For those who think the Swedish approach to regulating sex work works

[Loren Pechtel]

Which has nothing to do with the points in the post. They're just straightforward results of the rule.

We see lesser versions of many of these with marijuana in the states where it is legal.

Try reading a link now and then, Loren. I mean, you have no problem linking to a reddit file and expecting us to take the anonymous ramblings of someone who purports to be a prostitute as gospel because it suits YOUR POV. If you bothered to actually read any of the links I posted, you'd see a lot of support from not anonymous sources.

My post was about harms caused by the Swedish approach. This has nothing to do with trafficking, any evidence about trafficking has no relevance.

 

[laughing dog]

Which has nothing to do with the points in the post. They're just straightforward results of the rule.

We see lesser versions of many of these with marijuana in the states where it is legal.

Try reading a link now and then, Loren. I mean, you have no problem linking to a reddit file and expecting us to take the anonymous ramblings of someone who purports to be a prostitute as gospel because it suits YOUR POV. If you bothered to actually read any of the links I posted, you'd see a lot of support from not anonymous sources.

My post was about harms caused by the Swedish approach. This has nothing to do with trafficking, any evidence about trafficking has no relevance.

Utter nonsense. First, if there is trafficking in Sweden, there is obvious relevance. Second, your OP is about the "harm" in the Swedish regulation of sex work. All regulation (or lack thereof) involves balancing benefit with harm. It is intellectually sloppy or naive or disingenuous to focus on one particular category or aspect while ignoring the others.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My post was about harms caused by the Swedish approach. This has nothing to do with trafficking, any evidence about trafficking has no relevance.

Utter nonsense. First, if there is trafficking in Sweden, there is obvious relevance. Second, your OP is about the "harm" in the Swedish regulation of sex work. All regulation (or lack thereof) involves balancing benefit with harm. It is intellectually sloppy or naive or disingenuous to focus on one particular category or aspect while ignoring the others.

The point is people pretend it doesn't cause this sort of harm.

 

[Rhea]

Whatever happened to a womyn's right to do whatever zhe wants with zir body?

They don't know what's good for them and need the matriarchs in the Riksdag (or else Toni) to tell them what they need to do with their bodies.

Yeah, a bit like atheist wimmin telling independent, smart, articulate women of faith that they are too stupid to know that their own free expression of faith in God is internalised misogyny and/or inability to think for themselves. #irony

What on earth does your link to an Australian nun who died 100 years ago have to do with atheist women telling them anything?


If you want to add a point - make a point. Don’t play a game of linking to obscure Wiki articles and expect people to leave the thread to go look at a different topic and still have to figure out why you think it’s relevant. That is a derail, and it looks an awful lot like a dodge of a topic you’re finding yourself uncomfortable with.

“Squirrel!!”

 

[laughing dog]

My post was about harms caused by the Swedish approach. This has nothing to do with trafficking, any evidence about trafficking has no relevance.

Utter nonsense. First, if there is trafficking in Sweden, there is obvious relevance. Second, your OP is about the "harm" in the Swedish regulation of sex work. All regulation (or lack thereof) involves balancing benefit with harm. It is intellectually sloppy or naive or disingenuous to focus on one particular category or aspect while ignoring the others.

The point is people pretend it doesn't cause this sort of harm.

I don’t believe that characterisation is true.

 

[Toni]

The point is people pretend it doesn't cause this sort of harm.

I don’t believe that characterisation is true.

Pretty sure Loren only read the first paragraph of the first story linked.


I would have thought that proponents of fully legalized prostitution would have found some good support in the articles I linked, and would have no problem with acknowledging some of the concerns.

I was wrong. It's almost as though they aren't really concerned about the safety and well being of sex workers.

 

[laughing dog]

The point is people pretend it doesn't cause this sort of harm.

I don’t believe that characterisation is true.

Pretty sure Loren only read the first paragraph of the first story linked.


I would have thought that proponents of fully legalized prostitution would have found some good support in the articles I linked, and would have no problem with acknowledging some of the concerns.

I was wrong. It's almost as though they aren't really concerned about the safety and well being of sex workers.

"Almost"?

 

[Toni]

My post was about harms caused by the Swedish approach. This has nothing to do with trafficking, any evidence about trafficking has no relevance.

Utter nonsense. First, if there is trafficking in Sweden, there is obvious relevance. Second, your OP is about the "harm" in the Swedish regulation of sex work. All regulation (or lack thereof) involves balancing benefit with harm. It is intellectually sloppy or naive or disingenuous to focus on one particular category or aspect while ignoring the others.

The point is people pretend it doesn't cause this sort of harm.

And you’re trying to get us to ignore that there is trafficking and that trafficking causes harm to those who are trafficked and frankly to those who are working legitimately.

Further you are ignoring that some believe the Swedish model actually increases trafficking which is competition for legitimate sex workers.

 

[Tigers!]

How about banning religion?

It has been tried. Not sure whether it was worth the effort.