For men, we do sometimes suggest joining the military for pay - which has some parallels (very different but in some ways alike) as you're (a) selling your body to be mutilated or killed; and (b) removing agency regarding moral taboos, in sex work the issues regarding sexual acts, in military the issues regarding killing potentially innocent people.

This.

The strange thing is that in both cases we are often talking about vulnerable people (less true for people who join the army with a view to do officer training).

The images we have in our head for what constitutes as a 'vulnerable man' and 'vulnerable woman' are very different despite the definitions being very similar. Likely to get into crime, harmful use of drugs, alcoholism these are all halmarks of vulnerable people but men have a societally acceptable way out, the army. For women (who make up the majority of sex workers) there is no such option.

Why can we not see sex work as a genuine service to society not just for the workers but also to alleviate the anger and frustration of those who have difficulty getting sex otherwise?

That is a very interesting idea. I paid for university via a hitch in a line unit, and while it's not for everybody, I would not appreciate anybody telling me I couldn't do it. In my case it paid off rather well.

But how much of that is because of societies stigma, vs your actual perception of the industry. I'm not saying your wrong, I kind of have that stigma too, but I can't say wether I actually believe it or I've been conditioned to.

People recognize there exists, to some extent, a moral obligation to do work. But if we accept prostitution as "just another job", aren't we implying that people come under some measure of moral obligation to accept that job if it's the only job available?

For instance, people may lose unemployment benefits if they turn down a "suitable" job. I cannot imagine anyone would want to extend this rule to prostitution.

I can imagine people who would, if only tacitly.

It's not news in the UK that one of the side effects of tuition fees has been a big increase in student-age women funding their courses by selling sex.

You can argue whether this was an intended or unintended consequence.

But for anyone buying, it's hard to argue that increasing supply and lowering prices isn't a happy result.

I don't accept that there is a moral obligation to do work (in the sense of a paid job). Work is a practical economic necessity for lots of people, and it may be instrumentally necessary to some other moral obligations, but it's not one in itself. And, insofar as work is an instrumental necessity to other moral obligations or a practical necessity for survival, the type of work one is able to do being outlawed doesn't make it any less of those things (though it may make one's life much worse.)

Can men loose unemployment benefits by refusing a military job? In an ideal world, you could object both prostitution and military jobs by saying you find them immoral ("conscientious objector").

Social mores are full of exceptions. Killing as murder vs. self-defense vs. getting an abortion, for example. I don't see any reason why prostitution couldn't be lumped in with other exceptions.

>I can imagine myself saying "So why don't you just take the job of a dishwasher until things get better?" But I can't really imagine myself saying "So why don't you just sell your body until things get better?"

"Love you long time, five dallah" and the ensuing event takes three minutes which works out to $100/hr while the dishwasher makes what, %7.50? $100/hr vs $7.50/hr, hmmmm. I have known nurses and teachers who worked their way through college in the sex trade. They were incredible people who likely had no student debt.