It looks like Sweden's politicians are too sheltered to understand that there are people who enjoy sex work. Instead of trying to make it safe and enjoyable for all parties, they're systemically punishing sex workers, and even redefining the word sex to include onlyfans content (?!) while simultaneously calling them "victims."
The irony, of course, is that the only thing they're a "victim" of is those same politicians.
It's a cultural difference. However, I feel like it's important to point out that selling sex isn't illegal, buying is. That means you won't be locked up for selling sex, the risk is on your customers.
And while OnlyFans can technically be used to sell any digital content, it is mostly selling (softcore) pornography, which is obviously sex work. Categorising it as "digital content" or "a private service" may work to skirt around the American laws that outright criminalise sex workers, but it's not fooling anyone.
Another point of note is that quite a few European countries struggle with human trafficking problems in the sex trade, even in countries where prostitution is completely legal. It's not like human traffickers haven't figured out that OnlyFans is an easy way to make money if they can manage enough accounts. There are also less obvious problems, like people who are strapped for cash and desperate, doing things they otherwise wouldn't and will later regret.
Personally, I think sex work should just be regulated like normal work and the Swedish approach ("Nordic model") is counterproductive. While I think online sex work should be treated the same as offline sex work, I think banning it is moving in the wrong direction. It's still not as bad as criminalising sex workers themselves, of course.
Swedish and to a certain extent Norwegian feminism is strongly opposed to sex work [0][1][2], as it is viewed as undermining gender equality (let's be honest - there isn't equivalent demand for meat markets of men) and exacerbating trafficking of women from poorer regions like Eastern Europe (it is extremely unlikely that someone in the sex industry is Swedish/Norwegian/Icelandic/Danish given the mixture of social bias and social safety net).
The initial ban in Sweden was itself legislated in 1999 when the Riksdag became majority women.
The libertarian and market-driven framing is a uniquely American and Canadian lens that doesn't hold much water in much of Europe - especially highly collectivist and monocultural societies like much of Scandinavia. It's the same with attitudes around drug legalization (zero-tolerance but with a heavy rehabilitation tilt is the mainstream view in much of Europe).
> let's be honest - there isn't equivalent demand for meat markets of men
I wouldn't underestimate that market. While men seem to consume more porn, "men" also includes "gay men" of course, who won't be quite as interested in seeing naked women even if we pretend women aren't interested in sex.
There are definitely market differences (the pay gap for male actors, for instance, and of course the double standard that judges women more than men for consuming such content) but the divide is not even close to absolute.
Your post ("it is extremely unlikely that someone in the sex industry is Swedish/Norwegian/Icelandic/Danish given the mixture of social bias and social safety net") supposes that women go into the sex industry out of desperation, but that's not true. Some people are fine with selling their bodies, to various degrees, and don't have a problem making an income that way.
Yeah, it's just they don't believe in equality and aren't taking women's human rights seriously in those activist groups. Women buy and sexualize men given power and disposable income just like men do, in not significantly less gross or any bit more dignified manners. Flying to South Asia and hitting back alleys for discount children and all those stuffs.
I'm explaining the relatively mainstream view and assumptions behind the sex work stigma in Swedish (though arguably this is common across Scandinavia) society.
u/Jug below in the thread has a more comprehensive and better written explanation.
This comment is deeply confusing. I'm really not sure what the argument is. Are you trying to say that any profession that has occupational hazards should be outlawed? In that case I hope you're ready to outlaw policing, firefighting, military, most professional sports, logging, and certainly a bunch of others I can't remember right now.
Or perhaps you're saying that specifically because it ranks high on the list of most dangerous professions, that it should be outlawed? In that case I hope you're ready to outlaw (again) logging, fishing, roofing, aircraft piloting, derrick operators and more. I hope you've also considered that the reason it's dangerous in the first place is because of the criminalization and lack of regulations governing sex work.
Or perhaps you just think that people are being pressured into doing sex work by their families, and therefore we should throw out the entire profession? In that case we need to be throwing out doctors, lawyers, and engineers.
I'd appreciate some clarification on what exactly the argument is.
I'm saying that hiring people to do a job that is extremely dangerous, and likely to cause the worker harm, especially for your own enjoyment is exploitative.
Most of the jobs you list are FAR safer then prostitution. But yes I would argue there are lots of other jobs that i would outlaw for the same reason. Like Bumfighting, a lot of dodgy construction, self harm, jobs without proper safety equipment, gladiators, and a lot of military recruitment. You are exploiting, or are very likely to be exploiting people in dire situations.
Thanks for clarifying. And yes, you're right that objectively sex work (as in, having sex with someone, not the revisionist definition including onlyfans) is high up on the most dangerous professions list.
However, that doesn't mean it has to be that way. My personal belief is that it should be treated a similar way to alcohol:
- there are only specific, licensed places where you can get it
- you must be over a certain age
- you cannot enjoy it in public
- establishments have a right to refuse service if you seem intoxicated or belligerent
Plus, adding on security to check for weapons and intervene in the rare case of violence.
In my opinion, if you combine all those regulations, sex work would be more than safe enough for it to not be considered a "dangerous" profession.
Yes, Sex work can be made more safe. However none of these protects against the psychological harm that may sex workers are experiencing. There is plenty of evidence how harmful prostitution can be to mental wealth.
You list things that regulated to protect the user of drugs, tobacco and alcohol, but with prostitution, the product is a human being that needs to be protected too.
The Nordic model, does not outlaw selling sex, but criminalizes buying. In my opinion, selling sex may be harmfull, but i see no ethical reason against it. However there is no ethical way to buy sex, because its impossible for a buyer to be sure that you are not causing serious harm to the person you are buying from.
Here's an idea, adults can regulate their own lives. You don't get to dictate how other people live based on some flimsy notion of "psychological harm".
I'm ok with outlawing adults with free wills, getting payed to play russian roulett even if five out of six wont take a bullet to the head. Adults can be exploited too.
"neither harmful", tells me you know nothing about the subject.
Whom gets to decide and determine who is “most vulnerable”?
Also when it comes to the Nordic countries it’s rather hypothetical, considering that they (+Estonia) have one of the highest rates of drug overdose related deaths in the EU. Surely they would have adopted different policies on that already if their goal was protecting the most vulnerable rather than puritanical moralism?
Your examples and appeals to emotion make no sense. Dying from a gunshot wound is de facto harmful to someone. Driving a person to s-u-i-c-i-d-e is not an act of commerce between consenting adults.
To be fair if access to less dangerous opioid was less restricted fentanyl would be a lot less popular. Its extreme potency makes it much easier and profitable to traffic.
The sex industry is terrible for everyone involved; it's addictive, it ruins the lives of the girls and men who work in it, it spreads dangerous diseases, and it doesn't contribute to the advancement of our society. I can't imagine why anyone would support it except out of a sadomasochist curiosity.
I suspect (ironically) you may be too sheltered to understand why the sex industry is so harmful
The irony, of course, is that the only thing they're a "victim" of is those same politicians.