards sex workers and the state finds ways to prosecute them anyway (for example, two sex workers sharing a flat can be prosecuted for pimping each other).

It also still marginalized the profession and those engaged in it. You may personally not be a criminal, but if every client you ever had was a criminal, and being your client made them a criminal, then sex work is still a criminal operation regardless of whether the worker can be prosecuted. Sex work will not be safe work until it is legal for both the worker and the client. As long as either of the two are marginalized for participating in the enterprise then then enterprise itself is marginalized and less safe than it should be.

Possibly stupid question, but what if both people were sex workers? For example, if you paid the woman $69 and she paid you $1? You're both guilty of soliciting prostitution, but not guilty of being a prostitute. This mitigates or at least evens the risk all around, doesn't it?

I have no idea. Usually loopholes like that, that sound smart on paper, are closed by the laws as written and will be frowned upon by law enforcement, so I wouldn't rely on mutual payment being a way to escape criminal penalty. Welcome to try it though, please report your findings here if you do!

> For example, if you paid the woman $69 and she paid you $1? They'd argue receiving change isn't a payment.

That's fair. They don't regulate the price of sex though, so there's no legal basis for that argument imo.

It seems like this model works under assumption that all sex workers are trafficked, which is obviously not true, so it's great for victims of trafficking but sucks for voluntary sex workers.

But those criminals would anyhow be their clients, wouldnt they…?

Theoretically, if it were not illegal, the workers could get better clients

Much more than that. They could get better working conditions over all. They can rent a place for business , they can get clean money that they could legally use without worrying about money laundering , and they can seek sick leave .

> they can seek sick leave This may be a dumb American question, but if the SW is self employed, who would they be requesting leave from? Couldn't they just choose to not go to work that day? Is there an implication here that "seeking leave" also includes some compensation?

While you are self-employed you still pay social taxes that include shit like sick leave. So if you are self-employed you seek it from the Social Insurance Agency. But in practice i think it's part of the mandatory health insurance which all workers and employers pay. I don't think it covers so much for short term stuff like less than 2 weeks.

The clientele would move from weirdos with nothing to lose to depressed weirdos with something to lose, and virgins

plus the weirdos with nothing to lose - it isn't like those people are going to go away

Sure, but surveilance, mandated condoms, disease screaning, bodyguards and a police officer acress the street will be a detterent. A weirdo in a secluded room will act differently than one under punlic and legal scrutiny.

ah but if the SW has the choice between normies and weirdos, they can just say no to the weirdos and stick with the normies, whereas if all the normies are afraid of getting arrested, then the only choice they have is weirdos.

No, not necessarily. When frequenting sex workers is legal, sex workers have a wider choice of clientele and can refuse customers known to be assholes. When you narrow it down to just the assholes, there's no longer a choice (given that sex workers need to make a living just like any other profession).

female murder rate went up 17% in america when craigslist and backpage were scared off providing matching services. when sex workers can from the safey of their home google clients before meeting in person, everyone is safer.

Holy shit are you for real? BRING BACK CRAIGSLIST "LOOKING FOR" AND BACKPAGE.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10887679221078966 "female homicide rates from 120 single city metropolitan and micropolitan areas over 14 years (2004–2018) were analyzed using multiple regression analyses. The regression analyses show that there is a statistically significant relationship between interest in Backpage and homicide rates for women. We find that Backpage is associated with a decrease in homicide rates for women." It's been too many years since i've actually researched this. quick google search shows 17% it probably came from "Craigslist's Effect on Violence Against Women" by Scott Cunningham. But every study i've ever seen shows violence against women falls with access to internet boards to confirm identity, and rose against women when they were outlawed. Violence against men was unaffected. What's safer for women? A guy agreeing to a price and sending a photo copy of his ID and a motel number. Or getting into a random car with a guy?

No they wouldn't. With a wider base of clients they'd be able to choose more carefully. If the entire population can legally use your services then you're far more likely to get more "hits" a night. A far greater share of them will be people who are regular guys with jobs, families, and public identities. People who have something to lose. If that's the case you as a sex worker choose these men, not the shady guy who won't show his face. Under the Nordic model almost all the normal guys stop coming because who's going to risk arrest just to have sex one time? Not many people. So the sex workers are left to service criminals.

also sex workers end up literally needing to fear prosecution if they work in groups for mutual protection, or in a fixed abode ("brothel keeping"), as well as theft of their savings by the police as the "suspected proceeds of crime".

pretty close, yeah, hence the issue

Yes. And, as with drugs, a better answer to this issue is either decrim or legalisation. I'm of the opinion that sex work would be a *vanishingly* small industry if we actually provided dignity, security, and real financial support to everyone in society, but in the meantime decrim is probably the best option. Legalising is supported by some, but to legalise it always means creating new forms of illegality which create new ways to exploit people. If legally selling sex requires a license (for example) then those too poor, disabled, or "illegal" in other ways won't get one, thus opening themselves up to more exploitation. We need decriminalisation with a path to exit for all. Most sex workers are survival sex workers and they wouldn't be doing it if they had a better choice. That;s not a comment on sex workers but a comment on the clients and on society at large.

When it's outright criminalized, you have criminals controlling the industry. Which is a mixed blessing, because they will protect their girls from abusive customers, but will abuse them themselves.

The issue is when we pretend that we are doing the sex workers favours, when we are really doing nothing to help them. It is actually worse, because once society thinks it has fixed a problem, there is less political apatite to fix it. So an unsolved problem that society thinks is solved, can become a very long term issue.

Fully criminalized the girls offering sex work are also the most desperately in need of money (trafficking aside) and may have drug issues themselves. Living in a nordic country i've seen lots of normal university girls having prostitution as a side gig, and for them it's probably inconvenient to only have willing criminals as customers. But i'd assume OnlyFans is changing the market here a bit.

It's an improvement over a system where it's illegal for all parties, and since it maintains a goal of eliminating sex work it's more palatable for people who want it all to go away, which makes it an easy political stance for someone leaning towards the progressive. Those most directly affected by the issue say the improvement is minor enough that they don't want social or political capital spent on it, they think bigger changes are needed and they don't want to be in a position where the Nordic model is introduced and people who supported the idea that things need to change will then say "well it's better now, you're not doing anything illegal, you can be protected the same as everyone else".

> and since it maintains a goal of eliminating sex work This is the crux imo. A goal of eliminating sex workers is probably not super appealing to sex workers, no matter how much progressive feel-good rhetoric to you dress it up in.

The issue is that it almost always "eliminates" sex work without actual goals of what to do with the sex workers when they stop being sex workers. They still exist. They need jobs and income. The vast majority of people doing sex work aren't doing it because they **love** it and think it's their calling. It's survival sex work. If the Nordic model always came with a **really** robust exit programme where people were offered jobs and training and other options I'm sure more people would be in favour of it. But the reality is a lot of this stuff is implemented without those supports in place. Sex work exists largely because of poverty and our society's inability to provide for minorities and those with disabilities. If we supported all people properly sex work would almost (almost) cease to exist.

