Banning the sex industry

Naked ambition

Iceland is determined to outlaw the world’s oldest business. Can it succeed?

See article

Readers' comments



So if "we can't prove the opposite" we should feel free to legislate? Well, no one has proved that various gods and goblins don't exist, so should we legislate to enforce belief in them all? Or just do a "deities du jour?" As I can't prove there aren't a million invisible chickens dancing on my laptop, should I legislate for the compulsory placement of grain near computer keyboards?

The arguments regarding pornography are complex and ill-served by facile special pleading from single-interest groups. Additionally the definition of pornography must first be determined - not an easy task. It is certainly not sufficient to say "I'll know it when I am prevented from seeing it."

I found this to be the most absurd aspect of this whole endeavor and one of the dumber things I have heard of a public official stating in some time. The statists have no gotten to the point where they feel legislation is necessary if they can't prove a negative.

I'm all for vigorously investigating sex slavery and the like. But it is ridiculous to assume that every single stripper, porno actress or hooker has chosen her line of work involuntarily.


Because if there's one way to prevent sexual abuse, it's definitely done by driving it underground.

Damn Dirty Ape

He he, she said penal code.
This is a freedom issue, too bad the women running Iceland don't care about it.
For a natural experiment it should be easy to look at sexual abuse and rape rates before and after the rise of internet porn.
I suspect that there is absolutely zero effect.
Ditto violent video games.

Norman Canteloupe

Before PornHub and YouPorn I was a normal bloke doing normal things. Now I'm a normal bloke doing normal things who also watches porn on his iPad.

Finding porn monstrous and believing that porn creates monstors are not the same thing. Unfortunately there are vocal people who lack the necessary dispassionate intellect to see the difference.


"The law will only make a difference, says Eva, when men realise that their names will be made public"

And there you have it, folks.

It's not about protecting women from violence or drugs or whatever. It's about reinforcing the Nordic stereotype that men - and only men - are the cause of all the world's problems.

Women are always victims - even when they kill men, women are still victims. It's the standard line in all Nordic countries.

Eusebius Pamphili

It could easily be said that scantily clad women are the number one thing driving men to seek out pornography. Take away the pornography and you better institute a dress code otherwise you're going to have a lot of distracted agitated men walking around.

EdBellamy in reply to Eusebius Pamphili

Exactly, if God wanted men to see women he wouldn't t have invented the Hijab,

Liberate women! put a mantle on top of them, that way we can focus on the task at hand, yelling excitedly in the square and burning the flag of the Great Satan

Eusebius Pamphili in reply to EdBellamy

There is something that exists between a piece of string and a Hijab. So you're opinion must be that it's okay to go into someone's home and tell them to take there hand away from there penis, it's okay to tell people you can't drink 17oz of soda but to tell a women that I shouldn't be able to see the lips of her vagina hanging out of her shorts would be stepping over the line and sexiest.

You're comment and perspective is completely detached from reality and common sense.

jouris - old account in reply to John-ZA

One interesting little fact for you. In Saudi Arabia, there are three separate standards for female dress:
- A Saudi woman must be completely covered, except for the eyes, when out in public.
- However, a non-Saudi Muslim woman may have her face bare, so long as her hair is completely covered.
- And a non-Muslim woman may have her entire head, including her hair, uncovered (so long as she is completely covered from the neck down).
Apparently the Wahabi religious authorities are less concerned that Saudi men might have impure thoughts about women from elsewhere. ;-)


Oh right, this is the whole "pornography insults women" thing, otherwise known as "your rights end where my feelings begin".

No wonder Iceland has so many problems, their governments are busy debating new unenforceable laws to make radical feminists sleep better at night instead of tackling real problems.


I bet this is going to be the most commented article in this issue like always when there is the word 'sex' in the title. No wonder that everytime there is an article about sex, TE editors highlight it on the cover. It obviously sells.

guest-ilsiooa in reply to guest-ilsiooa

That TE is employing cheap marketing tricks to increase its sales is blindingly obvious. A couple of weeks ago there was an obscure book review about sex in the islamic world which few people would even notice and yet it was on the cover among other leaders under the heading 'Sex and Islam' (or something similar). Examples of that practice abound. I am not saying that such articles should not be published in TE, but brandish them on your cover persistently is what you would expect from a low-class magazine not a respected publication which passes for serious journalism.


I am a little bit surprised that the Economist chooses not to differentiate between porn and violent porn. The whole article seems written to obfuscate rather than to clarify. I am no prude, but I welcome the elimination of violent porn from the internet. It should definitely be kept out of the reach of children. If porn is defined as sexual content without socially redeeming value, violent porn is the active destruction of social values. Why insist on it?

Insinuating that it is impossible to prove the connection between violent porn and real life cases is also obscene. If one looks at real life examples that have recently cropped up in various countries. They are copies of published works from the sex industry, carried out in real life, but without the protective measures use by professionals in the studio. The results are truly gruesome with destroyed lives of the victims. I cannot bring myself to go into details, but such acts of perverse violence did not arise in the minds of youngsters of previous generations. They come from movies, not from the limited life experience of these young people.

And it is not just rape, violent porn has become sex education for many young people with disastrous results, as they approach their partners with completely unrealistic ideas. It is a social disease which the Economist seems to be supporting. Why?

Andrew W. Norfolk

what is the feminist position on (male) gay porn?

Melissia in reply to Andrew W. Norfolk

That depends on which feminist you ask.

