> There is the troubling fact that many prostitutes are not in the business of their own free will.

Others have already waved the wikipedia card, but I feel that there is one aspect which deserves clarification.

Above all, we should divide prostitutes into two groups: sex workers (who have, for whatever reason, chosen the profession); and the victims of human trafficking. In my mind, trafficking is no different from slavery. It's a vile thing. A sex worker, on the other hand, can choose to have a pimp -- but one is not required.

I have absolutely no problem with law enforcement cracking down on trafficking. Those people are not selling their services out of their own will. But trying to mandate morality by law makes my hair stand out.

I happen to believe that indiscriminately cracking down on all forms of prostitution is simply a waste of resources. The similarity between aggressive pro-lifers (who want to impose their own views on how women can use their bodies) and anti-prostitution zealots is not that big. Control in the name of morality ... or just in the name of their personal delusion.

Makes little practical difference.

I mostly agree with you, but worry that trafficking vs voluntary aren't so much two different things but a continuum, and worry where we should draw the line.

That said -- and it's amazing how many people are so stupid -- it's very difficult to successfully ban transactions that are, if not morally voluntary (ie the whore could be trafficked), at least voluntary in the moment. The same applies to drugs, prostitution, and sex. As Bill Hicks said: We had a war on drugs, and drugs won. (Though most republicans don't even believe their own bullshit; the number that have smoked a joint or who look the other way when it's their daughter knocked up at 17 or their mistress or their wife is pretty astounding).

It's legal here in Melbourne as long as the prostitution takes place within a registered brothel. This allows the police to do spot checks and confirm that things are above board, including health checks. Streetwalking is still illegal. It's still not perfect, for example, a trafficking ring was broken up a few years ago by the police, but it seems to have struck a happy balance.

> There is the troubling fact that many prostitutes are not in the business of their own free will.

That phrasing usually refers to trafficking. Let's do some numbers.

In 2000-07, there were 1,500 identified victims of trafficking in the USA - total, not a year, and including both sex and labor trafficking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09...

Arrests alone for sex work is on the order of 100,000 a year (confirmed). An estimate puts the number of prostitutes at 1-2 million.

http://prostitution.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=0...

No doubt trafficking is a big problem in many places - there just isn't any evidence that the US is one of them.

If there mere fact that there exists sex workers who are in the trade not out of their own free will is sufficient to outlaw the trade entirely, there are quite a few trades that would need to be outlawed.

Not all feminists are against the decriminalization of prostitution. The new generation of feminists (mostly those under 30) are very much for sex workers' rights.

There is one peculiar breed of feminist which one or two of my friends adhere to: prostitution isn't shameful. It's a normal profession, and that's fine. A prostitute is just a normal professional providing a service, like any other. People who patronise prostitutes, however... those people are disgusting scum.

In Sweden, this is the law. Prostitution is legal there, but visiting a prostitute is not.

many slave workers in china aint either.

> many prostitutes are not in the business of their own free will

How many? What percentage? Citation needed.

Weasel words will get you nowhere.

You are right, I should not have used many but the nondescript "some". However my argument that this problem would be lessened by decriminalization does not depend on a specific percentage.