Nordic Model - Claimed successes and Documented Effects
http://www.plri.org/sites/plri.org/files/Impact%20of%20Swedish%20law_0.pdf
Unintentional effects
There are several reported unintended, negative effects of the Sex Purchase Act, concerning both sex workers and their clients. The effects have been reported in academic papers and research, the documents which form the basis for this report, as well as numerous articles in the media. Sex workers have also spoken on these matters in media, on internet forums, on their blogs and in their books. 92 Most tend to be critical of the ban, but here are some who say that it is positive since it “protects” the woman but criminalizes the customer, and that it might be an incentive to leave prostitution.93
When it comes to clients, it seems they are less willing to assist as witnesses in cases in which profiteers who exploit the sexual labor of others are prosecuted, since they now find themselves guilty of a crime. Clients are exposed to blackmail and robbery, and the stigma associated with buying sex means people often have to leave their jobs and positions, even on a mere suspicion.94 The most common and perhaps most serious complaint regarding sex workers themselves is that they experienced an increased stigmatization after the introduction of the Sex Purchase Act. Some also state that the ban is a violation of their human rights, and many say that they don’t feel fairly or respectfully treated:
"they are not regarded as fully worthy members of society. Sex workers object to the fact that they were not consulted in the making of the law. Since sex workers feel they are not able to influence their legal or societal situation, they feel powerless. And since the ban builds on the idea that women who sell sex are victims, weak and exploited, many claim that the law propagates stereotypical notions about sex workers. The National Board of Health and Welfare report that due to the ban sex workers feel less trust in social authorities, police and the legal system, and half of the respondents in the RFSL "
no comments? about the swedish governments admited failures...? surprise suprise......just because aboltionists don't want to acknowledge it, doesn't make it untrue....as it were
Yes, there is a response to this. Susanne Dodillet and Petra Östergren also have an agenda. If you can discredit the research of abolitionists based on "bias", we can do the same with the research of pro sex industry supporters.
http://projectrespect.org.au/system/files/Sweden%27s+prohibition+of+sex.pdf
"Furthermore, few persons outside of Sweden seem to know how Östergren selected her sample of 20 prostituted women interviewees to whom she refers frequently. Clues are given in her book published in Swedish in 2006. There, Östergren explicitly states she did not attempt to contact or hold interviews with "sellers of sex"who had "primarily bad experiences of prostitution (Östergren,2006,168),but,rather,intentionally sought women with "completely different experiences” since the former, she claims,were the only ones heard in Sweden”(p. 169).8 Similarly, her 2003 graduate thesis refers to interviews with fifteen female“sellers of sex”of whom "most. . . have a positiveview of what they do”(Östergren, 2003, 17).Thus, when she mentions "informal talks and correspondence with approximately 20 sex workers since 1996”(Östergren, n.d.) in her English-language piece, she apparently refers to respondents who were selected precisely because they had positive views of the institution of prostitution. When writing that“[m]ost of the sex workers I have interviewed reject the idea that there is something intrinsically wrong with their profession”(n.d.), evidently she should have informed the reader that the interviewees were selected precisely because they had this view, and that critics were excluded."
thanks for exposing the bogus study elle fury!!!!!!
I just find that report one more attempt to silence the voices of sex workers by discrediting and belittling them. But whatever works, i guess, as long as NIMBY
what a load of crap....this study had impecable ethics....nice try though....
so sick of the "for the betterment of all women" crowd....
i am not your sacrificial lamb in the name of ending fucking patriarchy. find another way, comprimising my life, safety, health and happiness is not the way.
i don't care what the government does, my life will remian the same. want to put me in prison, bring it....want to starve me out by criminalizing my customers, whatever...
So you are sick of feminism? Because that's what feminism is about: making the world a better place for all women. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism
I am not comprimising your life, safe, etc.. That's a ridiculous accusation and it, once again, takes the focus off those who actually do commit violence against women: the johns. It's the misogynisitc men who feel they are entitled to sex who treat the women they buy as objects to use at their pleasure: http://the-invisible-men.tumblr.com/. Why don't you ever acknowledge and address the SOURCE of the violence?
For the last time, abolitionists don't want to put sex workers in jail.
So is this an acknowledgement that the Nordic model works? Because you are constantly citing sorces that claim the Nordic model does not reduce prostitution/reduce the demand for prostitution, but here you are saying the exact opposite!
.....
And in the wrong forum
you didn't step in and play moderator when the feminist forum topic was under seige by them
seige...pffft.....
Actually quiz, I did by reporting it to the moderator as I did here
I'm sorry, but this comment suggested to me that she was inviting responses from abolitionists. But... whatever. I have no problems taking it over to the feminist forum.
i find it interesting that you say that violence against 'women" (all women?) is done by johns. When in fact, there have actually been a number of sex workers, including in sweden that have been murdered by their partners, not johns.
I don't think you understand that the problem isn't actually sex work (because to me abolitionists always try to make sex work the issue, not anything else), it is that under any situation or circumstance, women in general can be in danger from men, any man, not just a 'john'. You assume that they are more dangerous than any other man in any other situation, but they are not more or less dangerous. It isn't what the woman does that makes her a victim it is what she is: female.
If you want to really protect sex workers, first you have to protect women. Because evenm if you make the clients criminals, sex workers will still work. After all, it is legal for them to do so. And, just like in Sweden, they will probably still be more at risk from their partner, neighbour or straight job supervisor than they are, in total, from their clients.
If you use anecdotes as 'evidence' for these claims, then you must believe anecdotes to be the best evidence. I happen to be able to tell you that i have seen thousands of men, and not one of them have ever been dangerous or violent. I am not alone, I imagine i can find hundreds of sex workers, if not more, who can say exactly the same thing, so even more thousands of men, and not one single violent incident.
So why should your assumptions and stereotypes determine for all of us what should be against the law?
The Guardian: New Nordic sex laws are making prostitutes feel less safe