Sweden’s parliament has passed a law banning the purchase of sexual performances for viewing online, including those on platforms like OnlyFans, marking a major update to the country’s sex purchase legislation.
Sweden’s parliament has passed a law banning the purchase of sexual performances for viewing online, including those on platforms like OnlyFans, marking a major update to the country’s sex purchase legislation.
The title doesn’t convey the actual law, thanks for adding description op.
Feels out of character for a Scandinavian country to pass such conservative law.
Belgium actually got social benefits like insurance for people doing sex work (which if you ask me, is work), if I remember correctly.
The Nordics generally fall on the line that sex work is inherently exploitative, which is why buying is illegal but selling sex work is not. This isn’t particularily conservative, but is just extending the existing laws surrounding prostitution and sex work to Onlyfans commissions.
Not for Sweden in the context of sex work.
It’s conservative under a certain pov, or progressive for others.
From a femministic pov is a step forward. Sweden started in '99 to criminalize the sex customers and it’s been followed from the other Scandinavians and France.
On the other end we’ve countries like Germany, Switzerland, Nederland or Belgium which works in kinda opposite direction and allow sex workers to the point of being guaranteed social services.
In Sweden they believe that prostitution always happens due to an abuse of power. The prostitute is somehow always forced to sell sex. It’s kinda tricky point, it never convinced me 100%.
I believe more that people should be allowed to do what they want with their body, so if someone wants to sell sex, the only things to do is to offer some rules and makes it safe for everyone. It’s not surprisingly that countries who cares about safe worker’s safety also allow euthanasia.
IMO it’s fairly understandable for in-person sex work, it has to be fairly hard to navigate that business while avoiding abuse even if you start doing it out of your own free will. But online sex work removes a huge component of what makes in-person sex work so risky, i.e. the physical in-person interaction. IMO, forbidding that as well suggests that the lawmakers not only view sex work as dangerous, but also as immoral.
It is not the physical danger, but the risk of people being manipulated, pressured, or straight up forced into doing it. That can certainly still happen with online content. It may not be the image you have of Onlyfans, but I can’t imagine it not happening to some degree.
Exploitation also happens with foreign workers in the farming and logistics industries though. So under the argument they are making, I recommend also closing the entire farming and logistics industries.
Wasn’t there multiple popular porn formats where it turned out they were human trafficking rings and raped the women for millions of people to view?
Definitely. It’s just a lot less likely.
Yep.
They don’t talk on a practical, physical level, it’s a matter of power and social acceptance. Sweden refuse the idea of a gender who’s subordinate, which is right but creates some turbulences, as you pointed out.
It sounds to me like wanting to fix next year problems other then todays ones. Kinda a long time program.
From a SWERF POV. By far not all the feminisms are sex negative or exclude sex workers.
You’re missing the point, this law is not anti-sex work. You can be pro sex work and still be in favour of this law.
Legalising prostitution doesn’t make illegal prostitution go away. On the contrary, by normalising prostitution, the demand increases but the legal (voluntary) supply doesn’t. This increased demand is then supplied via increased sex trafficking by crime syndicates. This is a huge problem in the Netherlands that they haven’t managed to solve in the 25 years prostitution has been legal.
Even for the legally registered prostitutes, the improvements are limited. Financial exploitation and violence remain rampant.
By decriminalising the prostitutes, the Swedes are effectively providing them with legal protection. By criminalising the buyer, they suppress demand, which reduces sex trafficking, and is the best protection for society as a whole.
As a feminist, I’m a staunch advocate of bodily autonomy and have no issue with sex workers. However, what cost should society accept for their right to provide these services? If for every 10 legal prostitutes, 1 additional person is forced into sexual slavery, is that cost worthwhile to you? How about 1 sex slave for every 5 legal prostitutes? How about a 1 to 2 ratio?
According to this source:
So, best case scenario = 30,000 prostitutes vs 3,333 (5000 x 2/3) sex slaves = 1 slave for every 9 registered prostitutes
Worst case scenario = 6,000 prostitutes vs 5,333 sex slaves = 8 slaves for every 9 registered prostitutes
Now some of these people would have been trafficked anyway, but there is a lot of evidence that trafficking has increased substantially since legalising prostitution.
So, where do you draw the line? Personally, I find the societal cost to be unacceptably high to justify legalisation of prostitution.
How many illegal banana vendors are there? How would a banana vendor benefit from turning towards black market operations? Because there’s banana plantations around which engage in slave labour, should we outlaw bananas?
