Probably a few reasons, it often involves very vulnerable people, people who were coerced, people who were tricked (we have student jobs for you, hand over your passport though), etc. People are similarly uncomfortable with migrant manual laborers in the ME who are also coerced and tricked, though many do it knowingly because the alternative is worse. Initially trafficked sex workers tend younger than initially indentured migrant manual laborers, so they can be taken advantage of easier.

I'd like to hear viewpoints that represent sex workers as having agency, rather than pets or wards to be told what they need.

Why don't we listen to sex workers themselves, when they tell us what policy changes they want? If sex workers say sex work should be criminalized, that would hold some weight for me. If they're exploited, I'd like to hear what they think would actually help them.

It's one of those situations where it's inconvenient to listen to the people affected, because they tend to say things politicians don't want to hear.

E.g. when Norway criminalized buying sex, the prostitutes own organizations were against it and argued it'd push a lot of the sex trade underground and make the women less safe. They were totally ignored, and they continue to be ignored when they repeatedly warn that they're unable to report violence and crimes safely, in part because it makes police aware that they're prostitutes, and by extension that there will be people visiting them that are likely to break the law, and that their landlords are potentially breaking the law (if they're aware of the prostitution; which they will be soon enough if the police takes an interest).

If they were listening and disagreeing, that would be one thing, but there's a staggering amount of moralising from politicians that do not even try to talk to the people they claim they want to protect. And that makes me think that their motives are more to do with getting activities they don't like out of sight than about helping the people involved to get out of it.

How much worse is it than people who are trafficked in to work as housekeepers, lawn service, construction, etc...? The primary problem is the dubious legal situation the prostitutes find themselves in which enables even worse exploitation.

Do you think being raped is worse than being mugged? If so, then there's your answer to why people care more about human trafficking for sex than for manual labor.

> Initially trafficked sex workers tend younger than initially indentured migrant manual laborers, so they can be taken advantage of easier.

But this isn't the same thing. You're talking about human trafficking, not sex work as a whole.

If Nike trafficked a bunch of kids to set up a sweat shop in North America, we'd be upset not because shoes were being made on our continent, but because of the trafficking and exploitation of underage workers.

Analogously, if some scumbag trafficked a bunch of women to work as prostitutes, we should be upset because of the trafficking and the coercion and strong-arming you describe, not because of the sex they engaged in.

So voluntary sex work should be perfectly fine, but it's not, and most discussions surrounding sex work seem to classify it as inherently exploitative, which simply boggles my mind.

Yes two things trafficked people and people who can give consent knowingly and willingly consenting to entering this sector legally (as is possible be in NL). There is grey area where people under economic duress are taken advantage of and will ‘consent’ even if it’s unpalatable to them, if they had alternatives.

> There is grey area where people under economic duress are taken advantage of and will ‘consent’ even if it’s unpalatable to them, if they had alternatives.

I don't see how this is any different than taking any other menial, low paying job because you have to make ends meet. No one really wants to clean public toilets or work at Wendy's.

Because it is intimate, and so it is far harder to ignore, and at the same time it also has a long history, ironically, of being one of the few avenues of financial independence that has always been open to women in particular even when they've been shut out of other options, and as such it has a long history of being a challenge to social control and order.

I have a different theory. I think women dont want sex workers around because its competition.

I wonder if I would have ever got married had there been a regular prostitution place to go to.

It's a line that is crossed, using your body for money has never ever been seen as something normal. Even accepting the reality of life complexities, broken marriages, loneliness, etc sex as a products is never praised.

The only argument so far is "I should be free to use my body as I will". But probably only a minuscule amount of sex "workers" have the material and emotional comfort to choose that.

So basically when other industries are often exploitative, it's probably a few orders better than prostitution, leverage a bit less immature or broke people.

Using your body for money isn’t normal? Using your body for money is the dominant form of labor. Manual work, factory work, mining, domestic labor, even most service jobs (you cook, you clean, you carry dishes). Undoubtedly sex work makes some people uncomfortable but it’s not because it involves the body.

Fair point but beside terminology (my bad) there's some abuse about the actual use. Your hands are made to lift and operate. If I'd make a parallel with prostitution it would be to be paid to chew rocks.

Just a guess: because sex has a long history of generating babies as a byproduct.

Because sex outside of marriage undermines marriage, which is a fundamental societal institution, and the broad availability of sex for pay means it's easier for sex outside of marriage to happen.

If you read about the amounts of orphans in cities even 1 century ago, I'm guessing the babies aspect does have something to do with it.