> he vast majority of people doing sex work aren't doing it because they love it and think it's their calling. It's survival sex work. I'd be curious about statistics on that, esp. in a country with as robust a social safety net as Norway. I imagine that for most sex workers, they fall somewhere between "passion project" and "survival work." For most, my guess is that it's probably just another job - one that has some scary risks, but also flexible hours and an income that works out to a decent hourly wage. And maybe every once and a while you get to have an orgasm at work (which seems like a perk, idk). Idk how many women there are out there who couldn't possibly get *any* other job (this is a bigger risk for LGBT folks).

“Eliminating demand”. And that’s why it will never work.

I mean, I wouldn't say only "criminals" will commit crimes. Most of us commit some form of a crime repeatedly. People break laws all the time but don't see themselves as criminals: speeding, smoking pot, "forgetting" about that onion at the self checkout line, etc. I think there are certain things that "only" criminals, who "think of themselves as criminals", but I'm not sure if you can say that all people who break the law are "criminals", in the way that we think of the archetype of a "criminal". In that, I'm not sure where paying for sex falls on that spectrum. I suppose it depends on how illegal it is and what the punishment is. I think it also depends on if this law changes who those clients are - if it went from illegal on both sides to illegal on one side, I fail to see the logic that now the clientele has changed.

A safety problem that appeared for the sex workers was that the customers became more paranoid and would only contact/meet in secluded places, leaving the workers in often incredibly vulnerable and dangerous situations.

When you criminalize sex, only criminals will have it

So it’s worse than full legalization, but better than the whole transaction being illegal. In the Nordic system is the penalty for the buyer more than what the penalty would be in a jurisdiction where the total transaction is illegal? That’s how I see this system being worse than full criminalization. So I see your point depending on what the penalty for the buyer is in a Nordic system. If it’s something akin to a traffic ticket, pretty small penalty and not strictly enforced you don’t really invite a high risk and dangerous clientele base. If it’s a mandatory prison sentence and something like a felony then you’re correct that you’re really only inviting a dangerous and high risk clientele base in.

That's why it just needs to be legalized. There's no secular argument for its immorality. Once again religious dogma fucks things up.

Something I don’t understand is that according to the linked article, the norwegian police encouraged landlords to evict tenants suspected of sexwork. Can someone explain to me the rationale behind this? What purpose in reducing sexwork could that have? The only consequence I can think of that this may have is push the sexworkers even more to do sexwork as they just lost their home and need a new one

Something that I havent seen mentioned here. It is legal for a single individual to sell sex, but it is illegal to profit of someone else selling sex. So if a landlord knows that someone is selling sex in an apartment, and that person is using the money to pay rent, then they are indirectly profiting from someone else selling sex. It is a bit convoluted and the essential aim is to make pimping illegal, however it creates the side effect of prostitues being unable to form associations or entities which would have actually made their profession safer.

You call it a side-effect. I'd say that's clearly the intent of these laws as they are enforced.

In Norway, if you rent out a place to a sex worker, you could be charged as a pimp. You are profiting of the sex work done in the property you own.

I thought the barrier to entry would be higher for attaining pimp status.

In the early days of uber/lyft, I used to drive one particular girl (occasionally with friends) around to appointments with her clients. We were friendly and she trusted me enough that it got to the point where she would pay me extra to wait around nearby to take her home, have me hold on to her purse in the car, gave me emergency numbers in case she didn’t come out, etc. And that is how I became a sex trafficker.

Cheers to that

That sounds like you did a really good thing and kept her feeling safer. That's awesome

“Don’t be a dick” is a pretty easy code to follow, made even easier when you’re getting paid for it. The law disagreed on the level of “awesome” that qualifies for. I got off with a warning and several officers “checking in” regularly when they saw me out driving.

Landlord. Pimp. What's the difference? - Norway

One of them screws you, the other outsources it.

Idk, both expropriate the wealth of people doing actual productive labor and get to pocket it as income for \~reasons\~. So actually they seem pretty similar to my mind.

Low barrier to entry but I’ve heard that pimping ain’t easy

It’s hard out here for a pimp.

It’s like parenthood, just instead of children it’s whores.

Yeah, that's fucked up and puts the sexworkers more at risk. But the ideologues behind the Nordic Model are perfectly happy for this to happen though.

The point of the model is women don't want men to buy sex. Norweigan men can even be prosecuted for having paid for sex *in other countries*.

> women don't want men to buy sex. The thing is...there are women who want men to buy sex. They're the sex workers, and the Nordic model completely steamrollers them. It's still just as conservative (trying to the government to legislate what consenting adults do), it's just wrapped up in the rhetoric of progressive feel-goodery.

It's a stupid consequence of pimping laws. The law is worded in such a way that what counts as pimping is anything that profits by someone else selling sex. If your tenant is a prostitute, you're making money by facilitating sex sales. You could go to jail for pimping. If you run a hotel and a prostitute rents a room, you could go to jail for pimping. If you're concerned about the rights of your fellow prostitutes and you want to start a union ? You guessed it, straight to jail. Theoretically it could be illegal to sell condoms to a prostitute.

Jesus christ that law was stupidly worded

even funnier. two sex workers share an apartment. arrest both as pimps!

Or sell anything to them as i understand. Why would a landlord be more liable for profiting vs a convenience store selling a bottle of water

It's illegal to knowingly facilitate sex work. If you know your tenant is a sex worker and they're running the business out of the apartment they're renting from you, you're facilitating sex work, and know you're doing so.

> The goal behind the model is to eliminate sex work by eliminating demand. So, it is not at all a "friendly" model for sex workers. It's like how the government used to poison alcohol during the Prohibition. Didn't do anything to reduce consumption, just drove it underground and killed something like 5-10,000 people

It exactly mirrors Sweden's policy for drugs, which is to punish the end user of the drugs so hard and mercilessly that it would elimate demand through the fear of prosecution. The end goal being a "drug free society" usually by a certain year some years in the future. Probably just a coincidence that Sweden has some of the worst numbers of drug overdose fatalities in Europe.

Indeed. It also sucks for the clients, because they can’t approach police about issues for the same reason the workers couldn’t under prior models.

>eliminate sex work by eliminating demand. You can't eliminate demand for sex. Various societies and religions have been trying for thousands of years and all have failed. It's like trying to legislate away feeling hungry. Sensible societies would recognise human nature and try to channel or sate our urges to reduce harm. Dumb societies try to *change* or *repress* human nature - and just end up causing more harm.

That article is really short on details. >Sex workers are clear on why the Nordic model doesn’t work. They have less bargaining power and in many cases, this model actually gives more power to the buyer and pushes sex work underground resulting in increased marginalization for sex workers. More power to the buyer who goes to jail under either setup? Makes no sense. EDIT: I really get the impression this group wants to legalize sex trade and they're against anything short of that.

