<doc.id=3020.b2>
<title> Sundman should focus on his legal points </title>
In July 1 1999 the Swedish law against the buying of sexual services became legal. This means that a person who buys sex from a prostitute can be prosecuted and convicted as a criminal but prostitution, the selling of sex for money, is still not a crime. It is this law Sven Sundman calls illogical, unlawful and even perverse in his correspondent in Svenska Dagbladet. I can agree with Sundman in a way. When prostitution is discussed in connection with the previously mentioned law there is no doubt that the selling of the service is as criminal as the buying of it. It is pure logic. This is Sundman's main point and I don't argue against that. What I want to discuss is some of his arguments and also some of his choices of words."In the Middle Ages there were no demand for cars, TV, computers or Internet," says Sundman meaning that if prostitution would be prohibited and declared illegal the demand for sexual services would decrease considerably since the supply of these services would be reduced. That the supply affects the demand is a well- known fact but prostitution is not a convenient technical invention like the car or the TV. The sexual need is not a demand created by businessmen and smart advertising or a need developed through the human's constant strives to make life easier. Prostitution is about people and as long as there are people there will be a need for these kinds of services no matter what the legislation says. Prostitution is said to be "the oldest profession in the world" and to be talking about "supply" and "demand" in this issue is quite vain. 
	To generalize like Sundman does when he dismisses the people who buy sex as "perverts" is a strange and ignorant move from someone as highly educated as the Bachelor of Laws Sven Sundman. He has got some quite strong arguments to prove his points then why does he have to spice his correspondent with his own prejudiced opinions? These "perverts" can be all kinds of people. Lonely people with contact-disabilities, people in need of sex plain and simple or of course they can have all kinds of perversions. Not all of them are husbands and fathers shattering families. It may seem as if I am defending these people but I argue that this is a serious matter that has to be looked upon with objectivity. These people are individuals with individual reasons for their actions and not a generic group of people to dismiss as "perverts". I claim that this statement affects Sundman's credibility. Not that he doesn't know what he is talking about, I am sure he knows all there is to know about legal matters and legislation. To challenge his knowledge in these matters would be rather stupid of me who knows practically nothing about it. But to generalize in this way when a serious matter like prostitution is discussed is unfair. Things are never only black or white, most of the time they are different shades of grey. 
	One problem in this issue is women/men who are being forced into prostitution in some way. Sundman claims that if prostitution was declared illegal that problem could be solved in the legislation. If the enforcement could be proved he/she would have "no criminal intention to the crime". This would make the legislation "lawful and trustworthy". It sounds good and fair. I agree with this and I can follow his thought but a few questions pops up in my mind. How can enforcement be proved? What if it can't be proved? He has noted this himself and uses as example politicians who goes to a prostitute and then claims not to have known that they did. He says that those cases "hopefully" can be handled despite the legislation. But he doesn't say how.
	Sven Sundman is right when he says that either both/all of the constituents in the transaction should be considered as criminals or none of them. There should be no difference between buying and selling. But Sundman seems to think that everything can be solved through legislation. A problem in a society will not disappear just because there is a law against it. It must be dealt with on all levels. The way he reveals his opinions about people who buy sex from a prostitute is not necessary in this context. He is writing about a legal matter and if he wanted to draw attention to his points or add some colour to his writing he should have chosen another way to do that. This had the opposite effect. His arguments are quite strong but he could have conveyed them differently.

 In Svenska Dagbladet on Wednesday the 21 of February Sven Sundman, Bachelor of Laws, writes about the Swedish law against the buying of sexual services. He asserts that this law is a failure. Sundman argues that there is no logic in this law. If buying sex is a crime then prostitution should be considered as complicity in the crime. Either both should be punished or none of them. Sundman argues for criminalization of prostitution and claims that the demand for prostitution would decrease, that it is the only way to protect the women and men involved in prostitution and that if the legislation would be changed so that if enforcement could be proved there would be no charges.
</doc>