Supporters of decriminalization say the current law is so vague that a person could technically spend years in prison either for sending or receiving a naked photo.

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4808492

Also must read:

Sex lives in focus for Ukraine's injured veterans - BBC

"There's sex in the hospital, sex at home, sex before procedures, sex after. There's a lot of good sex going on"

-- Ivona Kostyna is one of the founders of Veteran Hub, the group which runs the ReSex project

  • Maoo [none/use name]16•10 months ago

    A conspicuously laid-out piece that quotes social media with no stated methodology.

    Punishing individuals that have to act in pornography is unacceptable, but the industry itself promotes or directly involves human trafficking and preys upon a system that cannot provide enough for its people. Sex positivity is great, but this has a serious economic component.

    I think a very important question is why were no non-reactionary "against" voices heard. Why only the cons? Why not a selective ban? Who really wants you to support this policy.

    • Dolores [love/loves]14•10 months ago

      talking about the country that won 'most corrupt in europe' (and you know how stiff that competition is) for a decade and you're skeptical about taking away an excuse for their cops to harass people?

      when the acts of pornography or prostitution etc. are forced underground by their illegality, it makes human trafficking easier because the victims will also be liable to be arrested, and therefore don't report. decriminalization opens up the doors somewhat so scrutiny can fall on the most specifically harmful & less common sexcrimes, while ignoring people just trying to put bread on the table

      • Maoo [none/use name]9•10 months ago

        The most corrupt country in the world is the one that would be making this change during martial law and this paper, like most in Ukraine now, cover stories from a perspective favorable to the government (take that article with a grain salt of course). My point is that the article itself has a smell to it and that there are deeper components to this unaddressed in it. I also was very clear that I don't believe in criminalizing the people on-camera in porn so I'm not sure why you're saying the things you are.

        You can see that the article frames it as an efficiency problem, which is a commom tactic for a capitalist government to do something it wants for an entirely different reason. I would suspect they want less oversight of human trafficking. The vast majority of sex work is part of human trafficking.

        • Dolores [love/loves]4•10 months ago

          I also was very clear that I don't believe in criminalizing the people on-camera in porn so I'm not sure why you're saying the things you are

          you just believe in continuing criminalization of any way for that performance to make them money? that's why people do it, when only the johns are 'illegal' sexwork still has to be clandestine and outside public scrutiny & protections

          I would suspect they want less oversight of human trafficking

          what oversight do they have now and how is it improved by dragging people to court for visiting pornhub? seriously we're talking about the trafficking capital of the world (maybe in competition with libya) and you're worried that being less litigious toward the most widely accepted & least dangerous form of sexwork is going to hamstring the very effective ukrainian police's efforts against trafficking, if such a thing even exists at all

          • Maoo [none/use name]2•10 months ago

            you just believe in continuing criminalization of any way for that performance to make them money?

            ?

            Please disengage