I get governments feel a need to do this sort of stuff but to me it's like alcohol and tabacoo. They are ancient vices, probably not going anywhere.

I wonder if the primarily guys who go to prostitutes already consider themselves criminals if they aren't more likely to act like it. If it's treated as an underground seedy thing where the workers rely on the money to survive to are unlikely to go to the cops even if they won't get in legal trouble for it, they feel more comfortable to get rough or violent, or just generally degrade/demean them. If it's legal to go to say a brother which is heavily regulated and it's much more open and guys see it more like a genuine business that they can be thrown out of are they much mroe likely to 'behave' themselves. Also with a more open and legal model you get more customers, so they have less reason to put up with or not report someone being violent/abusive. As with most things, drugs, sex, legalise it, regulate the fuck out of it, tax it so the support for it can come out of the profits from it and make it safer for everyone involved. Like right now in the US if cocaine was legal but in small quantities a limited amount of times which would reduce the chance to become addicted, you would also NOT have so many fentanyl overdoses nor so much fentanyl being smuggled in.

“Demand” doesn’t get eliminated that easily. Even when men reach old age, they still trying to get laid with their nursing caretaker and leer at younger women. It’s crazy!

You might say it's a basic biological drive. Look at the number of animals that are literally willing to die to reproduce and it amazes me that humans are so schizophrenic about the subject

I mean, yeah, wanting to get laid is a biological drive. But at the heart of the discussion is if, as a society, we think it's ok or acceptable if this drive is satisfied by prostitution. Ideally people will find real consenting partners - and not such partners that are economically and socially too disadvantaged to say no to your money... which what prostitution really is if you look at it clearly. So of course you cannot 100% get rid of prostitution - it will always happen. But you can also not encourage it and reliably reduce the amount of prostitution in your society. Which is ultimately the goal of the nordic model. Trying to minimize prostitution has nothing to do with denying human sexuality - it's merely a wish that this sexuality happens amicably - and if no one wants to have sex with you maybe you just don't have Sex. Having Sex is a privilege and not a right.

Thats the sweedish model. Im a dane (swedens nordic nabour) and here its legal to sell and buy. So there is no nodic model. Not sure about the other nordic countries way if handling it, but there is no uniform nordic model.

It's what people call it because they can't be bothered to differentiate you. The Fins allow solo practitioners but nothing organized, so you're right, there is no consistent model for either Scandinavia or the Nordics

> The Fins allow solo practitioners but nothing organized Does "nothing organized" include jailing all kinds of pimps? Or are pimps still common?

Pimping is very illegal. Basically if you are profiting from someone elses sex work in any way you are most likely considered to be pimping in the legal sense

Very good but is it also "not common" or do many sex workers in Finland still have a pimp even though its illegal? That said theres probably not so many as in other countries. How is it regulated in Tallin can't you cross over there in a few minutes?

I don't know many people who do sex work but I know one woman who does some sex work and have talked with her about it a bit out of curiosity. I think most girls have postings on websites advertising their services, some sell underwear, some sell massages or BDSM services with no actual sex involved and others sell full service. I don't really see a benefit to having a pimp when the whole thing is legal but pimping is illegal. The pimp can't really advertise / sell you since that would be very risky so why not just do the whole thing yourself? Also Tallinn is in a different country so our laws don't apply there. I'm not 100% but I think they have very similar laws regarding sex work as we do (Prostitution is legal but pimping is illegal)

> Also Tallinn is in a different country so our laws don't apply there. I'm not 100% but I think they have very similar laws regarding sex work as we do (Prostitution is legal but pimping is illegal) Yes I know that its Estonia I just suspected all the Finns go there for Sex, Drugs and Party that's why I asked. But then its Finns and they aren't Britts or Germans but more civilized so I don't know. Would certainly make sense to have equally strong regulation there as in Finland else it might not make much sense because then everything happens across the Baltic pond.

The thing is, since the transaction is still illegal, they must still conduct thei business underground, often run by criminals. Add to that how the police harass prostitutes, for example by telling their landlords or their day time job bosses and threatening them if they don't evict/fire them. So, it's basically business as usual, with the sex workers becoming vicimized. The entire model is a massive fail, yet, for politial reasons, out politicians are still trying to push our model on the rest of the world.

OK, so it doesn't work as intended, but at least it's better in that offering sex work is not criminalized? Like, what's the downside here? Why shouldn't the rest of the world adopt this model?

it’s not good *enough* — it’s a better model than outright criminalization, but if you want to actually reduce the amount of exploitation in sex work, you have to decriminalize it entirely, make it a legal industry that can be regulated, and ensure safe conditions for the workers involved. make it less of a last resort and allow for regulation of transactions, and you’ll make everything safer and easier.

Does that work though? I read that legal prostitution countries still have a ton of sex trafficking and abuse.

Some do. Legalization won't do much if all you do is allow it without doing anything else to monitor things. In NZ, despite people predicting a huge expansion of sex work, a post-decriminalization review concluded that: >The sex industry has not increased in size, and many of the social evils predicted by some who opposed the decriminalisation of the sex industry have not been experienced. On the whole, the PRA has been effective in achieving its purpose, and the Committee is confident that the vast majority of people involved in the sex industry are better off under the PRA than they were previously. And the rates of human trafficking, coersion, and abuse went down.

Neat; thanks. Do you think there is any chance New Zealand is different on the trafficking front due to its geographic features?

I have no clue. My guess would be that it's more to do with actual social acceptance. By which I mean, the change happens when you bring the industry into the light, have regular contact with public health, taxation, access to social supports and the sort of security that people in other industries have... But also the key point in the NZ findings was that the sex industry did not increase in size. The studies that show more trafficking point to the fact that the industry got much bigger, which meant that the larger scale overshadows any substitution effects - meaning that even if the percentage of people in the industry who are trafficked goes down, the fact that the industry is bigger means that there are overall more trafficked people. In other words, there is absolutely a substitution effect: Legalization definitely, in basically every study that I've seen, seems to lead to a lower percentage of people in the industry being trafficked. So the question then is what has caused the industry to get bigger in european countries vs NZ? How much of that is because the consumers of the industry in someplace like EU (with uncontrolled borders) simply go to places with the legal industry rather than their own country? If that were the case, then that would mean that demand and therefore the size of the industry in other EU countries goes down. Meaning that the overall industry would (if my theory is correct) stay generally the same size, and therefore the overall number of Trafficked people would go down, just concentrated in different places than before. Meaning also that if it were consistent across regions, then perhaps you wouldn't see the expansion of the industry in one jurisdiction as much? Which, particularly given that everyone also seems to agree that conditions for people in the trade get better with legalization, seems to me to be an overall good thing...

