Let's start calling it paternalism.

[ciphergoth]

I’m not one of those who think that paternalism is always wrong. I’m OK with laws that require the use of seat belts, for example; people aren’t too good at weighing up small unavailable risks, the cost of wearing a seat belt is pretty small for nearly everyone, and the rule saves a large number of lives for a fairly small cost in liberty. But I’d like to start calling it what it is; it’s a statement that we know better what is good for people than they do.

Prostitutes prefer it if their clients aren’t arrested. So if you’re going to advocate the “Swedish Model” in the interests of those currently working as prostitutes, please be upfront that what you’re calling for is paternalism. Don’t advocate this model if you’re not prepared to say, in terms, that you think you know what is good for those working as prostitutes better than they do.

Comments

[lovingboth]

Because lots of the research thoroughly debunking it talks about the Swedish model, those proposing it have started talking about the 'Nordic model' instead.

It's not just paternalism, it's gesture politics (the people proposing it know that it won't have any effect in terms of significantly reducing the number of people who pay for sex) and sexism (they almost inevitably ignore male and trans workers and female and trans clients) in action.

My favourite example of the last bit is the book that damns male clients as 'users', 'sadists', 'necrophiles' and 'child abusers'... and then moans that potential female ones can't find men to pay: "Their only choice is to have affairs". How they missed a single website with nearly ten thousand optimistic men (as well as almost the same number of women) offering paid sex to women in the UK, sometimes for very low prices, I don't know.