While viewing and paying for pre-recorded content remains legal, the law targets live, commissioned interactions, which lawmakers argue blur legal and ethical lines.
Interesting distinction they are making there.
this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
203 points (99.5% liked)
Europe
5964 readers
1198 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: RT, news-pravda:com, GB News, Fox, Breitbart, Daily Caller, OAN, sociable:co, citjourno:com, brusselssignal:eu, europesays:com, geo-trends:eu, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
California has a history of running a porn production industry but disallowing prostitution, which results in the somewhat-bizarre situation where it's illegal to pay someone for sex, but that becomes legal if it is being filmed for an audience to watch.
The title doesn't convey the actual law, thanks for adding description op.
Feels out of character for a Scandinavian country to pass such conservative law.
Belgium actually got social benefits like insurance for people doing sex work (which if you ask me, is work), if I remember correctly.
Feels out of character for a Scandinavian country to pass such conservative law.
Not for Sweden in the context of sex work.
It's conservative under a certain pov, or progressive for others.
From a femministic pov is a step forward. Sweden started in '99 to criminalize the sex customers and it's been followed from the other Scandinavians and France.
On the other end we've countries like Germany, Switzerland, Nederland or Belgium which works in kinda opposite direction and allow sex workers to the point of being guaranteed social services.
In Sweden they believe that prostitution always happens due to an abuse of power. The prostitute is somehow always forced to sell sex. It's kinda tricky point, it never convinced me 100%.
I believe more that people should be allowed to do what they want with their body, so if someone wants to sell sex, the only things to do is to offer some rules and makes it safe for everyone. It's not surprisingly that countries who cares about safe worker's safety also allow euthanasia.
IMO it's fairly understandable for in-person sex work, it has to be fairly hard to navigate that business while avoiding abuse even if you start doing it out of your own free will. But online sex work removes a huge component of what makes in-person sex work so risky, i.e. the physical in-person interaction. IMO, forbidding that as well suggests that the lawmakers not only view sex work as dangerous, but also as immoral.
It is not the physical danger, but the risk of people being manipulated, pressured, or straight up forced into doing it. That can certainly still happen with online content. It may not be the image you have of Onlyfans, but I can't imagine it not happening to some degree.
Exploitation also happens with foreign workers in the farming and logistics industries though. So under the argument they are making, I recommend also closing the entire farming and logistics industries.
Wasn't there multiple popular porn formats where it turned out they were human trafficking rings and raped the women for millions of people to view?
That can certainly still happen with online content. It may not be the image you have of Onlyfans, but I can’t imagine it not happening to some degree.
Definitely. It's just a lot less likely.
Yep.
They don't talk on a practical, physical level, it's a matter of power and social acceptance. Sweden refuse the idea of a gender who's subordinate, which is right but creates some turbulences, as you pointed out.
It sounds to me like wanting to fix next year problems other then todays ones. Kinda a long time program.
Interesting there possibly being a correlation between euthanasia and legal sex work. But it makes sense, as it is both about supporting people to make their own choice. I've always found the people who want to ban things that are dangerous a bit condescending, as if people aren't able to bare the consequences of their choices. But is true that if people have no good options, they will start considering bad options. But by making something illegal, they are not getting better options. Also I don't think making it illegal will stop the people who are willing to force someone into prostitution. Signing some law to prevent unwanted behaviour seems like a easy choice from a political pov. Real problems need real solutions.
From a femministic pov is a step forward.
From a SWERF POV. By far not all the feminisms are sex negative or exclude sex workers.
That laws exists cause femministic pov is strong in the country (we should talk about genders, it's said F just to make things shorter in this discussion). We all knows not all femminists thinks exactly the same stuff, as all the people about all the things in the world.
You're missing the point, this law is not anti-sex work. You can be pro sex work and still be in favour of this law.
Legalising prostitution doesn't make illegal prostitution go away. On the contrary, by normalising prostitution, the demand increases but the legal (voluntary) supply doesn't. This increased demand is then supplied via increased sex trafficking by crime syndicates. This is a huge problem in the Netherlands that they haven't managed to solve in the 25 years prostitution has been legal.
Even for the legally registered prostitutes, the improvements are limited. Financial exploitation and violence remain rampant.
By decriminalising the prostitutes, the Swedes are effectively providing them with legal protection. By criminalising the buyer, they suppress demand, which reduces sex trafficking, and is the best protection for society as a whole.