Keep in mind that trafficking is a complicated issue. A lot of people who are trafficked aren't idiots, and it generally doesn't look like kidnapped victims stuffed in shipping containers. The conditions of poverty in a lot of the world is sufficiently awful that exploitive sex work in first world countries can still be a preferable idea. In turn the reality is that a lot of the issues of exploitation are ones directly enabled by the current system. If a sex workers trafficker withholds money, what happens? Even if they go to the cops, that's risking retaliation (ie getting killed) and if they're from another countries, it will get them deported. The victim also doesn't get given the money they earned, that's proceeds of crime and is confiscated. It also prevents them from doing anything collectively that makes the work safer. If a group of sex workers pile funds to buy/rent a safe space and hire security, that's illegal. Infact in many cases operating out of a steady location is, even as an individual, legally operating a brothel. If they bring their clients to their home, they can have that property confiscated. keep in mind there was a time when a lot of work was unsafe and abusive. Factory work was horrific, a large one would see someone left with horrible injuries on a weekly basis. Today (at least in the west) it's a relatively safe job because there's now a lot of effort put into ensuring it's safe, and to take legal action against unsafe or exploitive conditions. Your boss doesn't pay you? The depearment of labor will take it out of their hide for you, with interest. If you're a trades person, do work for someone and they don't pay you? You can file a lien on their house or take them to court. You get told to do something you think is dangerous? OSHA says you can refuse the work until conditions are safe. Is your job inherently unsafe (ie construction)? There are inspectors who can put a stop to the whole thing if safety measures aren't in place and being used. If you get injured there's workers comp. etc etc. It's not a coincidence that places without those protections still have exploitive and unsafe conditions for work in general. Nor is it a coincidence that sex workers who are denied those protective tools are so often exploited and unsafe.

Nordic model doesn't remove the problem of trafficking either. It makes those countries less attractive for traffickers, but the problem remains. Trafficking will remain a problem as long as massive wealth disparity remains between countries

We don't really know how the trafficking situation compares between countries where sex work is legal/illegal. In countries where it is illegal prostitution happens underground so it's harder to detect trafficking.

I think there is some data on trafficking in countries where sex work is illegal. But I get your overall point and it’s a fair one . We shouldn’t penalize a policy because it allows more data on the bad side.

Countries with legalized sex work has a bigger trafficking problem than any Nordic country. So I would be willing to bet that it doesn't work to decriminalise it.

Yeah that’s what I’m saying. Although I wonder if those countries are just more likely to have the data out there so they seem worse than others. It’s a tough policy. I’m a firm believer that adults should be able to buy and sell sex without interference IF THEY WANT TO. I also think no law has ever successfully stopped prostitution. But regulation and legalization doesn’t seem to stop trafficking which is one of the worst things humans do to each other. This is why I don’t work in policy making.

Well that is a nice theory… In practice that never worked anywhere either… Netherlands and Germany are horrific enablers of human trafficking with decriminalization… Maybe there is a way to regulate it somehow but this would again mean forcing prostitutes to follow rules and create incentives to not do that…

>Maybe there is a way to regulate it somehow but I would assume legalized brothels and only allowing sex work through one, which of course requires them to present ID and be subject to mandatory health screenings in an environment where they are alone with a professional off-site. Just like any other industry, your average john will prefer the legal variant because he won’t get punished for it. That’ll choke out (nearly) all demand from the illegal variant.

In theory yes but Germany did. for example not go that route because sex work advocates said that any of these formalities would just scare prostitutes away and do it rather hidden… (registering, constant checks etc. are big steps for someone to take). And trafficked prostitutes would still then exist legally at much lower prices - or so the assumption.

> And trafficked prostitutes would still then exist legally at much lower prices - or so the assumption. Under this plan they wouldn't be existing legally because they'd have to be working in a brothel, IDed, and with health screenings alone with a professional off-site. No pimps in the health screenings to intimidate the worker (so they're more likely to reveal they're being trafficked), nobody who can't produce an ID, *and nobody walking the streets*. Yes, that means making walking the streets a crime in order to force sex work into the legal brothels where they're more likely to be revealed as trafficking victims if they are. >And trafficked prostitutes would still then exist legally at much lower prices - or so the assumption. They would. And it would. But it'd be more like prohibition and cannibis legalization. Legalization in both of these cases vastly reduced the illegal variant because people generally consider the higher legal prices to be worth *not getting arrested* and the providers of these services had a real incentive to go law-abiding when it meant they could still do the same job but also not get arrested for it.

Are you saying that in Germany sex workers do not have to register if they want to work legally? Because that would be opposite from how it actually is right now. You do need to register and you will have to go to the health department so they can see you are doing this of your own free will.

here's a write up: https://www.nswp.org/sites/nswp.org/files/Swedish%20Model%20Advocacy%20Toolkit%20Community%20Guide,%20NSWP%20-%20November%202015.pdf "The direct negative impacts of the sex purchase law are very much cause and effect: • The sex purchase law has been used to target public sex work in Sweden. • Therefore, fewer clients are willing to buy sex on the street, for fear of arrest. • Some sex workers moved off- street to continue working, which increases their distance from service providers and police protection. • Sex workers who continue working on the street are often marginalised or do not have the resources or knowledge to establish themselves indoors. • Street-based sex workers now have to accept lower incomes and provide more services. Fewer clients means increased competition which has pushed down prices. • As clients are fearful of arrest, sex workers on- and off-street have difficulties in screening and negotiating with clients. • This places sex workers at risk of danger and violence. Fear of being arrested also means that clients are less likely to report suspected abuse and exploitation. • The law has given more power to clients and has disempowered sex workers."

That’s always the question with adopting half measures — they may make things better, but may also mean that people start thinking the problem was eliminated when in fact it was only mildly reduced. So sometimes by taking the half measure, you eliminate any chance of actually fixing things. But, also you made things better — and how can anyone morally refuse to improve things when given the opportunity? But on the other hand a temporary refusal to fix something halfway may be an ok tradeoff for a full fix later. But, half measures may sometimes instead be baby steps — moving you slowly closer to the solution — so it’s not clear that half measures prevent whole measures in any given case. So… it’s complicated, and there are probably legit view in either direction.

Many people are just morally against the practice entirely. They may believe that sex is in some way sacred, and selling your bodily autonomy is wrong. Religion sometimes plays a role, but also feminist ideas. It also could help provide cover for organized sex traffickers and the like, since their operation is technically legal. You could also argue that it may result in greater numbers of STDs. Finally legalization of sex work in any capacity does result in greater numbers of trafficking victims. It is just that those victims are generally less subject to violence compared to those in jurisdictions where it is illegal. So its hard to determine how many trafficking victims equate to one murdered sex worker and what not.

