I lack an objective approach in this article.  It gives a verry deterred view of the actual situation.  Some arguments I find even frightening.

First of all does the writer have  a very litmited view of prostitution. Because what is prostitution ?  Prostitution is having sex with other purposes than having fun (which doesn't exclude that You might also have fun at the same time).  A woman or man fucking her/his boss to make promotion.  A woman/man fucking somebody to get married to a rich and or famous partner/family...  A woman/man fucking her/his partner, so there won't be any bad atmosphere in the family...  A woman/man having sex to get money right away...
Only the latter, visual form of prostituion is tackled by Swedish law.

The only real argument against the visual form of prostitution I find in the text is, that there can never be an equal contract ! And the reason why is : because we are living in a male dominated society ? I m' sorry, but I cannot grasp the logic behind it ?  Why can there not be an equal contract ??? What does it have to do whith a "male dominated society"???

Very strange also that one is all the time talking about female prostitution. But what about male prostitution ?? The female's right to buy a man 's body ?  A form of female dominance ???

The formulation also proves that the person writing about the subject doesn't understand prostitution at all or is biassed.  It is not because a "trick" is prepared to pay a certain price, that he/she buys the prostitute or his/her body.  The prostitute is always free to refuse a client, or to determine which services he/she is willing to give.  (Which is by the way all the time happening in practice, and  part of the frustration of the very badly reputated Maroccan tricks in the Antwerp red light district).It's not the client who is going to determine what he/she is going to do with the prostitute.

By the way, the whole sentence is put in a wrong way.  Man/women don't have the right to "buy" prostitutes, but man/women have the right to sell their sexual services.  That's all what is prostitution about.  The right to do with Your sexuality, what You want to do.  

By putting the whole question like "the right to buy a body", You are actually referring to slave trade, and like this from in the beginning, You are trying to push the discussion in a certain direction.  Shame on You...

All the other arguments are nonsense, or meant to blackmale the whole prostitute-sector.

"It was never the intention of pimps and tricks to liberate women socially, economically, sexually, or politically."
Here You are linking prostitution automatically to pimps, which is pure demagogic talk .

"Their intention is to use women's and children's bodies for sex and money."  and  "Trafficking in women and children is connected to the existence of legal, semi-legal and illegal sex markets"
Here You are linking prostitution automatically to pedofile activities, again You loose all intellectual objectivity.

"Pimps want to get paid and tricks want to get their dicks wet." Again linking prostitution automatically to pimping : very demagogic...it's like nazi's automatically linking jews to criminal activities.

"And it will always be possible to find women who claim that they enjoy prostituting themselves, that they like the sex, the men and the money..."
Like it will allways be possible to find women who didn't like the job...  Again any kind of objective analyses is missing here.  Actually it is very good You made this statement.  Because rarely one will find an objective report about prostitution, because or the reporter is against prostitution, and then he/she will choose a victim or somebody with bad experiences, or he is in favour, and then he will choose somebody who was happy about it.  Actually people step into prostitution out of different reasons : because they were forced by financial problems, or because they just want to make big money, or because they like the sex and they want to join the usefull with the fun, sometimes because they are forced by criminals.

Your "information" that "more than half of the prostitute have severe social and mental problems", is an attempt to declare prostitutes, or at least half of them, for mentally sick.  I think that when You make studies about policeman/women, You might get similar results. It is also not an argument to forbid prostitution.  Apart from that it makes me think of stalinist methods to declare enemies for crazy...  Not to forget that part of the prostitutes are drugaddicts, who are forced by Swedish society into criminal activities or  selling sexual services to finance their sick-making drugs.  When You take this people out of Your statistic sample, I think the result will be that the Swedish prostitute is the average woman.

"The contemporary prostitution/commercial sex scene is to a large extent a post-1960s phenomenon"  You don't even know anything about prostitute's history...And also this time You are linking  prostitution to the commercial sex scene, again a demagogic linkage...

"However, while all of us are deeply touched and horrified by the sexual torments of trafficked women and girls, surprisingly few seem to be ready to make the evident connections between trafficking, the existence of growing European sex markets and its customers. "              However, surpisingly few seem to be ready to make the evident connections between the neo-liberal economic policies imposed by IMF, Worldbank onto third-world and eastern-european countries, which lead to a growth of poverty never seen before, and to an explosion of female prostitution, of which we in the west can hardly guess the extend.  I would say : get out of Your hypocrit intellectual well protected left-wing feminist ivory tower, and come to the real world.  Go to the slums of Lagos, Rio de Janeiro, or Bombay, and tell Your nice story over there...

The prostitution sector should be organised in a way that man and women are free to enter, without force, and free to leave.  The best way to counter criminal activity, is to make prostitution as public as possible.  No need to make it an official job, in order to give people who enter the sector out of financial reasons, to leave it as fast as possible.  Forbidding prostitution can happen in two ways: by criminalising the prostitutes or by criminalising the clients ("the Swedish unique approach" !).  Neither of them is disirable, because it forces prostitutes in the illegality, where exploitation is worst.   The problem of trafficking of third-world or eastern-european females, can best be countered by changing IMF and Worldbank economic policies.  Out of humanitarian reasons, the few women out of these countries who are able to reach the west, should never be send back against their will, because the faith awaiting them over-there is 10 times worse (e.g. their life-expectancy will be reduced by 30 to 40 yers !).  The best way to fight the growth of prostitution is to reduce income-inequalities. The best way to fight prostitution from drug-addicts is to change the way society is dealing with the drugs-problem. 

The encreased propaganda in Europe  against prostitution has the same origins like the encreased fight against third-world refugees : it 's the consequences of a failing economic policy that one wants to get out of the street-sight, in order to be able to continue with the neo-liberal future that the white-collar elite (socialist, green, conservative, or liberal, there is no difference) designed for the world, to enrich themselves.