I’ve absolutely no idea what it entails, but the one consensus across the board from other sex workers is that apparently it’s a terrible ‘model’ for governments to use for sex work
In: 2362
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.
Latest Answers