| 1996 | 2008 | 2011 | 2014 | 2017 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bought sex | bought sex in past year (incidence statistics) | bought sex men | 1.3 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 0.8 | |
| bought sex women | |||||||
| bought sex men+women | 0.6 | 1 | 0.6 | 0.4 | |||
| bought sex in lifetime (prevalence statistics) | bought sex men | 12.7 | 7.6 | 10.2 | 7.5 | 10 | |
| bought sex women | 0 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0 | 0.5 | ||
| bought sex men+women | 5 | 3.8 | |||||
| sold sex | sold sex in lifetime (prevalence statistics) | sold sex men | 0.5 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1 |
| sold sex women | 0.3 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 1.5 | ||
| sold sex men+women | 0.4 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
All the statistics in the above table come from Prostitution in Sweden 2014 The extent and development of prostitution in Sweden by Endrit Mujaj and Amanda Netscher (Länsstyrelsen 2015). Apart from the 2017 statistics which come from Sexual and reproductive health and rights in Sweden 2017. This is the most complete set of statistics that you will find anywhere. The numbers above are percentages, so for example the proportion of Swedish men who were active sex buyers was 1.3% in 1996 and 1.8% in 2008.
There were surveys in Sweden in 1996, 2008, 2011, 2014 and 2017. People were asked have you bought or sold sex? At any time in your life or within the past 12 months? Some information is missing, primarily the statistics for women (and men) who have sold sex in the previous 12 months.
The law that criminalises men who pay for sex started in 1999. So, we have statistics for before the law started and statistics for after the law started. The 3 most important are the proportion of Swedish men who have paid for sex within the previous 12 months, the proportion of Swedish men who have paid for sex in their lifetime, and the proportion of Swedish women who have sold sex in their lifetime (shown above in green). The first of these is an incidence statistic and the other 2 are prevalence statistics. Incidence statistics are much better at tracking change.
Every single one of the statistics shows a rise in the amount of prostitution between 1996 and 2008, except one. That one (prevalence) statistic is the one that is used by people who campaign for the Nordic model. They all show a drop after 2008 (apart from this same one), which is attributed to the law. However, it is more likely that the drop was caused by the 2008 financial crisis. There was also a drop then in Denmark, which doesn't have this law. They add other choice statistics, shown above in yellow. The statistics that they should use but don't I have shown in red.
We now have statistics from 2017. They show that the proportion of Swedish men who have bought sex (at any time) was 10% and the proportion of Swedish women who have sold sex (at any time) was 1.5%. This latter figure is the highest it has ever been, much higher than in 1996 before the change in law. It doesn't show the proportion of Swedish men who are active sex buyers.
There was this drop from 12.7% (13%) to 7.6% (8%). They don't tell you that this figure went up in the next survey to more than 10%. They don't tell you that this isn't even the figure we should be using anyway (the rise between 1.3% and 1.8% is much more important). They don't tell you that not only did the proportion of Swedish women who had sold sex in their lifetime increase after the law started but also in 2014 there were more people who had sold sex than in 1996 (and even more in 2017).
Then to top it all they use the 0.8% figure for men who pay for sex in 2014 and say that it is the lowest in Europe. This seems to be a complete lie. There is another study, Study on the gender dimension of trafficking in human beings (Sylvia Walby et al) that says this, and they refer you to the Mujaj and Netscher study. However, the Mujaj and Netscher study does not say this. Many Evangelicals and Radical Feminists use the Walby study in their campaigning for the Nordic model.
Also, quite disturbing are the 'youth studies' shown on page 26 in the Mujaj and Netscher study. These are different surveys from the ones shown above but they show an increase in girls and women selling sex between 2003 and 2009. In 2009, 4.6% of girls and young women between the ages of 15 and 29 had sold sex. We don't have the same figure for 2003 but it seems it was much lower, probably 1%. In 2021, 1.4 % of schoolgirls in the third year of upper secondary school said that they had sold sex at some time in their life (see below).
I have put all the information that I have found on here. There are gaps, but not because I have withheld data. It is possible that there is more information from the SRHR2017 survey that is not found in the Sexual and reproductive health and rights in Sweden 2017 document but I haven't been able to examine it.
The Public Health Agency of Sweden (2019). Sexuell och reproduktiv hälsa och rättigheter i Sverige 2017 [Sexual and reproductive health and rights in Sweden 2017]. Results from the population-based survey 2017. The Public Health Agency of Sweden.
You may have seen figures of 13.6% and 7.8% instead of 12.7% and 7.6% for the proportion of Swedish men who had bought sex in 1996 and 2008. It seems that the figures were revised downwards.
In the Public Health Agency of Sweden’s latest population study from 2017, 1.5percent of women and 1 percent of men aged 16–84 reported that they had at somepoint received compensation for sex. Gay, bisexual and queer people were also muchmore likely to have received compensation for sex (7 percent), compared to heterosexuals(Public Health Agency of Sweden, 2017). In the repeated study Unga, sex och internet(Young people, sex and the internet), similar questions are posed to students in theirthird year of upper secondary school. In the most recent study in 2021, 1.4 percentof girls and 0.8 percent of boys stated that they have sold sexual services at somepoint (Svedin et al. 2021).
