Criminalising Online Sex Work: „This law will have international implications far beyond Sweden“
-
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 wholeheartedly agree. Especially with the problems of objectification of people, in particular women, having gotten worse again, we should be very careful to assume everything involving a person of legal age to undress for someone else without direct physical threat to be automatically good or liberating.
On the contrary being able to maintain privacy over your body can be an expression of much more freedom as you liberated yourself from objectification.
Irrespective of that these aren't issues that can be tackled through laws like this. Better legal avenues would be banning of sexualized ads, banning of advertisment for cosmetics, cosmetic surgery and the like to minors and the like.
-
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.
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.
As per my other reply, that was understood.
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.
Again, as per other (long) reply, the big problem is the "intention" you are portraying is not actually consistent with both the speeches made when the original laws were passed and any reasonable reading of the law.
The intention is to abolish sex work because in the minds of the framers it is not possible for an adult to consent to it.
I'm not upset with you for trying to improve understanding. I'd however implore you to consider how taking agency away from people, telling them they are not capable of making a decision about themselves and their body is morally and ethically flawed.
The justification about it stopping trafficking has not held up to analysis, criminals continue to do crime. It's guys like the one in the article and other men & women who pay the price for someone to have a righteous middle class glow.
Strong social welfare systems (like Sweden has) help prevent people doing it from desperation - so buttress those if there's a shortcoming. Strong regulation of migration prevents trafficking before we even get to regulating the industry. Those are things that peer reviewed papers have shown to work.
-
"I'm not happy until you're not happy."
"Puritanism Is the Haunting Fear That Someone, Somewhere, May Be Happy"
-
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.
As per my other reply, that was understood.
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.
Again, as per other (long) reply, the big problem is the "intention" you are portraying is not actually consistent with both the speeches made when the original laws were passed and any reasonable reading of the law.
The intention is to abolish sex work because in the minds of the framers it is not possible for an adult to consent to it.
I'm not upset with you for trying to improve understanding. I'd however implore you to consider how taking agency away from people, telling them they are not capable of making a decision about themselves and their body is morally and ethically flawed.
The justification about it stopping trafficking has not held up to analysis, criminals continue to do crime. It's guys like the one in the article and other men & women who pay the price for someone to have a righteous middle class glow.
Strong social welfare systems (like Sweden has) help prevent people doing it from desperation - so buttress those if there's a shortcoming. Strong regulation of migration prevents trafficking before we even get to regulating the industry. Those are things that peer reviewed papers have shown to work.
You do keep saying that you understand but you also implore me to consider how taking agency away from people, telling them they are not capable of making a decision about themselves and their body is morally and ethically flawed.
Something which I've never said that I personally haven't. So I think we're closer in personal belief on the issue than we maybe assume we are.
-
I assume it’s from the Middle-east religions?
Your assumption is both false and seems racist. How the heck do you get the idea that Swedish sexual morals would be defined by people thousands of kilometres away?
Sweden has a long lasting history of being more strict around alocohol, drugs and prostitution. Sexual morals in Europe are predominantly shaped by the dominant christian church, be it catholic or protestant. Both the catholic and protestants are their own makings of Europe and during the crusades European Christians often slaughtered orthodox Christian.
Muslim countries have been more progressive on issues such as abortions and reproductive healthcare and partly seen a regression since the christian colonizers. Prostitution has always been illegal under Muslim law, but it also has been illegal in Christian Europe and legality is more the exception than the rule even today. Again the idea that this would somehow be the "fault" of "Middle-east religions" is absurd. This is some 1500 years "home made" European stances.
I assume it’s from the Middle-east religions?
How the heck do you get the idea that Swedish sexual morals would be defined by people thousands of kilometres away?
I think that's a reference to the 3 Abrahamic religions all of which originated in the Middle East - and of those Christianity most certainly is shaping the morals of Sweden (or at the least certainly has in the past)
(Judaism, Christianity and Islam being the "big 3 abrahamic" - Zoroastrianism & Bahai aren't really in the same category worldwide and aren't Abrahamic as far as I am aware)
-
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/12433603
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Not sure I disagree with this proposal. This is wierd to me though. You can buy pre-recorded stuff. But not live stuff. Oh well.
So holding a poll of what to record and then selling that would be fine, I guess.
-
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 you hate is organized religion. Hate the source, not the symptom of that infection.
-
That answers my question i guess.
Regulation seems like a better answer to me. A licensing system that ensures workers have agency and access to support to avoid pimps and so on.
that's if you want to acknowledge that human beings do this of their own free will, which sweden does not. our drug policy is the same.
-
What you hate is organized religion. Hate the source, not the symptom of that infection.
Very correct, In most cases at least.
I just want to make sure nobody gives them a pass because of their religion, which has no place in politics anyways.
-
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/12433603
And again a bunch of puritan assholes have the need to ensure that, like they themselves, nobody will enjoy sex freely in the way that they want to. It's always a tiny group that just had to ruin it for everyone, and then they'll spin it as "but won't anyone think of the children!" or similar bullshit like that.
Fuck these right wing assholes
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I mean I was just giving a simple refute to the guy that said all is good if "no one" is harmed, not really debating perfect systems in society. Basically this
