If we go down this logical path, I'd say society already has lower-than-minimum-wage and/or dangerous jobs being done by people who have no feasible alternative... so we've kinda already accepted that this situation will occur for some people. Not saying this is okay, just saying that legalized prostitution as a profession would just be another dangerous job in a long list of other extremely hazardous jobs people probably shouldn't do, but end up doing anyway.

Continuing down that logical path, it's impossible to have a truly consensual business transaction of any sort because the involvement of currency makes it coercive.

I think the implied part of this discussion is "captive". The person must at least feel that there is no other choice.

We see that in prostitution, in illegal immigrants working in horrible conditions, Dubai laborers[1], etc. In contrast, a Software Developer in the Bay area can hardly claim such conditions.

1. http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/oct/23/mi...

I think the implied part of this discussion is that there are transactions taking place with a power imbalance between the parties. If that is not acceptable, most of capitalism will promptly fall apart.

While I tend to agree that many (though not necessarily all) transactions exhibit a power imbalance, I disagree strongly that it's currency (or money, or other forms of exchange) which make it so.

Though if you'd care to expand, I'd be interested in your argument.

You're right, it's not currency that creates the power imbalance.

If a starving person works for Walmart for $10 an hour, is that slavery?

Possibly. If their personal situation is sufficiently bleak, and there are mechanisms that are arbitrary and unfair helping to keep them in that situation. However, it's almost universally true that any given person has far more choice than they are aware of.

Sure, then working and prostitution is the same thing. You give your time and services so that you receive payment. Both could be coerced in a bad way like slavery, or being forced into prostitution.

Then the argument is if a person is not forced into prostitution but chooses it as their livelihood, shouldn't it be acceptable?

I'm completely sympathetic to that view, but if the person has the choice of prostituting her/himself or starve, and you ban the first option, what so you think will happen?

If you want to prevent these situation you're describing, you need to give people a third option, that enables them to avoid the first two. Criminalizing prostitution will just harm those you want to help.

EDIT: from your other post, it seems we're in agreement.

That implies every financial transaction is rape.

Not every financial transaction is of the kind "sell this or starve" (including a lot of the sex sold, I'm sure).

Then it's not an argument against prostitution so much as an argument against selling things to poor people.

Or perhaps against buying things (or work) from poor people?

No, a man using a woman for sex when she can not give consent is already called "rape" and is illegal, because we as a civilization understand that this causes significant trauma for individuals -- that is, it's categorized as "violence".

Buying services and goods, on the other hand, is not violent, like rape is, although we could see the fact of poor people (or all people, really) having to sell portions of their lives to strangers to survive as unfortunate and alienating. This is, I think, where Marxism comes from.

I think you misunderstood, because you missed the sarcastic tone that I perceived in the previous parent comment.

I agree with what you wrote, of course. I may not like the existence of prostitution, but in order to have others respect my strange preferences, I'll have to respect the strange preferences of others, as long as it's consenting adults doing things.

True.

I'm sold. We need a law against having financial dealings with poor people. Think of the children.

I think a large swath of the working population would disagree. Give up a 30% of my life to do something I would rather not do so that I don't starve? I guess I'll take that deal.

You suggest they aren't capable of making rational decisions as an adult in their own interests, and consequently implicitly comparing them to mentally-ill people who are wards of the state.

That is literally true of addicts, so yes. Just like we don't let impaired people enter into binding contracts.