3.1.4. Who buys sexual services in Sweden?
Sex for compensation and sexual exploitation are clearly gendered phenomena; those who buy sex in Sweden are predominantly men. This is confirmed in both population-based studies and interviews with the organisations that encounter people in prostitution. In the Public Health Agency of Sweden’s population study from 2017, almost 1 in 10 men stated that they had at some point provided compensation for sexual services. The corresponding figure for women in Sweden was 0.5 percent (Public Health Agency of Sweden, 2017). The organisations and authorities that encounter purchasers of sexual services all describe a relatively heterogeneous group, where the individuals are largely described as a cross-section of the male population. However, those who independently seek support or treatment at BOSS clinics across Sweden are mainly heterosexual men over the age of 25 with a history of buying sex from women. At the same time, those working in the police and the judicial system report that there has been a discernible increase in the number of younger men who buy sexual services in recent years. Sixty-five percent of third-year upper secondary school students who sold sex stated that the buyer was under the age of 25. Furthermore, among the people who purchased sex and chose to participate in the current survey, 96 percent are men. What these individuals seem to have in common is that they are critical of Sweden’s laws regarding the purchase of sex, and despite the clear intent of this legislation, they do not see anything wrong with their own actions when purchasing sex.
Quotations from The Swedish Sex Purchase Act: Where Does it Stand? This is about the supposed reduction in the proportion of Swedish men who have paid for sex at some time in their lives (from 12.7% (13%) in 1996 to 7.6% (8%) in 2008). The one that Nordic model advocates rely on so much. If you ask someone if they have ever done something at any time in their life, if they say yes they cannot say no in a later survey. This means that prevalence statistics cannot suddenly drop unless something has gone wrong, or unless an older generation with very different behaviour become too old to participate.
The results presented in Kuosmanen’s publications are often cited as evidence for a reduction in sex purchases due to the Sex Purchase Act. However, Kuosmanen’s caution is supported by researchers in the Department of Criminology at Stockholm University, in a consultation response to the evaluation of the Act. Their response points out methodological problems in measuring the impact of legislation and the fact that such a rapid decline is not very likely if both studies are representative, as earlier experiences with buying sex are also included.
There is, however, other relevant information based on experiences of buying sex which may shed light on this development. The Swedish National Police Board report that interest in buying sex persists even though the act is criminalised. A qualitative study of men’s experiences of buying sex indicates that the law has had no deterrent effect on the informants, but that they now take more precautions to protect their identities. Some of the informants in the study say that criminalisation, rather than discouraging them, makes buying sex more exciting.
I have three other pages on this issue 1, 2 and 3.
"There is extensive evidence that 'end demand' legal frameworks reduce the demand that drives sex trafficking. Sweden was the first country to adopt this approach in 1999, and surveys conducted in 1996 and 2008 found that the proportion of men who reported paying for sex reduced from 13% to 8%. The most recent research on prevalence rates found that 0.8% of men in Sweden had paid for sex in the previous 12 months - the smallest proportion recorded in two decades and the lowest level in Europe."
The above paragraph is what the organisation UK Feminista told the UK parliament (Written submission from UK Feminista (MSA0046)). Most of it is false. The reduction from 13% to 8% is not the reduction in 'the proportion of men who reported paying for sex', it is the proportion of men who reported having paid for sex at some time in their life. The proportion of men who pay for sex increased from 1.3% to 1.8%.
The 0.8% figure is not a prevalence rate. The rate did not go from 13% to 8% to 0.8%. The incidence rate went from 1.3% to 1.8% to 1.2% to 0.8%. The prevalence rate went from 13% to 8% to 10% to 7.5% to 10%. If you are interested in prevalence rates, you should be interested in the fact that in 1996 0.3% of women said that they had been paid for sex at some time in their life. In 2017 it was 1.5%.
Incidence figures are more important in tracking changes though. The 0.8% figure is not 'the lowest level in Europe'. I know that Sylvia Walby said that in her 2016 report, but it is false. She gives a reference to the Mujaj and Netscher report, but the Mujaj and Netscher report does not say this.
"There is extensive evidence of the effectiveness of the sex buyer law in reducing demand. In Sweden, which was the first country to adopt an “end demand” approach back in 1999, anonymous surveys conducted in 1996 and 2008 revealed that the proportion of men in Sweden who reported paying for sex dropped from 13% to 8% in that period. The most recent study of prevalence rates found that 0.8% of men in Sweden had paid for sex in the previous 12 months, which is the smallest proportion recorded in two decades and the lowest in Europe."
Consider the paragraph above. This is what Sarah Champion MP stated in a debate in parliament in 2018. She says the same thing as what UK Feminista have told parliament, in almost exactly the same words. Someone has obviously carefully crafted this propaganda and it is being used again and again. Who is the originator? It could be Julie Bindel or Kat Banyard. It could be someone like Fiona Bruce MP, she is a member of the Evangelical Alliance, she has connections to the APPG which in turn has connections to UK Feminista.
How can it be that people can get away with submitting false information to parliament? Does parliament not have fact checkers? This rubbish is on the parliament website. UK Feminista are either nasty liars, ignorant or gullible fools.
The evidence is that demand increased after the Nordic model was introduced in Sweden, then it declined after the 2008 financial crisis, then it started to increase again with regained affluence. It is a pity that we don't have incidence statistics for 2017 (they may be out there somewhere), but the prevalence statistics are damning.
No comments:
Post a Comment