The irony, of course, is that the only thing they're a "victim" of is those same politicians.
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).
[0] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13545701.2010.54...
[1] - https://feminismandhumanrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/0...
[2] - https://journals.kent.ac.uk/index.php/feministsatlaw/article...
That’s sort of like saying American politicians are too sheltered to understand people enjoy fentanyl
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.
"neither harmful", tells me you know nothing about the subject.
Also while you might have a point in principle it has quite little to do with random chance like in the Russian Roulette example.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Plus, women may only be about a half as interested in pornography as men (according to https://www.pornhub.com/insights/2024-year-in-review 38% of visitors were female), the market sure seems large enough.
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.
u/Jug below in the thread has a more comprehensive and better written explanation.
I'm sure there are 18 year old men who enjoy working in coal mines, too.
Actually, I think that premise was part of Trump's election campaign, so at least on the other side of the Atlantic that sentiment seems to work out.
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.
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.
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
And “or operates a website that makes it easier to get in touch with adult content creators could be imprisoned for up to one year.”
Should we make convictions of murder, depndent on proving that the victim dint actually want to get shot?
Ok, troll.