Swedish-style Legislation-Lies and half truths
The negative implications of Swedish-style Legislation (for those whom said Legislation supposedly serves to protect [namely Sex Workers]) are familiar and well documented.
Let's take a look at some of the lies and half-truths that organizations such as TORL (and Politicians working on their behalf) use to push (and in some cases, "justify") the severe negative effects of Swedish-style Legislation.
What advocates of Swedish-style Legislation say
The reality
Since the introduction of Swedish-style Legislation, abuse of Sex Workers (“by their clients”) has dramatically increased.
Indeed, “by their clients” (because pimps will leave as a result of Swedish-style Legislation). In jurisdictions where Swedish-style Legislation is enacted and enforced, pimps and traffickers have control which is extremely difficult to get in jurisdictions where the Sex Industry is legalized/regulated. Organizations such as TORL (and Politicians who support them) will claim that due to the fact Sex Workers are “decriminalized”, they are now able to bring into the open the abuse which is being inflicted upon them. It will also be claimed that, now that Swedish-style Legislation is enacted and implemented (and thus, “decriminalizing” and “liberating” Sex Workers whom had previously been “exploited”), the levels of abuse now coming to light “highlight the abuse Sex Workers suffered on a daily basis at the hands of their clients” (thus justifying Swedish-style Legislation). A generally decent (yet unfortunately gullible) general public would accept this “explanation” without any questioning it.
Since the introduction of Swedish-style Legislation, a survey of men asking whether they had purchased sexual services since the introduction of Swedish-style Legislation revealed that up to 90% fewer men had purchased sex since the introduction of Swedish-style Legislation.
In jurisdictions where Swedish-style Legislation is enacted and enforced, men who currently “purchase sex” would not admit that they purchase sex if they had never been caught (for fear that the above mentioned “survey” may be no more than a Police “sting” operation), and thus incriminate themselves. It could also be that any “survey” information released in this regard is completely fabricated to justify an agenda.
(It is also worth noting that men also pay other men for sex, and women also pay men [and even other women] for sex. Why is this never mentioned by advocates of Swedish-style Legislation?)
Since the introduction of Swedish-style Legislation we have seen a significant drop in instances of clients reporting suspected cases of abuse of Sex Workers
This is a two-pronged beauty for the likes of TORL; the first “explanation” which TORL (or similar organization) could put forth in this regard is that Swedish-style Legislation has “proven itself most effective”, and deterred a significant number of clients from seeking sexual services for payment.
A second "explanation" could be “the decline in instances of clients reporting suspicions of Sex Worker highlights that ‘clients are vile excuses for human beings that would never report any suspicions of abuse of a Sex Worker’ “.
The reality of the situation would be that due to the incriminating nature of Swedish-style Legislation, clients are reluctant to come forward to Police where they have suspicions of abuse of Sex Workers. Pimps (in Sweden, no less) are well aware of this, and use it to their advantage.
Reply With Quote