As a feminist, I'm a staunch advocate of bodily autonomy and have no issue with sex workers. However, what cost should society accept for their right to provide these services? If for every 10 legal prostitutes, 1 additional person is forced into sexual slavery, is that cost worthwhile to you? How about 1 sex slave for every 5 legal prostitutes? How about a 1 to 2 ratio?
According to this source:
the [Netherlands] government struggles to calculate the number of individuals in its regulated sex trade (numbers range from 6,000 to 30,000)
The law has also failed to curb trafficking, with a reported 5,000 to 8,000 victims each year, two thirds of which for purposes of sexual exploitation
So, best case scenario = 30,000 prostitutes vs 3,333 (5000 x 2/3) sex slaves = 1 slave for every 9 registered prostitutes
Worst case scenario = 6,000 prostitutes vs 5,333 sex slaves = 8 slaves for every 9 registered prostitutes
Now some of these people would have been trafficked anyway, but there is a lot of evidence that trafficking has increased substantially since legalising prostitution.
So, where do you draw the line? Personally, I find the societal cost to be unacceptably high to justify legalisation of prostitution.
Legalising prostitution doesn’t make illegal prostitution go away.
How many illegal banana vendors are there? How would a banana vendor benefit from turning towards black market operations? Because there's banana plantations around which engage in slave labour, should we outlaw bananas?
On the contrary, by normalising prostitution, the demand increases but the legal (voluntary) supply doesn’t.
Why would demand increase? Why would supply not increase? After all, legal prostitution doesn't make people hornier or lonelier, and legalisation improves workplace conditions.
By decriminalising the prostitutes, the Swedes are effectively providing them with legal protection.
I see, you still haven't read the link. "Come to the police for help and we'll arrest all your clients" is not a good situation to be in if you're trying to make a living. Swedish sex workers are forced to be co-conspirators, they are forced to keep their clients anonymous, or they're out of business. Can't keep records around, can't keep customer information around.
As a feminist, I’m a staunch advocate of bodily autonomy and have no issue with sex workers
Then why are you ignoring what they're saying?
Let's look at your source. Your source:
Furthermore, those in prostitution face abuse and degradation on a daily basis; studies – even from groups that advocate for the decriminalization of the sex trade – find that 90% of women in prostitution have experienced violence at the hands of sex buyers, pimps, or other exploiters.
The source that's from:
The sex workers in this research were asked whether they had experienced violence in the past twelve months and which forms those had been. 60% said they had experienced physical violence, 78% sexual violence, 58% financial-economic violence and 93% social-emotional violence.
And further:
Social-emotional violence as well as other forms of violence often stem from the stigma attached to sex work.
...so not only is your source narrativising, it's right-out bending the truth: That 90% figure is violence inflicted by general society. Among others, SWERFs who ignore their voices. You are engaging in it yourself.
The source of the source then recommends:
- Make sex workers the center of prostitution policies and address violence against sex workers.
- Lower the threshold for filing police reports.
- Decriminalize sex work so that all sex workers have once again access to (labor) laws, thereby reducing the risk of violence.
...all three of them are incompatible with the Swedish model: The Swedes systematically ignore the voices of sex workers, make it harder to seek help from authorities, and they don't have access to usual labour protections, either. In particular (towards the end) they point out that a majority of sex workers in the Netherlands aren't licensed because the licensing regime isn't up to to the task, can't be arsed to go into detail now but I suppose it's stuff like municipalities being allowed to declare prostitution off-limits everywhere within their territory, without giving actual reasoning why that's necessary. Obviously, getting help from the police isn't that easy when you would have to admit that you're not licensed.
I'm sure there's plenty of stuff that the Dutch could do better, their approach to law enforcement is weird overall with police wilfully, and systematically, ignoring law breaches. Like yes it's all good that you're not cracking down on the cannabis trade but maybe then actually legalise and regulate it, don't leave it to criminal gangs?
I agree from a bodily autonomy perspective that everyone should have the right to do what they wish with their bodies. If the sex industry was primarily individuals or small scale brothels, with everything voluntary, then legalising prostitution would make sense. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
The sex industry is huge, with large crime syndicates involved, so legalising prostitution in the Netherlands resulted in higher sex trafficking. Once prostitution was normalised, the demand for services increased but the supply didn't. Human traffickers bring in women to meet the demand and the Netherlands government haven't been able to stop it.
There are a lot of online sources confirming this, including this recent (long) report: Failed Promises: The history of legal prostitution and sex trafficking in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Agree.
I don't mean legalizing is the solution to everything. Banning it in Sweden had the same issue, you solve the most visible problem (ex prostitutes on the streets), but some of the prostitution goes underground.
