Debate contribution: Adult Services Websites
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 27 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Adult Services Websites
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5345522
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Members who have contributed. This is a sensitive and important topic. I remember being interested in and intrigued by the debate in 2015. I was not an MLA at the time, but I want to put on record my thanks to Lord Morrow for the work that he did on that legislation because it recognises the abuse, exploitation and experience of women and girls. The legislation sought to decrease the demand for purchasing sexual services and the consequent human trafficking. Members have rightly highlighted that we need to be intentional about what we do but also ensure that we protect the vulnerable woman and young people who may be affected by this. The Act introduced new trafficking offences, and, as many Members have said, used the Nordic model. We have to be very clear, however, that the exploitation of women and girls is a form of violence. We must build on the legacy of the 2015 Act and ensure that women and girls are protected by every jot and tittle of legislation that the Assembly passes. The experiences of women on adult service websites are often traumatic and distressing, and we need to provide adequate support in the meantime. Prostitution is an act of violence against women and girls. It inherently dehumanises women and reduces them to nothing more than a commodity. One study contrasted real advertisements for prostitution online with real reviews of women provided by sex buyers and quotes from women with lived experience of prostitution. I am going to read some of those into the record. One reviewer stated:
"My meeting was genuinely awkward. She looked like she was under the effects of chemicals. Her mouth was moving constantly. She kept breathing, heaving up her nose, and was disorientated when I talked to her, but I decided to give it a go. Some of the services were not provided".
One woman with lived experience stated:
"Apparently, every cell in your body regenerates every seven years. I'm nearly at that point. I'm hoping my body might let go of some of the memories of the men who paid to use me, but I worry that my mind never will. The mental distress that lasts for years cannot even be measured".
Disgracefully, to some of those who use the service, the purchasing of a woman online is no different from ordering a takeaway, yet, as Mr Kingston rightly pointed out, some would seek to push an agenda that legitimises prostitution as a form of empowerment for women and as a lifestyle defined by glamour and independence, which it is not. The reality is much grimmer and more devastating for the women and girls who suffer physically, mentally and emotionally. Women and girls in prostitution are more likely to experience violence. A consultant gynaecologist who runs a sexual health clinic for sex workers and other vulnerable women in Edinburgh stated:
"I have women coming in here black and blue. Men think that because they're paying for it then they have the right to treat these woman in ways which are completely inappropriate".
Despicable. Those in favour of pimping websites argue that they provide greater safety and security for women and girls. However, Valiant Richey, the OSCE special representative and coordinator for combating trafficking in human beings, told an inquiry by the cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation in Scotland that an argument that he hears:
" and often from the sex industry, is that these sites are safer. They are not. They are easier. And easier is not the same as safer. …The problem is that just like on the street, nobody knows who the buyer is who is going to walk through the door, and a good buyer can be a bad buyer tomorrow. There is simply no way to eliminate violence from this industry and the websites do not help do that."
Yes, absolutely?
I absolutely do agree. There is much more that we can do upstream. This is not in my notes, but I will refer to it. We have a culture that is being fed from a young age. I remember my kids watching a Disney cartoon when they were young in which the young characters were twerking like Miley Cyrus.
If we are looking for a cultural shift, this is part of it, but we need to look at the sexualisation and exploitation of our young people in its entirety and at the message sent out by moviemakers and cartoon makers. It starts at a very young age. That is the attitude piece that you talk about. You are absolutely right: it is a form of violence.
The websites create a digital platform that drives violence against women and girls by turning women into commodities for potential buyers to pursue and then select one who fits their taste. They reinforce the gender dynamics that underpin violence against women and girls, sadly, from a young age. The platforms industrialise the embedded violence and stereotypes that put women in danger. We must do everything in our power to curtail the demand for the industry while providing women and girls with real opportunities to exit it. I will finish with this one; it is a slight curveball. My church is trying to raise money for women who are caught in prostitution in India, where £500 buys a woman out of the sex industry. We need to do more here to protect women in Northern Ireland.
910 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.09 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.85).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.78).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.20 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.11 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.13 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.78 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.11 |
| Adopts it | 0.11 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.70 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.30 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:22 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.