| Summary: | The prostitution debate in Sweden is generally divided into two dualistic counterparts; one side that sees prostitution as the worst form of oppression, and the other that wants to acknowledge it as a profession and normalize the perception of sex work. The purpose of this essay is to implement a comparative analysis between two organizations that appear to belong to these two counterparts, Intedinhora (Notyourwhore) and Fuckförbundet (Fuckunion). The method involves a comparative analysis, where the two organizations are set against each other to find similarities and differences. Intersectionality, queer theory and discourse theory are used in the analysis - theories that emphasize the importance of the social, cultural and historical contexts that forms individuals and groups structures. The theories help to explain how the organizations looks at prostitution. In a derivation from the theories I found three key concepts that I applied on the material: power, sexuality and victim. The analysis is divided into these key concepts where similarities and differences are described. It appears that the organizations share some similarities, mainly in the view of why some people sell sex and not others. They, lean towards an intersectional understanding of the interaction of power symmetry on people’s lives, where class, race and sexual identity affect what choices a person has. However, they seem to differ greatly in the view of the future of the prostitution industry. Intedinhora belongs to those who want prostitution to cease and acknowledge the Swedish sex law as something good, while Fuckförbundet wants to elevate it as a legitimate profession, annul the law in a way to transform the view on the sex worker as an active agent. To sum up, the debate can be understood as dualistic, although there are some similarities between the two sides, mostly in their emphasis on the importance to look at class, sexual identity and race to describe why some sell sex, and another buy it. Fuckförbundet, however, seems to be more ideological than theoretical in their argument than Intedinhora.
|
|---|
