←back to thread

84 points diggan | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
free_bip ◴[] No.44475430[source]
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.

replies(4): >>44475452 #>>44475508 #>>44475562 #>>44475692 #
quelsolaar[dead post] ◴[] No.44475452[source]
[flagged]
free_bip ◴[] No.44475578[source]
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.

replies(1): >>44475684 #
quelsolaar ◴[] No.44475684[source]
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.

replies(1): >>44475807 #
1. free_bip ◴[] No.44475807[source]
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.

replies(1): >>44476010 #
2. quelsolaar ◴[] No.44476010[source]
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.

replies(1): >>44476158 #
3. frozenseven ◴[] No.44476158[source]
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".
replies(1): >>44478689 #
4. quelsolaar ◴[] No.44478689{3}[source]
Yeah thats an old idea, that have proven again and again to cause misery. Its not flimsy at all. Its peer reviewed science.
replies(2): >>44479251 #>>44479254 #
5. frozenseven ◴[] No.44479251{4}[source]
>peer reviewed science

Ok, troll.

6. synecdoche ◴[] No.44479254{4}[source]
There’s no psychological harm in the other extreme?