It’s actually very nice and functional for the apps that are relevant.

I guess we’ll be pushing the ads to the end then. The peaks are usually after in-video ads.

Yay!

This might be the funniest shit I’ve read.

Intel Exhibitionist

You do keep saying that you understand but you also implore me to consider how taking agency away from people, telling them they are not capable of making a decision about themselves and their body is morally and ethically flawed.

Something which I’ve never said that I personally haven’t. So I think we’re closer in personal belief on the issue than we maybe assume we are.

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.

I have had to clarify this a couple of times now in this thread but what I wrote is not my personal stance. It is what the stated intention is. That doesn’t make it right or effective.

All my my comment was intended to do, was to add context to a discussion about a society that I live in. I did not intend to put my personal stamp of approval on the consequences of that societal context.

I do personally believe that, assuming the stated intention is true, the law hasn’t done what was meant to be achieved perfectly and that it should be discussed whether there is something that can be done to better the situation.

We have a few moralistic laws in Sweden that at the very least need more debate. The laws around sex work are definitely on that list imo.

Sorry, maybe I was being unclear (while I’m quite good at English, I do realise that “being sympathetic” has a different meaning than I intended).

I do not necessarily think it is the correct model. There are a lot of valid opinions on how to do it, and I do lean more towards well regulated legalisation. But I understand the thinking that made the system what it is. I see the points that favour it. That said, I also see the points that disfavour the current law.

I do think it’s healthy to have a discussion about it, and I think Sweden does need to have that discussion. We need to have a discussion about weed too, for example.

Finally! I’ve been waiting to expose my processor

It is more about the fact that when the buyer is committing a criminal act, they can be prosecuted for that criminal act.

It also is assumed that the sex worker will not be interested in helping. It is on the judicial system to find the criminals and prosecute them.

The sex worker is doing something entirely legal. It’s up to the system to protect their right to do that while also protecting them from predation. That’s the thought, anyway.

Sure. That’s a valid question.

Since I’m trying to be pretty neutral, I can only say that such a thing wouldn’t be in the spirit of current legal thinking on the subject.

If I allow myself to deviate a little, I do see the problem. It does restric a sex workers’ ability to sell their service(s) and that is of course a problem for them. I’m personally leaning more towards a well regulated legal market, but I also understand that such a market is difficult to control and I am sympathetic to understand the legal thinking that lead to this current framework because of that.

There are things, other than blanket legalization of buying sexual services, that could be done to help increase the status of sex work which probably should be done in my opinion. Like making it easy for the sex worker, who isn’t doing anything illegal, to file for taxes and get the benefits of others who run their own business. I don’t think those issues exist to intentionally make things difficult. I think they exist because of negligence. They could be fixed, but the thinking seems to be that it is not important.

edit: clarified the intention of a sentence.

I added some more context, but the sex work itself isn’t discouraged by the law (though it certainly isn’t encouraged either - there are certain caveats to the situation). Buying sex is. And that’s what they want this law to do as well.

Do bear in mind that I’m not commenting on whether or not this is the correct way to construct the laws around sex work. I am, rather, conveying what the essence of intent is in the current legal framework.

As a Swede who is unsure that this law will do what it is intended to do, here is what it is actually intended to do and the context in which it is written:

In Sweden it is legal for an individual to sell sex to another individual. Buying sex however, is illegal. This is intended to protect the one selling sex from the buyer. The thought is that there’s no valid reason to criminalise the actions of a person who is already in a pretty exposed situation. This law has been in effect for 26 years.

The intention of this proposed law is to make it illegal for a buyer to order specific porn from a seller, as in requesting that the seller produces a specific thing for the buyer. Which, while “who fucking cares what consenting adults do” is a valid position, is in line with current legal thinking. The intention isn’t to criminalise selling porn, even when it’s been made to order for a buyer. It is to protect those in an exposed situation.

I can’t say if that’s how it will work out however. I’ve heard worries that it will have other consequences.

edit: added a reference to current law.
edit2: 26, not 36.

Just because it’s nonsense, that doesn’t mean it can’t be dangerous nonsense.

“American president starts talking nonsense again as world shrugs and moves on with actual political discussion”

Damn, right after Putin said that he hopes for a good relationship with the pope too!

Maybe that’s why Vance met Francis.

That’s… Sad.

Damn, Vatican, read the room, mate