Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The Swedish model has been a complete failure from the view of the prostitutes, who regularly rage against it. This because it has driven prostitution underground and made if far more dangerous and more influenced by sex slavery and imported women.

It has been a success in the way that prostitutes don't ruin the aestetics of the Stockholm. See no evil...

Of course, the upper middle class marxist feminazi idelogues love it.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Thu Dec 14th, 2006 at 06:51:19 PM EST
Apart from aestetics, it has also been succesfull in using the moral power of the concept of "illegal" to change societal norms about prostitution. I think the debate of boycotting the soccer championships would have looked completedly different just ten years ago (if it had existed at all). I did not see one smug remark about "boys will be boys" anywhere. And judging from the debate before the illegalisation moral norms appeared to be the prime objective.

The Swedish model has been a complete failure from the view of the prostitutes

Has it? I am not aware of any serious research into the effects. Do you have any links?

, who regularly rage against it

Where have they raged about it? I have only seen white upper middle class male neoliberals idelogues rage that this is the case. The views and experiences of people who has sold sex I find lacking from the debate now as well as before the illegalisation.

To sum up my point of view: The "Swedish model" is not about the safety of people doing prostitution, it is about morals. And the debate features two groups trying to push their morals on society. In one corner you have the marxist feminists (which is what I suppose you refer to, as I am unaware of any selfdescribed "feminazis" (actually, I have not seen this term used outside of patriarchal male discourse, would you care too give a definition?)) and in the other the neoliberals (in the european sense). Both pushing their view of what prostitution means for society. Limited agency versus rational choice. System of domination versus freeing the individual. Most other groups keep out of the debate, including people who confess any experiences of prostitution (except for some cases, but then mostly in either sides magazines or papers, where you can supposed they would not have been published had they not supported respective sides position).

I am not surprised that this is the case considering that prostitution has very strong connections with marginalisation in our cultures (or our culture, depending on definitions). I you are not in a marginalised group you are probably not doing prostitution. If you are in a marginalised group, policy is something done to you, not by you.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Dec 14th, 2006 at 07:43:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The views and experiences of people who has sold sex I find lacking from the debate now as well as before the illegalisation.

To Starvid's credit, Someone posted just such a quote on ET a few months ago, from some Swedish prostitute attending a world prostitutes' congress somewhere in Asia. But I think it is still wrong. From what Sassafras pointed out in several comments, it is obvious to me that 'illegal' sex trafficking would have existed anyway, in fact I suspect it would have ran up even bigger. The system doesn't criminalise the prostitutes but the customers. And I wonder whether there have been any studies into a deterrence effect.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Dec 15th, 2006 at 03:02:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I should have read Sassafras's diary in full -- there are the statistics.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Dec 15th, 2006 at 03:23:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series