There was a very interesting study done in Sweden in 1995. It shows us what prostitution was like in Sweden before the 1999 law that criminalises men who pay for sex. The study is called SOU 1995:15. From this study we have the estimate that 2,500 women 'sell sexual services in Sweden every year'. Everybody takes this to mean there were 2.500 female prostitutes in Sweden in 1995. The number of women in street prostitution was estimated at 650.
I was aware of this before I read the study. These figures are often compared to the lower figures estimated by Charlotta Holmström after the law came in. There is much that I did not know. It seems that 'each woman has 50 different customers'. I think this means, from the context, that each prostitute has paid-for sex less than once a week.
Even more interesting is this:
"These figures mean that the sex trade in Sweden after a decline in the 1980s and early 1990s, it is now increasing again. The number of women in street prostitution has decreased, but instead indoor prostitution, where buyers and sellers are usually contacted via advertisement, can be assumed to be more extensive than before, especially in the case of massage parlors and similar businesses."
This is telling us that the number of women who are prostitutes will decrease or increase without any particular reason. In 1995 it was increasing, but the number of women in street prostitution was decreasing.
Could it be that this trend continued after the 1999 law? After 1999 we saw a decrease in the number of street prostitutes and there were suggestions of an increase in indoor prostitution. The authorities in Sweden claimed the decrease in street prostitutes was a success for the law and insisted that there was no increase in prostitution overall.
The study says that about half of the women in street prostitution are drug or alcohol abusers. Is it possible that the half of the street prostitutes who remain are the drug addicts? The other half either went into indoor prostitution or went without (no longer being able to pay rent or bills).
It's a pity that prohibition doesn't work with drugs, isn't it? Why would they think it would work with prostitution? In the study they consider the difficulties of criminalisation but they don't seem to consider that it (as with drugs) it might not work. They do say that unless 'necessary resources' are available 'to strengthen both social services and the police' there should be no criminalisation. It does seem that extra money went to the police but no extra money to social services.
The study says there was little organised crime involved, and not many pimps. Street prostitutes often share their money with their boyfriends, so in that sense they are 'pimps'. The 'professional pimp' who takes money from two or more women is 'now not so common'.
This seems to be what Ireland was like before the 1993 law there. Very few pimps. Women worked independently. Then the change in the law and women had to work for pimps. A man (or in one case we know about, a woman) who had a flat and a mobile phone (they were available then) and could place an ad in the newspaper.
It says the previous prostitution enquiry found an estimated 10% of Swedish men 'have experience of sex purchase'. So it was 10% then and in 2017 it was 10% also. In my opinion, despite the apparent ups and downs seen in the surveys, it always stays at 10%. The law doesn't change that.
What the study doesn't spell out is what the law does change. More pimping. More trafficking. Women working harder to get the money they need. Having sex once a week isn't sufficient anymore. There is some suggestion in the paragraph below of what was in store for them.
"Against criminalization, there is evidence that prostitution would be run "underground" and that many prostitutes might not dare to seek help. The risk of physical abuse and other criminality would perhaps increase. Criminal or violent sex buyers, as well as some drug-addicted prostitutes, would probably not be affected by criminalization."
So the authors of this report , the one that so many prohibitionists use to try to prove the success of the Nordic model, are telling us that prostitution can go underground. The prohibitionists have always said that is not possible. The authors are telling us physical harm to women could increase. The non violent customers will disappear. There will be many women remaining as prostitutes but their suffering will increase and remain high forever. That was a good prediction. That is what happened.
The final issue I want to address is this. I don't think that the authors of this report are Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics or Radical Feminists. We know that these groups support the Nordic model and we know that they all say they want to help women. The real reason though is that the Christians don't believe in sex before marriage and the Radical Feminists don't want men having sex with women. If they cared about the women they would take more care to check the statistics that they propagate.
The puzzle is, why do so many people in Sweden apart from them want to criminalise men who pay for sex? Especially when you consider that Sweden has a reputation for being liberal in sexual matters. The study gives a clue. The authors suggest that schools teach that 'sexuality and emotional life are connected'. What does this mean? Do they think that you have to be 'in love' to have sex?
They write that 'sexuality is not a commodity'. There's a big difference though between sex as love and sex as a commodity. Between those two is sex for fun. Most people in most parts of the world think that sex can be just for fun. If it is for fun then you can find someone who finds it just as much fun or someone who gets some other reward.
Most Swedish people accept sex before marriage. They may well accept affairs after marriage too. At least they don't condemn them. I'm not saying they are Puritans, although sometimes I think they can't make their mind up if they want to be liberal or authoritarian. Anthropologist Don Kulick has something to say about this here.
No comments:
Post a Comment