When liberal values collide with protectionist instincts
Sweden built its modern image on sexual openness: public nudity is hardly taboo, sex education starts early and pornography remains fully legal.
Yet, since 1999, the country has outlawed the purchase, never the sale, of in-person sex. On 21 May 2025, Parliament extended that Nordic-model logic to online, custom-made sexual acts such as cam shows, bespoke clips and “DM-for-a-price” content on platforms like OnlyFans.
“This is a new form of sex purchase, and it’s high time we modernise the Sex-Purchase Act to include digital platforms.”
— Teresa Carvalho, Social Democrats
Why Sweden Criminalised Paying for Sex in the First Place
Three arguments have anchored Sweden’s approach from the outset.
- Human-trafficking deterrence tops the list: lawmakers believe that choking off demand starves organised traffickers of profit.
- Almost as prominent is the public-health shield; fewer physical encounters, they reason, mean fewer sexually transmitted infections spreading through the population.
- Finally, there is a conscious attempt to redress the gender-power imbalance. Purchasers are overwhelmingly men, sellers overwhelmingly women, so the law targets the buyer to flip the traditional power dynamic.
“Anyone who buys sexual acts performed remotely should be penalised the same way as those who buy acts involving physical contact.”
— Gunnar Strömmer, Justice Minister (Moderate Party)
Why Critics Believe the Policy Backfires
Opponents counter that the amendment merely pushes sex work deeper underground, depriving workers of both legal cover and health services. They note that it also excludes the disabled, elderly, and socially anxious — groups that sometimes rely on professional intimacy for a basic sense of connection. Perhaps most paradoxically, the new rule undercuts the very autonomy OnlyFans once promised: a performer who could “own the means of production” will now lose a lucrative and comparatively safe revenue stream.
“This law criminalises one of the few safer, lower-barrier forms of sex work: digital erotic labour… It will push workers into more precarious or hidden conditions.”
— Yigit Aydin, European Sex Workers Alliance
Are Digital Stripteases the Same as Street Prostitution?
Supporters of the ban argue that exploitation is exploitation, whether it happens in a hotel room or over a webcam. Sceptics respond that key risk factors diverge dramatically. The comparison below illustrates why many believe the online world calls for a lighter regulatory touch.
| Risk Factor | Street Sex Work | Solo Online Creator |
|---|---|---|
| Trafficking coercion | High — third-party control is common | Low for self-managed performers |
| STD transmission | Direct, unavoidable | Zero during virtual acts |
| Physical violence | Ever-present | Virtually nil |
| Buyer anonymity | Variable | Near-total (screen name, crypto) |
| Jurisdiction reach | Local police | Servers & payments often offshore |
“Digitalised prostitution erases the boundary between pornography and trafficking.”
— Sanna Backeskog, Social Democrats
Enforcement Headaches and Work-arounds Already in Motion
Even before the ink is dry, practical obstacles loom. Platforms can geo-block Swedish IPs, but a VPN mask reopens the door in seconds. Buyers may route payments through foreign processors beyond Swedish subpoena powers, while creators contemplate moving their business entities, or simply their bank accounts, offshore. Proving that a personalised show was ever purchased could require trawling through encrypted DMs, raising privacy alarms, and straining police resources.
The Politicians Behind the Amendment
| Politician | Party | Signature Sound-bite |
|---|---|---|
| Teresa Carvalho | Social Democrats | “Modernise the act for the digital age.” |
| Gunnar Strömmer | Moderate Party | “Remote buyers must be punished like physical buyers.” |
| Sanna Backeskog | Social Democrats | “Porn–trafficking boundaries blur online.” |
| Annika Strandhäll | Social Democrats | Calls for an outright OnlyFans ban to “protect children.” |
FanFindModel’s Position
Regulating consensual sexual services to keep them safe, transparent, and equitable makes sense; banning them outright does not. If the mere possibility of bad actors were enough to justify prohibition, we would have outlawed professional sports because of doping scandals, match-fixing, and fan violence. That would be a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. A better approach is to accept that demand exists, acknowledge that many adults are willing to meet it, and focus policy on safeguarding participants rather than erasing the marketplace.
Ironically, forcing creators to rely solely on prerecorded porn pushes them back into the arms of large production houses—the very middlemen platforms like OnlyFans allowed them to bypass. And what, in practical terms, distinguishes selling a finished clip from letting subscribers watch that clip being made live? When a legal distinction is so fine it needs a lawyer’s footnote, it usually isn’t worth the social cost of enforcement.
Annika Strandhäll’s hard-line stance feels out of touch, closing off a vital avenue of intimacy for people who may be disabled, homebound, or painfully shy—citizens whose loneliness can be as debilitating as any physical disease. “Think of the children,” she pleads. Annika, we are thinking of the isolated adults whose consensual online encounters harm no one and are nobody else’s business. Denying them safe access in the name of protection serves neither compassion nor common sense.
So… we are going to keep promoting our Swedish OnlyFans performers.
Likely Outcomes? A Brief Reality Check
Demand will not disappear; where there is Wi-Fi, there is a workaround. Platforms, fearful of fines, may over-comply and block Swedish users wholesale, echoing the American SESTA/FOSTA fallout. For many creators the revenue squeeze could force a retreat to traditional porn studios — the opposite of the independence policymakers say they want for women. Meanwhile, foreign cam models will continue to stream into Swedish living rooms from jurisdictions that view such work as perfectly legal.
Final Word
Sweden’s instinct to protect vulnerable women is laudable, yet the execution feels like nanny-state overreach. Treating a wheelchair-bound subscriber who tips for a private striptease the same as a client buying street sex collapses crucial distinctions. Only time — and the inevitable cat-and-mouse game with VPNs, payment apps, and offshore servers will show whether the amendment truly curbs exploitation or merely relabels it “software update required.”
The FanFindModels Editorial Team writes articles about OnlyFans-themed topics, including guides and current event commentary.