Criminalising Online Sex Work: „This law will have international implications far beyond Sweden“
-
I agree, but it's hard to rule out trafficking for an example.
Are you saying the girls producing these services are being exploited ?
Do laws like this really address that? Seems unlikely to me.
Suppose a third of digital adult services are exploitative. I suspect that this type of law curtails almost all of the non-exploitative providers but the exploitative ones carry on. It might even make the act of exploitation more profitable.
-
I'm an engineer so I don't know much about morals, but I have a very simple rule to distinguish good from bad: I ask who is harmed because of the process. If someone objectively does -- the process is bad. All is good otherwise.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Almost always something "bad" happens though, someone is harmed... Someone rapes, you jail that person -> the rapist is harmed. Is it a bad process? Of course not.
It's not about not harming anyone, it's about harming the right people. Who we harm in what case is what almost all political discourse is about.
-
What are the purported benefits of this law?
Are they just assuming that paid online sex work is bad and should be stopped?
Who fucking cares what consenting adults do in private in separate locations via the magic of the interweb.
Despite Sweden's great international PR, they have extremely harsh drug laws and wildly restrictive alcohol laws. They very much like to police what consenting adults do in private.
-
I added some more context, but the sex work itself isn't discouraged by the law (though it certainly isn't encouraged either - there are certain caveats to the situation). Buying sex is. And that's what they want this law to do as well.
Do bear in mind that I'm not commenting on whether or not this is the correct way to construct the laws around sex work. I am, rather, conveying what the essence of intent is in the current legal framework.
I get it. I understand that that the buyer is the criminal and that the provider is not. The article explains that.
What it doesn't explain is why there can't be a regulated market for digital adult services.
-
What are the purported benefits of this law?
Are they just assuming that paid online sex work is bad and should be stopped?
Who fucking cares what consenting adults do in private in separate locations via the magic of the interweb.
People who could do it with safe payments, smaller risk of STIs or getting stabbed 42 times with a blunt knife, are now going to walk the streets.
That's the benefit, misery helps power. Misery means vulnerability to be used as a human tool of power.
Some people have that delusion that the EU is progressing, not regressing, as a whole. Or that it's in the early stages of rot, while it's not.
Laws and politicians should be cleaned from time to time and made anew, similar to shit in the latrine.
-
As a Swede who is unsure that this law will do what it is intended to do, here is what it is actually intended to do and the context in which it is written:
In Sweden it is legal for an individual to sell sex to another individual. Buying sex however, is illegal. This is intended to protect the one selling sex from the buyer. The thought is that there's no valid reason to criminalise the actions of a person who is already in a pretty exposed situation. This law has been in effect for 26 years.
The intention of this proposed law is to make it illegal for a buyer to order specific porn from a seller, as in requesting that the seller produces a specific thing for the buyer. Which, while "who fucking cares what consenting adults do" is a valid position, is in line with current legal thinking. The intention isn't to criminalise selling porn, even when it's been made to order for a buyer. It is to protect those in an exposed situation.
I can't say if that's how it will work out however. I've heard worries that it will have other consequences.
edit: added a reference to current law.
edit2: 26, not 36.In Sweden it is legal for an individual to sell sex to another individual. Buying sex however, is illegal.
Yes, and in Russia we have a saying "simplicity is worse than theft". It's about the simplicity of thinking this works to discourage buying without encouraging to sell covertly\illegally\unofficially\you get the idea.
The seller and the buyer are connected with their common interest in a deal. So what affects the legality of one of the sides, also affects that of the other. Because the former will be interested in avoiding legal means to protect themselves in everything connected to that deal, to keep their source of income or social ties over it or whatever.
-
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/12433603
Gonna have an unpopular take here, but pornography and sex work under our current system shouldn't be celebrated as a "bastion of freedom", given how it's selling access to one's body and sexuality as a product. Even if they agree to it consensually, the choice happens in a world where money decides what people can or can't do, if one is going to survive or not. This makes the concept of "real consent" complicated, because the need of money, much like the need of food or essential goods can force people into doings they wouldn't freely choose if survival wasn't on the line.
Given this, one could definitely consider it commodified rape - it's not necessarily violent like forced rape, but it's still shaped by money, power, and pressure in a system where people's bodies get turned into things to be bought.
The law does suck ass and shouldn't be supported though, the issue stems with a system where our survival depends on money (with selling your body being a way to get by) and not individual morals. I fully agree with Yidit when he says that it'll just cause sex work to become more dangerous by moving it underground.
-
I get it. I understand that that the buyer is the criminal and that the provider is not. The article explains that.
What it doesn't explain is why there can't be a regulated market for digital adult services.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Sure. That's a valid question.
Since I'm trying to be pretty neutral, I can only say that such a thing wouldn't be in the spirit of current legal thinking on the subject.
