The opposite is potentially true, because if it's decriminalized, it will also be regulated. Which means that everyone involved could be required to have their IDs on file, and could also require medical exams where doctors could ask whether they are there against their will.

When it's underground, it's less visible, and therefore easier for human trafficking to go undetected. [1] Human trafficking is clearly not a victimless crime, and all attempts should be made to stop it, but keeping prostitution illegal doesn't help, and probably instead hurts, that cause.

>Women are forced into prostitution, either by being literally enslaved, or by economics.

"Forced" means they had no other options. You'd rather they or their families starved, then?

Work on fixing the underlying economic realities that are "forcing" people into a profession against their will. Don't try to outlaw something that will continue exist no matter what laws are passed.

It's as futile as the War on Drugs.

[1] It's also worth noting that human trafficking doesn't always involve sex work. There was a case in Boulder, Colorado a few years back where people were lured to the US under false pretenses and they were forced to work in a chain of Thai restaurants without pay.

Based on what evidence are you claiming this?

Women are forced into prostitution, either by being literally enslaved, or by economics.

Sure. But they are enslaved whether prostitution is illegal or not. To claim that the criminalization solves that problem would be laughable; all it does it sweep it under the rug, by forcing prostitutes to hide and avoid help, with fear of being imprisoned.

Here in Portugal we decriminalized all drug use. And you know what? It seems that when people can ask for help without fearing they'll end up behind bars, they actually do it more!

If we want to end prostitution, we must attack the root of the problem, which you so well pointed out: the literal enslavement of women, and the economic situations that lead them to it. Criminalizing it solves nothing, it's just one more case of a policy that makes people feel good about themselves while they screw those they wanted to help.

If you're against prostitution I think the worse thing you can do is want it outlawed.

It's a little absurd how when it comes to things like taxis or hotels or the Internet infrastructure regulation is a horrible thing that does nothing but cause pain, but when men want to rape women (because that is what it is, to have sex with someone who is forced into it, that is rape, that is what prostitution is), all of a sudden regulation becomes a silver bullet.

I'm for harm reduction, but I'm also against normalizing rape, and teaching generations of men that rape is an okay, totally acceptable, shiny and regulated commodity. That's not acceptable for any sane, moral human.

I'm sure there are hardcore libertarians who think that all you need to do is legalise it and market forces will take care of everything else. The situation is so messed up currently that that would almost certainly be an improvement. But I'd be happy to see the same level of regulation we see for selling cigarettes, nightclubs, places that serve food, dangerous factories etc. because I'm pro sane levels of regulation for many things.

Also, as covered elsewhere in the thread if you think doing something in exchange for money is "force" then you've written off most of modern society.

That is just ridiculous. The fact that prostitution is illegal is the reason there is a trade in human sex slaves. Legalizing prostitution doesn't result in human sex-worker trafficking any more than legalizing professional sports results in athlete trafficking.

According to http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/thailand:

"Trafficking victims in Thailand are found employed in maritime fishing, seafood processing, low-end garment production, and domestic work."

By your logic Thailand should ban maritime fishing, seafood processing and domestic works.

[1] http://www.thailawforum.com/sex-crimes-in-thailand-part2.htm...

So I have kind of a big problem with your idea that prostitution is per se some big moral problem here.

The fact that the comment above may make people uncomfortable is perhaps the best reason to prevent it from being buried.

(For the record, and in case it makes a difference in interpretation: I am married.)

I mean, you could have asked had I read Dworkin rather than framing your remark like you are sure I haven't, which is kind of an insulting, dismissive thing to do. And, upon googling, gee, if you mean THIS Dworkin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin, then: no thanks. I happen to like men and sex, I worked hellaciously hard to get there and I am not interested in drinking deeply of her rage. Her apparent thesis -- that porn is linked to rape and violence against women -- flies in the face of statistics that internet porn apparently reduces incidence of rape and, from a quick skim of the Wikipedia page, I get the impression she was pretty angry and dissatisfied with life. I generally try to get my advice from bon vivants, not embittered cynics.

False.

The actual reality is that, when adjusted for skill and seniority, women make just as much as men.

This is one of the most malicious feminist lies out there, eclipsed only by the 1 in 3/4/5 rape lie.

Where in the world did you get this idea? Farming postdates the human species. Prostitution predates it by a long, long way.

"as prostitution exists we'll never have a free society." The whole idea of a free society is total bullshit anyway. While I totally agree with you that human trafficking is despicable, it doesn't change the equation, if the end product is legally sold (or rented by the hour more accurately) or illegally doesn't change the demand or the supply.

We will never have a free society because it's an impossibility, humans are not evolved enough, nor are we devoid of vices like greed. A free society of automatons maybe, but not humans.

And as for your comment about farming, that's also wrong. Farming is a relatively recent profession, no older than 10k years. You think women didn't exchange protein for sex before that? If you do then you're dead wrong.

Exactly how would it affect the fight against any of those? Why would trafficking in sex workers be more exposed to trafficking than any other kind of slavery, except because it is illegal in most places? If legal, why would trafficking be able to compete with legal alternatives?

As for the idea of selling bodies, why are you equalizing the women with their bodies and thereby making them into objects instead of seeing them as people that perform services? I thought the whole point of feminism was to see and treat women as agents with the same self determination as men have - so why are you reducing sex workers to simply their body and gender?

And yes, some women are forced into prostitution. But some are not - some choose it because they like it and some choose it because it is a lot better than any of their available alternatives. Why do you think that it is ok to deemancipate those women?

But some women want to engage in that profession and can't due to (mostly male) lawmakers preventing them. So it really swings both ways.

And further, prostitution isn't just women. It's mostly women, but not only women.

I can sell you my labor, the product of my labor, or actions I can take upon your body (massage, for example). Why is sex different?

I'm not talking operations-wise, I'm saying that excluding the slavery and pimping, what exactly is inherently wrong with the act itself? What separates sexual activity from other activity as something that 'is the foundation of the patriarchy?'

Why? There's no need to traffic humans for prostitution if prostitution is legal.

> The idea that women's bodies can be commodified and sold to men is the foundation of patriarchy

What about the idea that men can pass laws forbidding women to do certain things with their own bodies? If a woman can choose to have an abortion, why can't she choose to have sex for money?

There'd almost certainly be reduced demand to traffic humans for prostitution if it was legal but trafficking humans was not, compared to the situation where both are illegal, but that's not the same as no demand.

By this logic, there should be nobody brought to a country to do a job legal in that country. Are you happy making that equivalent claim, or changing your view given a counter example?

Isn't that the case? Presumably humans that are trafficked for forced labor are paid below minimum wage and exposed to bad working conditions that are illegal.