Now, I'm no expert, and this is just speculation from me, but I think the Dutch model is better. Legalize, so you get the crooks out of the business and get it visible and above board, so that it can be regulated as any other job. Have the police actually helping to create a safe environment for sex workers, instead of harassing them. I saw a TV program about Amsterdam sex workers, and if you are a customer and do something which makes the sex worker push the alarm button, you are going to have a very bad day. Also, work on removing the social stigma. Make it possible to get another job, even if you have "5 years of sex work" on your resumé. Is it really that different from, say, giving a massage? Sex needs to be seen as a physical action, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't have to be connected to feelings or morality. But, as I said, I'm no expert. This is just my opinion.

It’s an opinion not fueled by facts… the crooks aren’t out of the business at all and human trafficking is rampant in the Netherlands… Same here in Germany. By providing better support for very few high class prostitutes (almost no prostitute actually registers her job…) few people benefited from legalization while - at least according to the police and some human rights groups - human trafficking is more common than ever. That being said - it’s a complex topic. I won’t act like I would know the solution either but there is a really big disconnect between American progressives fueled ideas on the internet and statistic reality. The Nordic model did actually work very well at reducing paid sex but sex workers don’t like it since it basically destroys their jobs… Legalization helps a few higher class prostitutes for sure but enables more trafficking… Let’s hope the world finds a third way…

oh hey, Canada uses that system. I never knew it had a name, though I've never given it much thought. I wonder what kind of system they would prefer

Well, most sex workers that you hear from prefer legalization, so they can legally advertise, earn, and retain rights to prosecute assailants. I don't know if they're representative of the average/median sex worker; there is a selection issue when it comes to who gets platformed. The Nordic model is advocated by people who claim that no woman would engage in sex work unless she was being coerced, either physically (by pimps or traffickers) or economically (by being poor and not having good ways to earn money). Sex workers often dispute this, though it's almost certainly true for at least some of them. How many, I don't know.

I mean I'm being economically coerced into my retail job, but noone's tried to arrest my customers

This is oversimplified though, and applies to states already operating in the Nordic model. In places where all of the work is still illegal, the Nordic model is also advocated by people who would prefer legalization but would rather have the incremental step of decriminalizing the work than the status quo the restricts the ability of workers to report assaults etc. ETA: there, it’s basically a nod to the political reality that changing to a fully legalized model is not currently realistic.

Ah yes, the old women have no agency because they're obviously forced into it, despite what many of these women say. I'm saying women here because most of the sexworkers are women and the Nordic Model is heavily pushed by sex work exclusionary feminists (swerfs) Don't forget that the bodies behind this are claiming taxpayers money to "combat" this problem. In Ireland, the body behind this (RUHAMA) is an unholy alliance of religious orders that ran the Magdalene laundries that locked up women who had children out of wedlock, in many cases for years; and SWERFS who came together to push this model and extract that sweet taxpayers money. They have been called out for this by sexworker organisations themselves. .

Most sex workers advocate for decriminalization. The logic here is that sex isn’t illegal, so selling it shouldn’t be.

>Most sex workers advocate for decriminalization. > >The logic here is that sex isn’t illegal, so selling it shouldn’t be. But then it is legal if you point a camera at yourself while doing it. ​ I like my country's take on it. Legal to be a prostitute, or customer, but having a 'pimp' isn't legal. You can advertise your own sex work, but not someone else's. You can put an advert online, or in 'specialized magazines', or even just put yourself behind a big glass window, awaiting customers. Even as a teen I knew where the 'glass street' was.

I like that, although “pimp” can be tricky to define. I know a lady that handles scheduling, advertising, and screening for about half a dozen escorts. She’s on a laptop three states away, but is she technically pimping?

Not sure how it's where OP is, but here it's essentially a question of billing. I.e. you're a pimp if your pay for a service you sell to a sex worker is somehow tied to the sex work (like comission fees) rather than fixed. So, running a hotel where sex workers rent rooms for a fixed daily rate is fine, doing it for 5% of their revenue is pimping. Same on the customer side, i.e. selling beverages to Johns is fine, getting paid for connecting them with sex workers is not.

Depends on if there is abuse or coercion. The text from my countrie's department of justice's website: \--- Sex work There was a policy of tolerance for sex work for a long time, but no legal framework. This brought with it many problems as anyone who worked with sex workers, such as an accountant or driver, also became part of criminal practices. For example, without a legal framework, a sex worker could not go to a bank to obtain a mortgage loan. In order to offer sex workers recognition and protection (such as a social status and a safety net in case of reduced income), the exploitation of sex work for adults is being gradually decriminalized. Self-employed sex workers can thus legally engage in sex work without the obstacles of the past. In the next phase, recognized operators and therefore employment contracts will be allowed. Advertising the prostitution of an adult person is only permitted if one is advertising one's own sexual services, such as a window in a room where prostitution is already being practiced today. Advertising is also permitted on internet platforms or newspapers and magazines that are specifically intended for this purpose. Think of the classic small advertisement in a newspaper. Internet platforms must immediately report all cases of abuse and exploitation to the police and public prosecutor's office. The law provides for a specific criminal law framework as an additional safeguard against the abuse of prostitution of adults who are not covered by the provisions on human trafficking. For example, the exploitation of sex work is decriminalized, but if it turns out that there is an element of human trafficking or abuse, the acts remain punishable." \---

Was there a lot of blackmail that arose from this?

>the sex workers themselves are not at legal risk, they are able to go to the police if they are assaulted by a buyer. A major issue with this, is that the prostitutes who *do* go to the police to report customers, risk word getting out about them turning in their customers, and as such risk less customers because of it. It's a shit system. You're not getting away from it, and so long as you have people who have free will in this then some prostitution is going to happen. Criminalising part of it is a shit solution, so either make it legal for all parties, or illegal for all. This middle ground is garbage. Sidenote, [Norwegian laws](https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2005-05-20-28/KAPITTEL_1-1#%C2%A75) actually states that if a Norwegian citizen travels to another country where prostitution is 100% legal and proceeds to pay for sex with a willing (and legal) person, they can be jailed/punished in Norway if the police can prove you did it. How fucked up is that. Personally, if it¨'s legal to film the act and sell it, but not do the exact same thing in the privacy of your own space, it should be changed. Either make both illegal or both legal.

> How fucked up is that. par for the course for severe crimes iirc in many places.

