Ni gör mig så jävla äcklad!

I respect you opinion but what do you think about the vey arguments behind the law (which is just the short och concise final outcome of a very long process with research, investigations, interviews, political discussions, comparison with other countries and so on)?

You may know that tiny fraction of text that eventually became the short concise outcome as a few words in our legislation but what are your argument against the argument behind the law?

Just a short notice, the English seems to work (as was the purpose) since there are now fewer but hopefully more motivated and initiated people continuing the discussion.

We are still not on speaking terms and seem to misunderstand each other, but this seems no different from a discussion in Swedish, just a little less noise.

TS asks for arguments for prostitution and I just complemented that by asking for arguments refuting the arguments behind the law (because those are easily found and based on a thorough discussion and different perspectives).

I am not asking for arguments for the law, but for arguments refuting the arguments for the law.

Ok, then do you have any serious refutation to the arguments BEHIND the law, not the law itself) or is this end of discussion?

Det finns absolut lika goda möjligheter att vidta legala åtgärder mot förövare som misshandlar och våldtar andra människor även om sexhandeln inte skulle vara kriminaliserad. Det är ju fortfarande separata brott och på intet sätt något unikt för de fall där det finns ett monetärt utbyte vid sex.

Du har helt rätt i att det ofta finns en korrelation mellan tillgänglighet och efterfrågan, dvs en ökad tillgänglighet kan leda till en större efterfrågan och konsumtion av den aktuella varan. Däremot är din analogi med vapen och de lagar som styr dess tillgång väldigt svag. Syftet med ett vapen är precis som du säger att skada en annan organism. Man kan välja att tolka vissa utfall som positiva, t ex om en person skjuter en inkräktare i självförsvar och därigenom skyddar sitt eget liv men handlingen i sig har fortfarande också ett negativt utfall i form av personskada eller att den som skjutits avlider.

Kort sagt kan man alltid räkna med att det kommer leda till skada om man riktar ett vapen mot ett djur eller en människa och trycker av. Det finns däremot ingen anledning att på samma sätt förvänta sig den typen av konsekvenser för att en människa betalar en annan människa för att ha sex med dem. Återigen så är de risker och potentiella negativa utfall som kan uppstå inte alls unika för just sexhandeln utan gäller för alla som träffar andra människor för att ha sex med dem. Många fall av övergrepp och misshandel sker vid ONS eller inom förhållanden. HIV har historiskt sett spridits via homosexuella som haft sex med varandra. Alla som har sex med ett flertal personer utan att använda kondom eller kontrollera sin egen eller partnerns ev. sjukdomstillstånd löper risk att sprida könssjukdomar. Huruvida de tar betalt eller inte för att ha sex är egentligen irrelevant.

Sen kan man förstås argumentera vidare om att människor som köper sex kanske är mer våldsbenägna eller att eskorter har lättare för att råka illa ut på andra sätt än människor som inte säljer sex. Det är jag helt öppen för och även av den åsikten att det på vissa sätt är så. Frågan är dock fortfarande om det rättfärdigar en begränsning av den individuella friheten samt om ett förbud verkligen leder till att människor som säljer sex blir mindre utsatta. 

Jag tror inte att de flesta väljer sexhandel över långvariga meningsfulla relationer utan att det snarast används som ett substitut för att få sex och närhet i de fall man inte har en sådan. Så jag är inte enig med att det nödvändigtvis behöver vara oförenligt med ett modernt samhälle men visst, det är en aspekt att begrunda. Du hade ju tydligtvis egna tankar och resonemang kring frågan utöver det betänkande du så flitigt hänvisat till.

Interesting point!

From my perspective though it is an empirical question and nothing you can know for certain (that there are equally good possibilities of prosecution for separate crimes). E.g. how do you draw the line for BDSM oriented practice where a "safe word" wasn't stated or heard (because of gagging or other reasons) and an injured sphincter leads to incontinence of faeces? Will this be regarded as a work related accident? Will insurance companies be ready to compensate you? Should our tax money be used for restauration of injuries in prostitution?

Accidents may of course, happen even in purely legal relations but not to the extent you did it because you needed or wanted money for sex. Isn't it easier then to abolish prostitution all together?

Therefore you are referred to research and probability estimates. (For a more detailed discussion about my probabilistic argument see another post, since I really don't want to repat myself if not necessary, as some may think.)

I think the comparison with gun control is plausible because the argument works even if the transaction was not meant to harm you. (In my earlier years I bought a lot of stuff that was not meant to harm och kill someone, just fo fun, but turned out to be extremely dangerous. It is a pure luck I didn't kill myself and others - and today it is illegal.)

So, because there are a lot of empirical fact that prostitution is harmful for many people, regardless if it is legal or not I cannot advocate it.

The safest thing for a society that strives to be healthy and sustainable (regarding all goals of the Paris agreement) is to abolish prostitution all together.