Why would demand increase? Why would supply not increase? After all, legal prostitution doesn’t make people hornier or lonelier, and legalisation improves workplace conditions.
I see, you still haven’t read the link. “Come to the police for help and we’ll arrest all your clients” is not a good situation to be in if you’re trying to make a living. Swedish sex workers are forced to be co-conspirators, they are forced to keep their clients anonymous, or they’re out of business. Can’t keep records around, can’t keep customer information around.
Then why are you ignoring what they’re saying?
Let’s look at your source. Your source:
The source that’s from:
And further:
…so not only is your source narrativising, it’s right-out bending the truth: That 90% figure is violence inflicted by general society. Among others, SWERFs who ignore their voices. You are engaging in it yourself.
The source of the source then recommends:
…all three of them are incompatible with the Swedish model: The Swedes systematically ignore the voices of sex workers, make it harder to seek help from authorities, and they don’t have access to usual labour protections, either. In particular (towards the end) they point out that a majority of sex workers in the Netherlands aren’t licensed because the licensing regime isn’t up to to the task, can’t be arsed to go into detail now but I suppose it’s stuff like municipalities being allowed to declare prostitution off-limits everywhere within their territory, without giving actual reasoning why that’s necessary. Obviously, getting help from the police isn’t that easy when you would have to admit that you’re not licensed.
I’m sure there’s plenty of stuff that the Dutch could do better, their approach to law enforcement is weird overall with police wilfully, and systematically, ignoring law breaches. Like yes it’s all good that you’re not cracking down on the cannabis trade but maybe then actually legalise and regulate it, don’t leave it to criminal gangs?
That laws exists cause femministic pov is strong in the country (we should talk about genders, it’s said F just to make things shorter in this discussion). We all knows not all femminists thinks exactly the same stuff, as all the people about all the things in the world.
Interesting there possibly being a correlation between euthanasia and legal sex work. But it makes sense, as it is both about supporting people to make their own choice. I’ve always found the people who want to ban things that are dangerous a bit condescending, as if people aren’t able to bare the consequences of their choices. But is true that if people have no good options, they will start considering bad options. But by making something illegal, they are not getting better options. Also I don’t think making it illegal will stop the people who are willing to force someone into prostitution. Signing some law to prevent unwanted behaviour seems like a easy choice from a political pov. Real problems need real solutions.
I agree from a bodily autonomy perspective that everyone should have the right to do what they wish with their bodies. If the sex industry was primarily individuals or small scale brothels, with everything voluntary, then legalising prostitution would make sense. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.
The sex industry is huge, with large crime syndicates involved, so legalising prostitution in the Netherlands resulted in higher sex trafficking. Once prostitution was normalised, the demand for services increased but the supply didn’t. Human traffickers bring in women to meet the demand and the Netherlands government haven’t been able to stop it.
There are a lot of online sources confirming this, including this recent (long) report: Failed Promises: The history of legal prostitution and sex trafficking in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Agree.
I don’t mean legalizing is the solution to everything. Banning it in Sweden had the same issue, you solve the most visible problem (ex prostitutes on the streets), but some of the prostitution goes underground.
Legalize prostitution sounds like when you legalize the weed. The illegal market doesn’t disappear, and since you create a hub, probably it will also grow up.
Problem is, with the prostitution is not really fine, since we are basically talking about a sort of slavery
This signs for me a plus for the Swedish way which point at the future, pushing the scam into the population for that stuff (and fucking even more the incels fucking world).
And Germany became a haven for human trafficking and organized rape, which forced prostitution is.
Among other things when Ukrainians started arriving in Germany there were cases of people disguising to help to snatch women and girls and force them into prostitution as the enforcement of protection against human trafficking remains lackluster in Germany.
Do you have a source on that second statement?
Source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Germany
https://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Publikationen/Weitere_Publikationen/Summary_Monitoring_Report_Human_Trafficking_in_Germany.pdf
Page 19, 7 Recommendations:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2024-001766_EN.html
That references an article from 2013, the whole article is generally out of date. What’s absolutely true is that Germany is a hub for trafficking in Europe, for the simple reason that it’s a hub for anything in Europe that involves transportation: You can hardly go east to west, north to south, without crossing through Germany.
The article also isn’t particularily good at distinguishing between sex trafficking and for other purposes. Most of the dates (2009) refer to a time barely past regularisation of prostitution, the criminal statistics in the years following 2002 are full of cases that were only brought to light because operating shady brothels became financially untenable.
