Legalization has shown an increase in human trafficking to Germany. The use of unions has also been stigmatized by the pimps -- sorry, "Brothel owners" to the point that they're completely ineffective. Surprise, surprise, vulnerable women are still exploited. How can you call that effective?
Sorry, you're correct and I edited my post to reflect that. Are you arguing for completely unregulated decriminalization? You really don't think that this would cause an increase in trafficking? If an attempt at legalization with measures to curb trafficking didn't work, how would literally letting pimps operate with impunity be a better solution?
As we've reached the nested reply limit here: It would let pimps operate with impunity because the service which they are having others sell is no longer an issue? While not all sex workers are trafficked, even those who are not trafficked have pimps. The WHISPER study from the late 80's said that almost 90% of women interviewed had pimps during their time in prostitution. Full decriminalization by it's very nature makes pimping legal -- that's one of its tenants. If you think there is going to be a shortage of abusive/exploitative people waiting in line for that opportunity, we live in very different worlds.
Also, the Nordic model gets around that by only criminalizing the sex-work for the person buying it. When arrests are made, the prostitute is asked if they would like assistance with leaving the industry, if they answer no then they are free to go.
@abandonliberty
I would argue that it shows that given what we currently know, the Nordic model of decriminalization for sex workers and criminalization of sex buyers seems to be the most effective at reducing the harms of prostitution. Seeing as both street prostitution, which is dangerous, and human trafficking have been on the decline since it's implementation, and the results have not been the same in other countries in which legalization/decrim have been attempted, it's the prudent course of action.
My source may have a bias, but the viewpoint is based upon evidence from the New Zealand PRC. The problems it mentions have been shown to be reduced by the Nordic Model, when in every case of legalization/full decriminalization no such claims have been made/substantiated.
Not a stupid question. The Nordic model is another model of decriminalization that places responsibility on the individuals who buy sex. In this model, the sex-workers are not prosecuted for being prostitutes, and are given the ability to use social programs to leave prostitution if they choose to. The intent is to remove the stigmatization of women in prostitution, and giving them the means to leave the sex-work if they wish to, in stark contrast to our current system (in the US) of making prostitution illegal, typically targeting the prostitutes, which makes getting help scary/difficult. It is essentially a model that tries to help those who have resorted to prostitution out of desperation while attempting to diminish the demand that drives the industry. Also, it is notable that pimping is illegal in the Nordic model.
What do you mean?
"The laws on prostitution in Sweden make it illegal to buy sexual services, but not to sell them. Pimping, procuring and operating a brothel are also illegal. The criminalisation of the purchase, but not selling, of sex was unique when first enacted in 1999, but since then Norway and Iceland have adopted similar legislation, both in 2009."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Sweden
If you make either side of a transaction illegal, the transaction is illegal, and both sides are driven underground.
There are important distinctions in the resulting power dynamics which mean that the distinctions between prohibiting both sides, prohibiting just the purchasing side, and prohibiting just the selling side significant distinctions. But all of them prohibit the exchange and force the exchange underground; you can't do that to only one side of the exchange.