That said, I AM open to empirical facts that can show the opposite but haven't seen any so far.

Nu har du nog citerat fel person, har inte skrivit något om det.

I agree, it would be interesting to hear from prostitutes all over the world about the experiences.

However, their voices are not completely absent and may be found in research papers and thesis.

I may apologize for quoting others but that's the way you do when you try to investigate a subject scientifically. Gunilla Ekberg introduces her paper: The Swedish Law that Prohibits the Purchase of Sexual Services. Violence Against Women. 2016 Jun 30;10(10):1187218 in the following way and much more clearly than my futile attempts.

"After several years of public debate initiated by the Swedish womens movement, the Law That Prohibits the Purchase of Sexual Services came into force on January 1, 1999. The Law is the first attempt by a country to address the root cause of prostitution and trafficking in beings: the demand, the men who assume the right to purchase persons for prostitution purposes. This groundbreaking law is a cornerstone of Swedish efforts to create a contemporary, democratic society where women and girls can live lives free of all forms of male violence. In combination with public education, awareness-raising campaigns, and victim support, the Law and other legislation establish a zero tolerance policy for prostitution and trafficking in human beings. When the buyers risk punishment, the number of men who buy prostituted persons decreases, and the local prostitution markets become less lucrative. Traffickers will then choose other and more profitable destinations."

Further down she writes

"Prostitution and trafficking in women and girls for sexual exploitation have shown an alarming increase during the past several decades. The prostitution industry is booming and expanding in a world where many countries subscribe to the ideology of a free market economy, a market in which women and girls are just one among an infinite number of highly saleable items. Thus, trafficking and prostitution of women and girls for profit is one of the fastest growing global enterprises, after drug and arms trafficking. Meanwhile, prostitution has been normalized by neoliberals as a form of sexual entertainment, with equal players exchangingservices for money. Working as a sex worker is seen as a legitimate career path for women, and employment centers in the Netherlands, where prostitution and brothels are legalized, sug- gest brothel worker as an appropriate professional choice."

(This is again an example why I prefer English, for a more coherent and consistent writing. People not used to research and academic papers may find this difficult but my purpose here is not to discuss with them but with those who know anything about the subject and are willing to investigate the phenomenon deeper.)

You will find a lot of more arguments in her well written paper that shows the clear connections between prostitution and male sexual violence against women and children. (If you are at a university you may find it in the library or otherwise you can buy it online but I cannot publish it here without permission.)

So, if you are against sexual violence against women and children then you should take a stand against prostitution (even if you may find some "lucky" exceptions, similar to myself as a lucky example of a teen who survived several dangerous experiments and possibly illegal actions even then).

As I have understood it, some people in this thread have been very irritated I bring up the legislation but my point was never to simply state: "Don't you know it's illegal?" but to try to create a deeper discussion about the research, investigations, reports, in sociology, criminology, political discussions and more - underlying - the legislation.

Every law is enacted to solve a problem, from a democratic point of view. Prostitution is seen as a serious problem (with a lot of arguments and examples already in SOU 1995:15, later in other papers) and why that is so, considering health, well-eing, equity and so on.

Finally, you may of course dislike that prostitution is illegal and may construct a lot of arguments how it could work without damage to people and society but if you study the empirical facts I can hardly see how anyone could advocate it, apart from a rather simple pleasure principle, similar to buying a robot with AI that can give you an orgasm but have no subjective will as a person. (That may change in a few years but there are other studies showing that people would not prefer "experience machines" to an authentic life. See e.g. Martha Nussbaums excellent talk about the capability approach in urplay.se/program/207201-ur-samtiden-blir-var... when referring to her teacher Robert Nozick.)

Therefore I feel pity for persons who don't think they cannot find enough sexual pleasure without paying a person (not interested in sex as much as in the money). I know I am privileged, even so much I didn't have time to write here yesterday partly because of really nice sex and tiredness after a week full of meaningful work. Nevertheless I hope for the best and that people would be able to find both pleasure and meaning and have enough stamina to work for it.

I strive for a better and more sustainable world - without prostitution, based on the empirical facts I know, of which I have presented some here. BUT - as an honest, curious and critically thinking human, I may change my mind if there is solid evidence for the contrary. Just show me the evidence refuting all of the arguments for the legislation which Ekberg shows has worked!

There are lot of answers in the documentation above and in the referred papers so there is no need to repeat myself (which you don't like and would just take even more time).

You need to invest some effort in reading if you really want to grasp the issue.

As Pilate answered the people approximately A.D. 30 "What I have written I have written."

(Your comments make me really wonder if you know any of the work I have referred to, Nussbaum, Nozick, Ekberg, SOU 1995:15. Maybe you don't even know who Pilate was as little as about prostitution and the harmful consequences of it.)