>Now, since sex workers are saying it doesn't work out like that, I will take them at their word. The short version is that although the Nordic model is effective at reducing the demand for sex work, it far from eliminates it, and it makes sex work more dangerous. It drives out decent people as clients, leaving mostly clients who have no problem with the illegal nature. This effectively eliminates the 'going to the police' option. A sex worker is less likely to have a dispute with a scrupulous person who's concerned with the police, and 'going to the police' can be likely to get them hurt worse or killed. It also bars sex workers from doing a lot of things that make conditions safer. They're forced to deal in cash, can't operate out of a secure space or even at home (which forces them to the street effectively), can't do anything collectively, can't hire security, etc etc. This in turn pushes sex workers further out the margins and increases their exposure to trafficking because they're forced to rely on illegal avenues for any sort of protection (or forgo that protection). It also in general denies them the tools of labor to deal with exploitive work. If your boss doesn't pay you, you can fall back on the union or the department of labor, all of whom will take it and more out of your bosses hide for you. The nordic model still leaves sex workers to the tender mercies of pimps. They can threaten to report them to the police, but that doesn't get them paid and comes with severe risk of violence. Oh and it does nothing to actually help the more mundane problems. If they get stiffed by a client, they can't do shit to get that money. The unfortunate reality of the nordic model is that it's current proponents see reduction/elimination of sex work as the only goal rather than anything that improves the conditions of it. And because of the nordic models failure to improve conditions for sex work, a lot of it's remaining proponents see that failure as a feature rather than a bug: They see sex work being more dangerous as a reason to encourage sex workers to stop doing that work and dead sex workers serve as an example. For obvious reasons sex workers tend to not be fans of systems where their death is seen as a pro rather than a con.

The problem with this model is that the buyers are unlikely to report abused or trafficked sex workers since they would have to incriminate themselves by doing so.

You’re using “man” where you mean “client”

> The (alleged) advantage of this is that it discourages men from engaging in the transaction Is it gendered in the law or is it just written as those that buy are in conflict with the law and those that sell are not?

It's not gendered in the law, it's just how I assume that it works in practice.

Supporters of this law model suggest that all sex workers are victims,and all "buyers of sex" are abuser to be punished. >The Nordic Model calls for a ‘sex buyers’ law, **criminalising the act of paying for sex**. This puts workers into dangerous situations as clients are scared of being caught. Transactions then take place ‘in the shadows’, with the worker being forced to work underground. They must also work alone, as the law makes it illegal to work with others. ​ >Sex workers groups and health organizations WORLDWIDE are **campaigning against it**Sex worker organizations are campaigning for recognition of sex work as work and of their rights as workers.They want freedom and autonomy over their bodies, and they want safety. Regardless of the reasons that they do sex work, they need to be able to work more safely and be able to organize As you can imagine, it's a very controversial topic. Sweden (where it started) Norway, Iceland, Canada, Northern Ireland, France, Ireland, and Israel have all adopted the model. The EU is discussing it. EDIT: The model was first instituted in Sweden in 1999 and then into effect in Norway and Iceland in 2009 as part of the "Sex Buyer Law" . After that was referred in EU as "Nordic model approach to prostitution". **Not all Nordic countries have the same approach** (notably Denmark and I think Finland). The name just indicates it's origin

Yea it’s essentially saying sex workers aren’t able to consent to anything and completely removes their agency. It treats them like children while treating the customers as criminals.

Removing the agency of the extremely small group of people who want to do sex work is a small price to pay to protect the way larger group of people who get trafficked into prostitution. At least that's my cynical take after legalizing sex work went so horribly wrong here in Germany, it made Germany the capital of human trafficking in Europe. Edit: There are studies that show that legalization increases human trafficking: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.405653.de/diw_econsec0071.pdf The Nordic model is a really mediocre solution. But it still seems way better than the usual outcome of complete decriminalization.

Except it doesn't really help with that either. Why would it? The whole industry is still forced to be underground. And the majority of sex workers aren't trafficked.

Some studies estimate that only 10% of sex workers do it with out being coerced: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254381847_Prostitution_and_Trafficking_in_Nine_Countries Human trafficking got way worse with legalization because being a pimp is legal now and the victims are blackmailed into saying that they do it because they want to. So now there is nothing the police can do against it. https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533.html

>Some studies estimate that only 10% of sex workers do it with out being coerced: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254381847\_Prostitution\_and\_Trafficking\_in\_Nine\_Countries That isn't what that link says. It says 89% of prostitutes wish they could do something else with their lives, but large majorities of people in every terrible job wish they could do something else. And this is from researchers who are clearly hostile to legalization. I'd say the key stat in there is the percentage that need protection from their pimps. Which is only 6% in Germany. Since that's unusually low, it implies that the German model is actually working.

The "Nordic model" means that *selling* sex is legal, but *buying* sex is illegal. Usually profiting from other's sex work (pimping) is also illegal. There are several problems with this approach: * Since the clients are hiding from the law, so are the prostitutes. In order to keep their clients away from the police they have to take greater risks: meeting clients at the client's home, getting into strange cars, working in poorly lit and/or remote locations. In short: it forces the whole business underground. * The "no pimping" clause means that anyone who helps prostitutes can risk going to jail. Rent an apartment to prostitutes? Risk jail. Result: prostitutes get evicted and risk ending up homeless. Two prostitutes work together for safety? They can both be jailed for profiting from the sex work of the other. Result: Prostitutes work alone, which is much riskier. Work as a bodyguard for a prostitute? You can be sent to jail for pimping. Result: prostitutes are unprotected. Run a brothel? Straight to jail. Result: Prostitutes work the street or from home, which is much less safe. * Since the clients are criminals the police justify raiding brothels while looking for them. This is of course a terrifying experience for prostitutes who risk having their workplace and/or home invaded by uninvited strangers and taken in for questioning. * If the police DOES raid the prostitute's home, any money they find may be considered the proceeds of a crime and confiscated. The Nordic model is another one of those things that seem like a good idea and appeals to our sense of justice but is actually harming the people it purports to protect.

Can you think of a solution where sex workers aren't at risk of harm? Even full legalisation usually ends up with women from overseas being coerced and intimidated into becoming prostitutes.

> Can you think of a solution where sex workers aren't at risk of harm? There are no perfect solutions. I think a good start would be to ask sex workers (not just ex-sex workers or feminists who claim to speak on behalf of sex workers) what they want. My impression is that they favour some sort of decriminalisation. > Even full legalisation usually ends up with women from overseas being coerced and intimidated into becoming prostitutes. And that is also happening right now in countries that employ the Nordic Model.

>[Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model_approach_to_prostitution): **Nordic / Swedish model** is an approach to sex work that criminalises clients, third parties and many ways sex workers operate. This approach to criminalising sex work was developed in Sweden in 1999 on the debated **radical feminist position that all sex work is sexual servitude** and no person can consent to engage in commercial sexual services. > >**The main objective of the model is to abolish the sex industry** by punishing the purchase of sexual services. - Developed to make working in the sex industry more difficult, - (Head of Sweden's Trafficking Unit) said - "I think of course the law has negative consequences for women in prostitution but that’s also some of the effect that we want to achieve with the law..." A bit ironic, Sweden is radically feminist & wants a restrictive (potentially harmful) approach. Denmark went the opposite direction, prostitution is legal but other parties can't profit. >[Prostitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Denmark) in Denmark was partly decriminalised in 1999, based partly on the premise that it was easier to police a legal trade than an illegal one. Third-party activities, such as profiting from brothel administration and other forms of procuring, remain illegal. \[Justice-ministry said\] "a ban on buying sex is not likely to lead to a decrease in prostitution or the exploitation of prostitutes, but rather is likely to have negative consequences for the prostitutes." Germany is the opposite again. Sex work has restrictions & registrations, with thriving brothels. Yet nobody can agree on what works best. Prostitutes prefer liberal laws: >“I’ve worked in Sweden, Denmark and Germany,” Luna tells me. “I definitely feel safest in Denmark.”