Personally I don't have a problem with it, but then again, I also don't have a problem with pornography-- provided it's properly regulated to make sure the actresses aren't abused by their employers.


"Whatever the definition, a ban would be legally dubious, technically unfeasible and ineffective, argues Smari McCarthy, executive director of the International Modern Media Institute, a lobby group. "

I have to concur. Whatever one's reasons for doing it, it seems pointless and stupid.

I should also note that this government's actions doesn't represent all feminists despite what some of the more ignorant and trollish commenters would suggest-- indeed, many adult movie actresses are feminists who find their jobs sexually liberating, compared to the highly repressive environments that they grew up in. The problems with pornography aren't at the consumption level (where even the proponents of this ban admit that they have no actual proof, just feelings) but rather at the administrative level, where the executives of the companies attempt to cheat or abuse their employees-- with actual eye-witness testimonies from said employees.

If anything is to be done about pornography, banning it entirely is the wrong way to go about it. A properly regulated pornography industry is perfectly healthy and fine, and doesn't repress anyone.

guest-ilsiooa in reply to Melissia

You're wrong. Pornography is viscious. It promotes ugly and disgusting exploitation of women who are treated like objects, that is to say consumed. There are absolutely no restrictions on pornography and it pours out of teenagers' computer screens, haunting them till the rest of their lives and leading to addiction like drugs. I am a fierce defender of free speech but I think that pornography should be banned. It is not speech at all, no articulate message whatsoever is conveyed by the graphic display of sexual spectacle, except that women can satisfy appetite like a glass of water does with your thirst. Kudos to the icelanders who want to outlaw this poison with all the nefarious consequences which it brings for society.

EdBellamy in reply to Melissia

Self Righteousness, fanaticism, religious radicalism are strains of kantian fear of a godless reality "...objects must conform to our cognition".

Only the intolerant are intolerable, especially in a position of power.

No legislation should infringe on free will and go beyond ensuring the physical integrity of consenting adult.

Maybe the concept of consenting adult though should raise the minimum age to 20 or 22, as bellow that girls, and boys, may be too immature to understand what are they getting themselves into or are too susceptible to coercion.


I know it's a tiny country but doesn't Iceland have anything better to do than chase after adults who choose to watch porn or adults who engage in prostitution?


Despite the chaff about rape, any fool can see that dredging up 19th century mores targeted at heterosexual males and criminalizing sex between consenting adults is all about establishing sexual power for economic gain and nothing more.

Lars Anderson

Feminism is destroying common sense and individual rights in Scandinavia. Seriously fucked up.

LBakker in reply to Lars Anderson

Of course, I can understand why men wouldn't enjoy women seeing themselves as equal human beings rather than consumable sex objects with expiry dates. They also gave it a name! Feminism! To normal people, it's called Respect.

BakkerL in reply to Lars Anderson


LBakker in reply to FeTle

If you are talking about sex positions, that wasn't why I commented. My comment, if it was not clear enough, was aimed at the accusation that feminism is destroying 'common sense' and 'individual rights'.

here is a clear definition of feminism:

and here is a clear definition of anti-feminism:

Anyone who can read and has an average IQ level can tell that Feminism is about giving women equal rights INCLUDING rights to engage in sex activities without being judged or branded (i.e slut, whore…etc).. while anti-feminists (both men and women) call for 'traditional values' to remain untouched (men powerful and have the freedom to engage in any sex activity without being judged, women less so)…

I bet most men who applaud women to work in the porn industry regardless of how violent/humiliating the content is will think thrice before dating, let alone marrying, a porn star or a prostitute.

Makes you wonder who really is destroying common sense and individual rights…

John Hunyadi in reply to LBakker

"I bet most men who applaud women to work in the porn industry regardless of how violent/humiliating the content is will think thrice before dating, let alone marrying, a porn star or a prostitute." This is a fallacious argument. A man may applaud women working in the police or army but not want to date one. A man may applaud the right of women to be overweight or underweight but not want date such a woman. Dating preferences are completely irrelevant to this discussion.

LBakker in reply to John Hunyadi

I see where you're coming from and I agree, but this is where the notion of treating sex workers as 'victims' comes from.

It goes without saying that women who work in the army or the police force have better chances in finding a partner (their respect too) and settle down. I've never heard anyone call a policewoman a whore/c**t/p***y because of her profession. I've also never heard of man who felt ashamed and embarrassed to introduce his partner to his family and friends because she is a policewoman or works in the army.. I am afraid social acceptance (including dating chances) plays a vital role in determining social and public values. Therefore, victimising those who have little chance in having a 'normal' life within the named society. Iceland believes that it's protecting the vulnerable (maybe true, maybe not..) by banning the industry.

LBakker in reply to A. T. Worth

I think this is for the Icelanders to say. what's logical to them does NOT have to be logical to you, what is immoral to them does NOT have to be immoral to you and vice versa.. as far as I am concerned, It is not an autocratic state. people have a say and if the majority say ban it, then tough for those who don't get why they decided to do so.. the sooner we accept our differences as nations and put things in their true contexts, the easier life will be..


There are two ancient professions they are very similar none of them require training both start with the letter "P" one is politicians the other is prostitute


In an ultra-liberal country such as the ICELAND where 65% of babies are born outside wedlock,there should be little need for prostitutes. But to succeed in banning prostitution, how is one going to ascertain who is a prostitute and who is not?





Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

