Likewise with regards to prostitution whilst criminalising men who buy women for the purpose of male sexual gratification will not eliminate totally male demand for women’s bodies it most certainly sends a very strong and effective message that ‘women’s bodies are not for sale’ and ‘men are not entitled to buy women’s bodies.’

The central issue is about challenging men’s pseudo claims of unlimited sexual access to women and girls and because this is central to male power and male control over women it does cause much debate.

Do not forget at one time many men and women too, living in the UK believed slavery was acceptable because non-whites were not human but eventually after a very long and embittered struggle the abolitionists won. Not forgetting of course, women were involved in the abolition of slavery. So, too, one day men will be criminalised with regards to attempting to purchase any woman or girl for the purpose of using her as a dehumanised sexualised disposable product.

Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland have already criminalised the Johns who attempt/buy women for the purpose of committing sexual violence against their person.

Legalising prostitution hasn’t worked in Amsterdam and neithher has it worked in the Australian states which have legalised prostitution. See Coalition Against Trafficking In Women’s website for details.

Not exactly. In Sweden, it has meant that there are fewer clients, but more violence towards sex workers.

“This comment seems to assume that there would be some way prostitution could be safe?”

I haven’t claimed or assumed that at all. I am claiming that some kinds of legislation can impact in various not-always-straightforward ways on the safety of sex workers. But I wouldn’t claim that sex workers don’t experience violence now — that would clearly be an absurd and false claim. I am claiming that some kinds of legislation lead to an increase the amount of violence that is experienced; and consequently we should consider alternative ways of challenging the legitimacy of demand for prostitution.

“Of course everyone supports harm minimisation, but less people seem to support harm ending.”

I’m not sure why Clause 14 is being equated with harm ending? I would hope people do support harm ending; I just don’t think this is the way to go about ending harm. I don’t think it’s going to be effective — it might increase violence, rather than reduce or end it.

No one here is suggesting they should be. The question is not whether women should be, but what is most *effective* in preventing violence and abuse perpetrated against women.

Re the increase of violence against prostitutes in Sweden since the criminalisation of purchasing, the anthropologist Don Kulick has done some interesting work on this. Have a look at

Kulick, D. 2003. “Sex in the New Europe: The Criminalization of Clients and Swedish Fear of Penetration.”Anthropological Theory 3; 199-218.

Kulick, D. 2005. “Four hundred thousand Swedish perverts”. GLQ 11 (2): 205-35.

Both of these papers discuss an increase in violence towards prostitutes since the change in law in Sweden, an increase in police harassment, problems for non-Swedish prostitutes who face deportation if they are caught, etc. This is largely due to the fact that purchasers of sex have considerable power in prostitution encounters — they don’t want to be caught and prosecuted. So negotiations are more secret and rushed and as a result the prostitute is at greater risk of violence and even more abuse.

*Of course* it’s a good thing to challenge the legitimacy of demand for prostitution. The question is whether increased violence towards prostitutes is acceptable means to an end (and I’d argue it isn’t), or whether it’s counterproductive.

Factual evidence shows the numbers of Johns living in Sweden attempting to purchase women involved in prostitution has decreased dramatically and furthermore Swedish society as a whole supports criminalising males who attempt to buy women/girls for the purpose of rape/male sexual exploitation. See Coalition Against Trafficking In Women for factual research on Sweden and also Prostitution Research website which also has research proving criminalising Johns, together with providing long-term funding and support for women involved in prostitution but who wish to exit has simultaneously helped the women and reduced male demand.

Clause 13 is not the end it is the beginning of the end of pseudo male sex right to women and girls and because this pseudo male sex right is being challenged, claims are being made this will cause Johns to be more violent. Fact is Johns have to date had impunity with regards to committing sexual sadistic violence against women and girls involved in prostitution.

Women are not for Sale.

It is already illegal to coerce, threaten, or deceive someone into having sex, under the Rape and Sexual Offenses (Scotland) Act of 2009 in Scotland, and the equivalent Act in England and Wales (I want to say 2003?). In the debate, it is claimed that Clause 14 will be legally different from rape because of the way the mens rea is defined.

I gather the distinction is that purchasers are not required to know whether the prostitute was trafficked or exploited (unlike rape, where the rapist must know, or be reckless as to whether they knew, that the complainant did not consent). The questions is only whether the prostitute was or not coerced. If s/he was, then the purchaser has committed a crime. Is that right?

If so, we might well be concerned whether this clause will not have the effect that a ban on purchasing sex has had in Sweden — of increasing violence against prostitutes.