Then, important to keep in mind about statistics: German law says that it’s illegal to recruit under 21yolds into prostitution. I think it’s a good thing, but OTOH someone driving around in the Romanian countryside asking gals whether they want to make money in Germany shouldn’t be confused, much less equated, with chained to the radiator type of trafficking, but that’s exactly what happens when you just take the “human trafficking” numbers out of the police statistics, both types have the same subheading.
The revisions were done July of 2024, the report is from October. No shit Sherlock it can take a couple of months to implement legislation.
The whole thing, the wikipedia article that is not the report, reads like a hitpiece with an agenda… in particular, SWERF. SWERFs also like to ignore any- and everything sex worker unions have to say about this topic (which isn’t kind towards the Nordic model), up to including slandering them as “pimp-run”.
Most of the sources in the article are also before 2017, which saw a law reform, in particular now there’s licensing. Sex worker unions really didn’t like that, I don’t think it’s doing much but OTOH is also not terribly damaging – lots of professions have some kind of licensing regime. I would have rather seen more investment in street work.
The Wikipedia article refers to the decades after legalisation of prostitution. The recent report from 2024 shows that Germany is still behind the EU standards. I don’t know what you mean with “SWERFs”. It is a simple matter of fact that in Germany legalisation of prostitution did not come with proper safeguards and helped enable human trafficking.
Also it remains clear that Germany is still lacking behind EU standards. While it is true that it takes time to implement new standards, the EU processes to establish them take years, so the German governments know about these standards since much longer. There is also no prohibition on implementing these before they become official EU standards.
And this brings us back to the problems with digital sex work. While countries can enforce protections against human trafficking in analog spaces, it is much more difficult in digital spaces. The “onlyfans model” in some other country could have traffickers standing outside the video with a gun pointed at them and there is hardly any way to find out. There is no access for street workers or investigators to talk with the people involved. They could be kept in some basement and never see the light of day and the consumers seem rather willfully ignorant to that possibility. As in the example with the “casting couch” trafficker ring, human trafficking is rather happily ignored by the consumers, who ultimately make themselves complicit in heinous crimes.
Sweden is doing the right thing here. It is impossible to regulate that “market” to prevent human trafficking. Thereby the only option is to shut that market down.
Sex-worker exclusionary radical feminist. TBH not knowing that acronym disqualifies you from discussing the issue.
And that doesn’t also apply to call centre employees, youtube hosts, news anchors, whatnot?
Ignoring requires knowledge. Consumers are happily unaware of issues, sure, but so are you when it comes to who picked the coffee you’re drinking.
I’m all for throwing the book at anyone who traffics people, for whatever reason, sex work included. And the only way to do that, that has actually data behind it and not just “sex work inherently bad” type of ideology, is regulation.
Read this.
Does this apply to people who are voluntarily or by force engaged in sex work too? This seems more like academic leftists gatekeeping.
Who are at a much lower risk of human trafficking, have access to labor unions and workplace protections…
While not perfect, i buy fair trade coffee, which means at least some level of oversight. And picking coffee under exploitative circumstances is terrible, but a different level than being raped for the entertainment of millions of people, where the recordings remain even decades after, if the exploitation can be stopped.
Which is much harder in the digital space and cannot be enforced realistically by Sweden. Even if they would create a certification process and do regular workspace inspections, these could only be enforced inside Sweden. And even that is limited by the trivial ease of using VPNs to claim a different location. So the only option is to prohibit that market.
Earlier you criticized that i provided a source discussion the situation multiple years ago. Now you provide a source that is from the same time and does not address nor distinguish between analog and digital.
There is a fundamental difference between digital and analog. So the criticism needs to distinguish between these two. You gave the example of street workers yourself.
If you criticise the Swedish ban on buying digital sex work, how do you envision to protect digital sex work from human trafficking, provide access to social work and the like? What is the better alternative?
Just listened to the episodes about Andrew Tate on behind the bastards and it seems like there’s a huge potential for ruined lives, so I see why Sweden has taken this step. If they can guarantee a well paid job aside from this and other things that hurt society, I can see why this is a progressive move
In Sweden, a bottle of Vodka costs you 18 Euros in alcohol taxes. Plus VAT, plus the actual cost of the vodka. Also you can only buy it at state-run shops.
They’re abolitionists and wannabe social engineers up there which is why Swedes go to Denmark to buy booze while Danes go to Germany. And Germans, very occasionally, to Luxembourg but only if you need 98% stuff to make your own liqueur. Luxembourg I think is the odd one out EU-wide when it comes to levying the same tax per ml of ethanol no matter whether it’s 40% or pure.