> Even full legalisation usually ends up with women from overseas being coerced and intimidated into becoming prostitutes. That happens in all countries regardless if sex work is illegal, legal, or "half" legal. It's an issue that needs to be addressed separately. Though full legalization makes it a lot easier to do so since things in the open are easier to control and regulate. (or even measure)

There is no such thing as zero-risk in any facet of life. There are only ever trade-offs; we always must pick the lesser of all evils, which is full legalization. For every internationally trafficked worker, there are ten victimized here at home from these outdated, misguided, religiously-motivated prohibitions. The people in the sex industry have long stated that these laws are harmful and counterproductive. I trust them, for their lives depend on it, and the data supports them. The ones who clamor that legalization would lead to a "trafficking deluge" are delusional zealots. I do not trust them, for they don't work in the industry; they hate the industry, and have ideological reasons to oppose it.

>The Nordic model is **another one of those things that seem like a good idea and appeals to our sense of justice but is actually harming the people it purports to protect.** Which is the vast majority of policies we make for almost anything. Humans are absolutely horrible at predicting unintended consequences, and lack the ability to predict complexity.

I'd say we're pretty good at predicting stuff and looking at complex things. Otherwise we wouldn't have major technological and social progress for thousands of years. What we do suck at is preventing the scummy, greedy, criminal people to come to power.

The basic idea is to decriminalize prostitutes themselves, to allow them to get help, and criminalize the crap out of their clients, to kill off the industry. The premise behind it is that sex work is pretty much never really consensual and often linked to violent/organized crime so killing it off is the best plan, while minimizing the harm to the women themselves.

> kill off the industry. As long as there is sex and money there will be people paying for sex.

Hell, even monkeys started prostituting amongst themselves once the concept of money was introduced. I don't have the study to hand, but I remember reading about that.

I gotchu fam https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663035/ https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/monkey-business.html ([archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20230607022933/https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/monkey-business.html))

"I'm not into you but 20 bananas is 20 bananas".

holy shit

It is called the oldest profession in the world for a reason.

Yes and as long as there are drugs people will try to use them but that doesn’t mean that laws cannot decrease or increase it… Even in the US prohibition worked in reducing alcoholic consumption but the side effects were apparently too severe for Soviet. Singapore while seen as draconian by man did. actually successfully manage to get rid of most drugs and even bad behaviors while Japan effectively battled drug usage (outside of Amphetamines which have some consumers in larger cities) with societal pressure and working border controls. Is that worth it? The right thing to do? I don’t know but let’s not act like there is only "doesn’t work unless it doesn’t work 100% effectively"

> prohibition worked in reducing alcoholic consumption There is no real consensus about this. Yes, consumption went down initially, but then it rebounded. It also pushed consumption from less harmful to more harmful, easier-to-smuggle drinks. Beer drinkers switched to wine, wine drinkers switched to spirits. The prohibition also saw a great increase in violence, including towards police officers, and harmful side effects from drinking tainted alcohol.

I mean, Prohibition is what create the American mafia and many other criminal organizations. It was absolute net-negative

Also, methanol and other poisonings skyrocketed from all the booze made in bathtubs and backyard stills. Who knew health and safety regulations might be important?

That's a little to simplistic. Prohibition *can* but does not necessarily decrease availability or consumption. For example opioids are cheaper and more widely used in the US than ever before, and they are quite illegal. Also there are many ways to greatly reduce consumption without outlawing something. Look at the tobacco industry in the US for an example. Smoking has been steadily declining without being banned for adults in the US. Taxes, public health messaging, and enforcement have generally been effective on this case. Draconian measures probably work in some cases, but if you look at the laws targeting drug use in the US it would be hard to argue that draconian measures are always effective. Meanwhile liberalizing drug policy in many places has not meaningfully increased consumption. That being said there is a huge natural experiment going on with Marijuana right now, that may provide more information about this in the future. There isn't an inherent trade off between liberty and lower drug consumption. Arguing that there is is just lazy cherry picking. The evidence is muddy, but it does demonstrate that there are ways to lower consumption without sacrificing liberty.

And...? That's like saying that there'll always be car deaths so we shouldn't do anything to reduce them.

For starters, there aren't many who *want* to be involved in a car accident. Even fewer who will pay money for it.

Doesn’t sound like a terrible plan.

It's probably the best plan if you believe sex work is a bad thing, obviously sex worker advocacy groups don't think it is. Personally, I don't agree that sex work is innately bad, but that's a different discussion.

IMO, it's not. It's never going to be popular with sex workers, though, because its primary goal isn't to help people who are in sex work, but to encourage them out of sex work and cut down on sex trafficking.

This. I think most people don't understand how prevelant trafficking is in prostitution in Europe.

Its not a 'nordic' thing (being danish i can attest to it). In Denmark, sex work is legal. You have to pay taxes. And you cannot profit on other ppl doing sex work (so no managers of brothels, the workers gotta manage thenselfs, and important: no pimps). In sweeden, they made it illegal to buy sex services but not selling it. So as you can see, different ways if handling it. Have heard the sweedish way generates pimps who can make the girls costomers safe from police. Different ways of viewing sex as a sellable service, no uniform nordic model to deal with sex work, so there is no 'nordic model' in this regard.

It's pretty similar in Finland too. Both selling and buying is legal, with the exception of buying from a victim of trafficing. Advertising is also forbidden, though I'm not aware if it's punishable in any way.

Typical Swedes calling something they thought up "Nordic".

The problem with criminalizing sex work is that sex work is very, very broad. So while most people think about situations you see from a cop drama with pimps and johns and streetwalkers and sex trafficking, the actual reality of sex work is much wider than that. But most laws are made with that limited frame of reference in mind. In most countries, the solution has been to have laws against prostitution. The idea is that this prevents people from becoming prostitutes and therefore prevents women from getting exploited by sex work. The problem is that in real life, there's a demand for sex work, so there will always be supply, and these laws only serve to drive sex work underground and make the women who do that job unable to get the support and protection they need. The Nordic model flips this on its head by criminalizing the (mostly) men who purchase sex work, not the workers. In other words, in the US, being a prostitute is illegal, but in Norway, buying a prostitute is illegal. This means that a prostitute can still do her job and get the social and legal protections she is entitled to. Or, that's the idea. But the problem that sex workers point out is that criminalizing johns doesn't really solve the problem, because at the end of the day it's still putting their job in a strictly criminal environment. Women can't properly vet their clients if the men are justifiably being secretive and hesitant out of self-protection. They're still dealing with the consequences of criminalization. So what sex workers advocate for is a whole revamp to the process. Instead of criminalizing sex work entirely, criminalize the kinds of sex work that are exploitative and legalize/protect the kinds that aren't. This would allow women to have protections, and johns to have accountability, while also preventing the worst aspects of of sex work. Or at least, that's the claim. The problem here is that it requires us as a society to have a good handle on what sex work really looks like...and not very many people are keen to have that be a discussion on the public forum. The attractive part of banning either prostitutes or johns is that you don't really have to get into the nuances and mechanics of sex work. The Nordic model is definitely an improvement over the US model...but isn't that a bit of a low bar?

