The Swedish government wants to make paying for sexual services online a criminal offense. The law could have global implications for online services and put creators at risk, warns Yigit Aydin. He fights for the rights of sex workers on behalf of the association ESWA.
It’s OK, I understood that you were trying to explain it rather than justify it.
However the part I’m pushing back on is how you are characterising the thinking this new law, and the existing Swedish sex work laws are based on. The starting premise needs to go one further step back into the basis of the original Swedish model laws.
You say that “I understand the thinking that made the system what it is” (above) and “I can only say that such a thing wouldn’t be in the spirit of current legal thinking on the subject.” (2 posts up where “thing” is referencing “why there can’t be a regulated market for digital adult services.”)
But you fail to state that **the initial premise that the system is based on is that the Swedish state does not consider it possible for an adult to give consent to sex work. **
It’s the short answer to “why can’t there be a regulated market” - the answer is that in the view of Swedish model proponents sex-work cannot be consented to and is therefore treated in the same light as rape/abuse.
This is a position that the proponents of the Swedish model keep ducking and weaving to avoid admitting. The pseudo science it built its claims on have not held up to scrutiny.
The premise is flawed, thus the laws built on a flawed premise may be internally consisten, but that doesn’t make them rational.
Unless of course we don’t believe in bodily autonomy in which case then sure, the state had better start criminalising unprotected sex, skiing, hang gliding, bungee jumping, and anything else that might harm us.
Again, I understand what you’re saying. I am talking about stated intention as far as the discussion goes. That people cannot consent in a situation where money changes hands can absolutely be interpreted as part of the foundation but my personal thought on that is more that it is due to negligence.
In effect, it is irrelevant to the proponents of this model whether or not consent can be given.
Does that make it better? No, not at all, and I definitely think that those who consider the legal construction to be sound should have to discuss that point as well.
It’s OK, I understood that you were trying to explain it rather than justify it.
However the part I’m pushing back on is how you are characterising the thinking this new law, and the existing Swedish sex work laws are based on. The starting premise needs to go one further step back into the basis of the original Swedish model laws.
You say that “I understand the thinking that made the system what it is” (above) and “I can only say that such a thing wouldn’t be in the spirit of current legal thinking on the subject.” (2 posts up where “thing” is referencing “why there can’t be a regulated market for digital adult services.”)
But you fail to state that **the initial premise that the system is based on is that the Swedish state does not consider it possible for an adult to give consent to sex work. **
It’s the short answer to “why can’t there be a regulated market” - the answer is that in the view of Swedish model proponents sex-work cannot be consented to and is therefore treated in the same light as rape/abuse.
This is a position that the proponents of the Swedish model keep ducking and weaving to avoid admitting. The pseudo science it built its claims on have not held up to scrutiny.
The premise is flawed, thus the laws built on a flawed premise may be internally consisten, but that doesn’t make them rational.
Unless of course we don’t believe in bodily autonomy in which case then sure, the state had better start criminalising unprotected sex, skiing, hang gliding, bungee jumping, and anything else that might harm us.
Again, I understand what you’re saying. I am talking about stated intention as far as the discussion goes. That people cannot consent in a situation where money changes hands can absolutely be interpreted as part of the foundation but my personal thought on that is more that it is due to negligence.
In effect, it is irrelevant to the proponents of this model whether or not consent can be given.
Does that make it better? No, not at all, and I definitely think that those who consider the legal construction to be sound should have to discuss that point as well.