If I allow myself to deviate a little, I do see the problem. It does restric a sex workers' ability to sell their service(s) and that is of course a problem for them. I'm personally leaning more towards a well regulated legal market, but I also understand that such a market is difficult to control and I
am sympathetic tounderstand the legal thinking that lead to this current framework because of that.There are things, other than blanket legalization of buying sexual services, that could be done to help increase the status of sex work which probably should be done in my opinion. Like making it easy for the sex worker, who isn't doing anything illegal, to file for taxes and get the benefits of others who run their own business. I don't think those issues exist to intentionally make things difficult. I think they exist because of negligence. They could be fixed, but the thinking seems to be that it is not important.
edit: clarified the intention of a sentence.
-
I get it. I understand that that the buyer is the criminal and that the provider is not. The article explains that.
What it doesn't explain is why there can't be a regulated market for digital adult services.
the rationale behind the original law is that sex work is overwhelmingly done by people who are being coerced and/or trafficked, and the reasoning behind this new law is that trafficking is also a big problem online. sanctioning a market, the argument goes, would invite rent-seeking traffickers like andrew tate.
-
Are you saying the girls producing these services are being exploited ?
Do laws like this really address that? Seems unlikely to me.
Suppose a third of digital adult services are exploitative. I suspect that this type of law curtails almost all of the non-exploitative providers but the exploitative ones carry on. It might even make the act of exploitation more profitable.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]they claim to address that, yes.
-
In Sweden it is legal for an individual to sell sex to another individual. Buying sex however, is illegal.
Yes, and in Russia we have a saying "simplicity is worse than theft". It's about the simplicity of thinking this works to discourage buying without encouraging to sell covertly\illegally\unofficially\you get the idea.
The seller and the buyer are connected with their common interest in a deal. So what affects the legality of one of the sides, also affects that of the other. Because the former will be interested in avoiding legal means to protect themselves in everything connected to that deal, to keep their source of income or social ties over it or whatever.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]It is more about the fact that when the buyer is committing a criminal act, they can be prosecuted for that criminal act.
It also is assumed that the sex worker will not be interested in helping. It is on the judicial system to find the criminals and prosecute them.
The sex worker is doing something entirely legal. It's up to the system to protect their right to do that while also protecting them from predation. That's the thought, anyway.
-
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/12433603
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Meanwhile in Belgium: Belgium's sex workers get maternity leave and pensions under world-first law
Under a new law in Belgium - the first of its kind in the world - [...] Sex workers will be entitled to official employment contracts, health insurance, pensions, maternity leave and sick days. Essentially, it will be treated like any other job.
Sex work was decriminalised in Belgium in 2022 and is legal in several countries including Germany, Greece, the Netherlands and Turkey.
I hate the fact that there's sexually frustrated people who are trying to create laws regarding sexuality.
-
What are the purported benefits of this law?
Are they just assuming that paid online sex work is bad and should be stopped?
Who fucking cares what consenting adults do in private in separate locations via the magic of the interweb.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]IDK where this fixation in regulating other people's sexual life comes from, I assume it's from the Middle-east religions?
When asked the question "who is the victim in this supposed crime?" they will tell you it's the exploited women (is there male prostitution? IDK), but those are supposed victims (even if 99.99% of prostitutes were forced into it, you'd still have to prove exploitation in each specific case - that's how justice works in every other matter except this one). They won't be able to explain (if not with, often made-up, statistical arguments) why they don't treat women (and men) that are exploited in different businesses the same way (think, migrants forced to work in slavelike conditions in agriculture).
The sad truth is, those moralists are just more interested in dictating other people's sexual behaviour than they are interested in human rights.
It's worth mentioning that, besides the various semi-bans on prostitution (which do irritate me, but whom - in all honesty - I can live with), this unhealthy sexual fixation of our societies is what gifts us the marginalization (when it's not persecution) of LGBT people.
-
Sure. That's a valid question.
Since I'm trying to be pretty neutral, I can only say that such a thing wouldn't be in the spirit of current legal thinking on the subject.
If I allow myself to deviate a little, I do see the problem. It does restric a sex workers' ability to sell their service(s) and that is of course a problem for them. I'm personally leaning more towards a well regulated legal market, but I also understand that such a market is difficult to control and I
am sympathetic tounderstand the legal thinking that lead to this current framework because of that.There are things, other than blanket legalization of buying sexual services, that could be done to help increase the status of sex work which probably should be done in my opinion. Like making it easy for the sex worker, who isn't doing anything illegal, to file for taxes and get the benefits of others who run their own business. I don't think those issues exist to intentionally make things difficult. I think they exist because of negligence. They could be fixed, but the thinking seems to be that it is not important.
edit: clarified the intention of a sentence.
I am sympathetic to the legal thinking that lead to this current framework because of that.
As someone who has watched Swedes push their model internationally with evangelical fervour for decades and as a consequence dug into its antecedents I'd suggest you have cause and effect reversed.
The Swedish model starts with the premise that sex work is a bad thing, and moves onto how it can be prevented in a way that not only doesn't give agency to sex workers, it actively removes and denies that they have agency. Paternalistic welfare activity has been de rigeur in the Swedish state since WW2 and this is just one facet of it.
I'm OK with Swedes running their state however they like, but when they team up with American evangelical money and run around trying to push their model onto other countries with active campaigns I'm less ok. Particularly the pseudo science that is used to justify it.
