Honestly, since I've been old enough to know it exists, I've always wondered why prostitution is illegal. I know the typical fears many people have about legalizing prostitution and I know the potential benefits of it aswell. But it always comes down to two arguments by the advocates for keeping it illegal that I can't quite understand.
The first, is that sex for money is inherently wrong.
Why? If you put aside all the social and/or religious stigmas...what makes it so "wrong"?
The second, is that it somehow demeans women. Now, I can understand how someone might think this is possible, but I find that the opposite is just as likely. Afterall, these ladies are offering sex for money in an agreed upon exchange. If you want to call a mutual, willful agreement exploitation, you might want to read up on what that word actually means. Besides which, what is more demeaning? That men expect women to perform sexual acts in exchange for money or that women expect men to fork over there money for an hour of two of fulfillment of something they are otherwise missing in their lives? I'd say neither. So long as both parties are willing and understand what they are entering into, how is one side being exploited?
I know I'm asking the wrong crowd, but can anyone shed light on the opposing point of view so that I may broaden my perspective?
The first, is that sex for money is inherently wrong.
Why? If you put aside all the social and/or religious stigmas...what makes it so "wrong"?
The second, is that it somehow demeans women. Now, I can understand how someone might think this is possible, but I find that the opposite is just as likely. Afterall, these ladies are offering sex for money in an agreed upon exchange. If you want to call a mutual, willful agreement exploitation, you might want to read up on what that word actually means. Besides which, what is more demeaning? That men expect women to perform sexual acts in exchange for money or that women expect men to fork over there money for an hour of two of fulfillment of something they are otherwise missing in their lives? I'd say neither. So long as both parties are willing and understand what they are entering into, how is one side being exploited?
I know I'm asking the wrong crowd, but can anyone shed light on the opposing point of view so that I may broaden my perspective?