The article paints a sad picture ...although your conclusion seems far fetched. Even marriage can be made into paid rape by the wordings of that article.

AFAIK ... decriminalization allows for

1. The sex worker to approach authorities without any fear of prosecution.

2. To set up freelance sex work without pimps and brothels.

There shouldn't be a debate about this. Criminalization makes things worse at the expense of moral tidiness.

Regulated sex work allows for

1. Brothels

2. Strip clubs

3. Massage parlors

4. Sex Therapists

If the regulators are corrupt or weak or there are no strong checks ... then the model will be as bad as an unregulated market and will actually be worse as it allows trafficked victims to work under quasi-legal protection. That's what the article implies.

From what I know the nordic model has a large number of social services that help sex-workers quit the profession if they wish to and helps sex-workers unionise.

Nothing you said is a rebuttal to my previous comment. Please argue with sources or it's just your opinion, and it's irrelevant as it doesn't answer the question of whether "legalizing" sex work decreases sex trafficking. It clearly does not according to my sources.

Both buying and selling sex should be legal. The decriminalization of nordic model still fines buyers and stigmatizes it.

My views are largely shaped by the sex worker in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DZfUzxZ2VU

Criminalizing doesn't even offer protection for the sex worker. I'd rather argue about that than having some debate on numbers.

Even if the sex work is legalized and regulated, you still have a much higher demand than supply, which is what creates the human trafficking problem.

> From what I know the nordic model has a large number of social services that help sex-workers quit the profession if they wish to.

Interesting. Do they have social services for those that wish to quit computer programming? Or quit hair dressing?

The fact that there needs to be a social service around this particular profession is indicative that this particular profession is probably harmful to the service provider and it probably also means that this isn’t a profession that a girl willingly accepts and perhaps there is value to not promoting this industry.

Maybe they should have for jobs that are physically dangerous/have a high incidence of workplace physical or mental harm. Like, say, working on a mine.

The argument goes like this:

Person A is in such a bad situation that A will accept a job that is terrible!

Prohibiting the job has a good chance of making A worse off (usually, A will accept the job if A thinks it is an improvement over the current situation)

However, we can let A accept the job, and then try to offer A even better alternatives!

Personally I see plenty of reasons why independent of industry value.

It is also a more physically oriented job that carries some risk of disease exposure, really shouldn't be worked sick, and some accounts mention an emotional toll and an emphasis on appearance. Individually all aspects aren't unique and some have more severe magnitudes.

Given the income is higher than many other available jobs it could be easy to become dependent upon it for income. A good ethical reason for support is that consent is an ongoing process.