Legalize prostitution sounds like when you legalize the weed. The illegal market doesn't disappear, and since you create a hub, probably it will also grow up.
Problem is, with the prostitution is not really fine, since we are basically talking about a sort of slavery
This signs for me a plus for the Swedish way which point at the future, pushing the scam into the population for that stuff (and fucking even more the incels fucking world).
Just listened to the episodes about Andrew Tate on behind the bastards and it seems like there's a huge potential for ruined lives, so I see why Sweden has taken this step. If they can guarantee a well paid job aside from this and other things that hurt society, I can see why this is a progressive move
load more comments
(9 replies)
The Nordics generally fall on the line that sex work is inherently exploitative, which is why buying is illegal but selling sex work is not. This isn't particularily conservative, but is just extending the existing laws surrounding prostitution and sex work to Onlyfans commissions.
Feels out of character for a Scandinavian country to pass such conservative law.
In Sweden, a bottle of Vodka costs you 18 Euros in alcohol taxes. Plus VAT, plus the actual cost of the vodka. Also you can only buy it at state-run shops.
They're abolitionists and wannabe social engineers up there which is why Swedes go to Denmark to buy booze while Danes go to Germany. And Germans, very occasionally, to Luxembourg but only if you need 98% stuff to make your own liqueur. Luxembourg I think is the odd one out EU-wide when it comes to levying the same tax per ml of ethanol no matter whether it's 40% or pure.
So, to clarify. Sweden has for a very long time a system where buying sex is illegal but selling sex is legal. This is to make sure the man buying is considered criminal and the woman selling a victim. This new ban is just a way to keep it that way online as well.
What becomes illegal is paying for custom personalized performances (because a man can say "I'll give you $1000 if you stick this painful thing up your ass", which can be a difficult request to deny if you are poor), but selling prerecorded stuff will not be banned.
Men (and other genders) are sex workers also. This is not a man/woman thing, this is a power imbalance thing.
Fair, but this is kind of a "not all men!!" thing to point out. The vast majority of sex workers are women, the vast majority of people being victims to sex trafficking are women. The vast majority of people paying for sex are men. Just face it.
it’s not really a not all men thing… it’s a difference in the thinking: by saying women, you’ve completely ignored gay men, and we have often have a hyper sexual culture and don’t often have issues like domestic violence and abuse represented well
the power imbalance is the important thing - it’s an inherently non-gendered situation, despite the correlation that it mainly effects women… intent is important
Also. Buttholes. Everybody’s got a butthole.
Wow I thought you were cool Sweden :/
Wait until you discover their politics about drugs.
🤫 we don't discuss that or we're branded as addicts
Like other censorship efforts, these politicians appear never to have heard of VPNs.
From a purely logical perspective, it isn’t clear how these performers are different from athletes or actors.
Like other censorship efforts, these politicians appear never to have heard of VPNs.
It's not blocking it, just creating legal risk for someone who does purchase OnlyFans stuff from Sweden. I kind of doubt that Swedish law enforcement is going to be actively looking for this, but I suppose that if they're looking into someone for some other reason and there are payments to OnlyFans with a payment service in Sweden, that's probably a way to add more charges.
It's to use on whistle blowers maybe? Hrrm, Assange hrrm.
VPNs don't hide the payment details to your bank. It's not impossible to hide, but an additional complication
Fair point. Add prepaid cards to the list. :)
"Obviously these politicians who outlaw murder have never heard of a gun. I can still easily kill people!"
Your point?
Because you aren't paying actor or athletes to perform acts on your live demands, especially not sexual acts.
I dunno
Some scenes in films and theaters would reach that mark.
And some of the athlete's outfits too 😁
Actors get the script beforehand. Also it is a regulated industry, there is unions and protections in place. For starters age restrictions are reliably enforced so no minor is going to be in an explicit sex scene in a box office movie production.
So will they also outlaw celebrities selling personalized birthday messages? Answering machine messages? Commissioned dances? Other hired performances? What about improv? Commissioned paintings? Where does it end?
In Sweden it’s also legal to sell heroin, but buying it is against the law. /s
Sweden is one of the strictest countries in Europe when it comes to drugs. Fairly certain selling heroin is very much not legal in Sweden.
On a related note, Sweden has (at least historically) had one of the highest OD death rates despite its strict drug regulation.
Edit: somehow totally missed the /s, but I’ll leave the comment up anyway :)
idc about sex sites but onlyfans gives me brainrot. good one sweden. shame for the other sites that are affected i guess?
view more: next ›