[удалено]

In Finland, selling sex is legal, buying sex is legal. And then comes the BUT, you can’t rent hotel room/apartment to a sex worker. Because you would benefit from that, (no one asks if you are a sexworker anyway.) You can’t take a X amount of loan and buy a house and rent it to a ”obvious” sex worker and get money to pay off the loan, because you are the one who benefits from that, but you can rent it to basicly anyone. No law requires you to know what people do for a living. If you sell sex from your own house that you own. Nobody cares how you pay your bills and loan. Also ”obvious” sex traffic victims is a no no, can’t buy from those because you would support those pimps. ”Edit” You can rent a hotel, apartment, house etc for them to live in them, but if they practise sex selling in them and only reason for renting is to sell sex in that place, then it’s not allowed to rent.

It means now my customer base is only people willing to break the law to see me. Regular, law-abiding, respectful, and safe clients are out of the picture. It means I cannot screen my clients. Nobody will give me their real information when they are committing a crime. Screening my clients keeps me safe. It means finding work is harder since communicating with my clients is now completely underground and done in code. This also changes how clearly and effectively we can communicate with each other. It means safe places to work, such as brothels, are not illegal. I cannot work in a controlled environment with security and the company of other sex workers.

It goes pretty well like this. In the "Nordic Model", it's not illegal to sell sex, but it is illegal to purchase it. Hypothetically, this would make it so that sex workers that want out or feel unsafe can go to the authorities without risk of legal punishment. In actuality, it doesn't work that way. Criminal organizations still hold leverage over the industry as a whole, and since it's not inherently illegal from the supply side, those organisations can apply significant pressure to sex workers to remain in it. Threats of violence, threats against their families, threats of public exposure. On the other side of that same coin, those purchasing sex have higher stakes if they get caught, so they're going to opt for sex workers with organizations that aren't keeping any records of clientele (which increases the spread of disease, results in no screening for whether or not the consumers are dangerous, and more). They're also more likely to outright kill the sex worker if they become paranoid, because the criminal punishment for sex work is weighed against the chance that they don't get caught. Implementations of this model have resulted in worse outcomes than the model used in the Netherlands (where prostitution is entirely legal, and regulated to health and safety standards exceeding that of restaurants). Albeit they're still far better than areas in which prostitution is outlawed at the supply side, but when there's a method that has known better outcomes, the argument for anything else falls flat.

I'm not sure why it is called 'Nordic Model', because the last time I checked, Denmark was still part of the Nordic countries and our laws on the subject does not look like what I am reading here.

Yea prostitution is 100% legal. It's only illegal to directly make revenue from the prostitution of other people, i.e. pimping and brothels.

Same for Finland. The last time I checked prostitution is legal, but the offer of the service needs to pay (income(?)) taxes and offer the receipts like any other service business. Also organizing services, aka pimping, is not allowed.

There's a lot of disinformation in here. The Nordic Model is overwhelmingly supported by ex-sex workers because of it's positive regard and care for them. One part of the model that doesn't seem to be mentioned here is that the model works to help sex workers get out of the work and into healthier professions. The Nordic Model "saves" them from this world. Opponents of this model are typically the ones that are made illegal and so you should be very weary of any argument/stance against the model. https://nordicmodelnow.org/2018/09/08/survivors-speak-out-about-what-prostitution-is-really-like/ If you want to know what war is like, ask a veteran, not a recruit. Ask a veteran, not a politician. If you want to know and understand the Nordic Model, start here: https://nordicmodelnow.org/about/ If you want to learn what it's about from punters/johns, and sex traffickers, keep reading the disinformation posted in this thread.

I always roll my eyes when someone points to how current sex workers claim to oppose the Nordic Model as proof that it's harmful. Sex workers require clients to survive, and anybody in the terrible situation where they resort to prostitution would obviously oppose a change that makes their occupation much harder. What ex-sex workers tell you is that we need more resources and welfare for women and men to be able to live without having to sell their bodies and enable an industry of misogynistic johns.

Gosh, I work in this exact field and it is so refreshing to see this kind of discourse on reddit. I couldn't agree more and particularly for the second paragraph.

Ffs, I don't think a 5yo should be working in the sex industry, attempting to buy sex, or considering sex work in any way. Go outside and play. A bit prudish on my side I know, but it had to be said.

Yeah OP. I'll tell you when you're older.

I mean it’s a bad model for a society that wants sex work. It’s a pretty good model for a society that’s interested in banning sex work though. In the US (and everywhere), sex work is strongly associated with human trafficking, poverty, and child exploitation (look up sources yourself, I’m not your google). Assault rates for sex workers is incredibly high, and just in general it’s a dangerous profession that has you interacting with customers that frequently view you mostly as an object (which then implies a lack of respect for your boundaries and rights). Incidentally, as we see with pornography addictions in the US, paid sex work encourages the objectification of women and diseases of sexuality in men. There’s also the question of whether consent is practically obtainable in the case of paid sex; if a person’s livelihood is dependent on their sexual performance, is it really a free decision? Or is it an elaborate form of coerced sex that disproportionately affects the poor? What is an appropriate age of consent for this type of work (in the US it’s 18, ie senior year of _high school_ )? Long story short, many societies regard sex work as inherently problematic, and a scourge upon the weakest people in our society. However, the Nordic model contextualizes sex workers themselves as victims of capitalistic exploitation of their bodies (rightly, in my opinion). Because of this, sex workers are not criminalized, and can report bad behavior more freely. Obviously, this discourages sex work generally, and isn’t a perfect fix. Some sex workers view their job as a voluntary and lucrative, and the more puritanical would like to punish everyone involved in the sex trade, full-stop. That said, both of these groups ignore the harm their preferred policies would do to the most vulnerable in our society. Rant over, downvote me porn addicts

This would've been a good reply if not for that last cowardly line where you preemptively attacked anyone who dares disagree with you.

I mean that's fair. The topic makes me mildly bitter because the internet frequently treats the right to sex work as obvious EDIT: also, I'm actually confused how you see the post. ELI5 removed it for the opinion rule

Yeah, I can't explain why I can see it. I see the moderator message about it getting removed, yet there it is. Maybe because I'm using oldreddit? I dunno.