-
It is more about the fact that when the buyer is committing a criminal act, they can be prosecuted for that criminal act.
It also is assumed that the sex worker will not be interested in helping. It is on the judicial system to find the criminals and prosecute them.
The sex worker is doing something entirely legal. It's up to the system to protect their right to do that while also protecting them from predation. That's the thought, anyway.
The sex worker is doing something entirely legal. It's up to the system to protect their right to do that while also protecting them from predation. That's the thought, anyway.
Respectfully no it's not.
The thought is to ensure that culpability sits with the buyer and not the seller. By criminalising the buyer the thinking is that the poor victim forced into sex work should not receive any punishment. Which is fine if the person was forced into it/trafficked but it's not OK if the person chose to do it of their own free will.
The Swedish model is at its heart paternalistic - it denies people the right to choose to do sex work because the state doesn't believe a person is capable of making that choice, they can only be coerced into it.
-
I am sympathetic to the legal thinking that lead to this current framework because of that.
As someone who has watched Swedes push their model internationally with evangelical fervour for decades and as a consequence dug into its antecedents I'd suggest you have cause and effect reversed.
The Swedish model starts with the premise that sex work is a bad thing, and moves onto how it can be prevented in a way that not only doesn't give agency to sex workers, it actively removes and denies that they have agency. Paternalistic welfare activity has been de rigeur in the Swedish state since WW2 and this is just one facet of it.
I'm OK with Swedes running their state however they like, but when they team up with American evangelical money and run around trying to push their model onto other countries with active campaigns I'm less ok. Particularly the pseudo science that is used to justify it.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Sorry, maybe I was being unclear (while I'm quite good at English, I do realise that "being sympathetic" has a different meaning than I intended).
I do not necessarily think it is the correct model. There are a lot of valid opinions on how to do it, and I do lean more towards well regulated legalisation. But I understand the thinking that made the system what it is. I see the points that favour it. That said, I also see the points that disfavour the current law.
I do think it's healthy to have a discussion about it, and I think Sweden does need to have that discussion. We need to have a discussion about weed too, for example.
-
No, as you've already pointed out: It's only "selling your body" when genitals are involved.
For working as a miner, brick layer, cleaner or berry picker, the usual labour protection and anti-trafficking laws must suffice.wrote on last edited by [email protected]I have never worked in either field but I don't think these are comparable in terms psychologic harm they usually do. (Which is an argument for more mental and legal assistance for sex workers rather than for bans.)
-
The sex worker is doing something entirely legal. It's up to the system to protect their right to do that while also protecting them from predation. That's the thought, anyway.
Respectfully no it's not.
The thought is to ensure that culpability sits with the buyer and not the seller. By criminalising the buyer the thinking is that the poor victim forced into sex work should not receive any punishment. Which is fine if the person was forced into it/trafficked but it's not OK if the person chose to do it of their own free will.
The Swedish model is at its heart paternalistic - it denies people the right to choose to do sex work because the state doesn't believe a person is capable of making that choice, they can only be coerced into it.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I have had to clarify this a couple of times now in this thread but what I wrote is not my personal stance. It is what the stated intention is. That doesn't make it right or effective.
All my my comment was intended to do, was to add context to a discussion about a society that I live in. I did not intend to put my personal stamp of approval on the consequences of that societal context.
I do personally believe that, assuming the stated intention is true, the law hasn't done what was meant to be achieved perfectly and that it should be discussed whether there is something that can be done to better the situation.
We have a few moralistic laws in Sweden that at the very least need more debate. The laws around sex work are definitely on that list imo.
-
The measure of harm is as follows: if any persons involved in the process feel that there is harm in it, however slight, then there is harm.
I'd say that'd work well
That's not a measure.
If two people involved in a process feel that the other is harming them, then you need to weigh one harm against another. Similarly, if both an action and a lack of action cause harm you need to know what causes most harm.
I mean, if we stop beating around the bush and cut the socratic bullshit, the point is this: in all political action there are multiple interests that often, if not always, have conflicting positions and perceive the results of that action differently. The idea of the entire system is that a representative govenrment controlled by checks and balances will broadly align their choices with the interest of the general public, or at least do so more consistently than the available alternatives.
You can't measure harm objectively. That's not a thing. The world isn't made of discrete actions where each either harms or doesn't harm. It's a web of interconnected interpretations, preferences, interests and benefits. Some are physical, others economic or moral. There isn't an equivalence between them and there isn't an objectively optimal solution. That's the entire point of politics in the first place.
-
Almost always something "bad" happens though, someone is harmed... Someone rapes, you jail that person -> the rapist is harmed. Is it a bad process? Of course not.
It's not about not harming anyone, it's about harming the right people. Who we harm in what case is what almost all political discourse is about.
I get what you're going for, but as presented this is a terrible take, or at least a poorly worded one. Systemic harm isn't a zero sum game. It's not about putting the harm on the bad people, it's about reducing the harm of the system overall without ever crossing the basic ground rules and limitations of the system in the process.
Not all harm to "the right people" is justified and it's extremely difficult to determine the limitations around that. You are right that deciding what interests, legitimate or not, to affect when making a decision is the entire point of politics, though.
