How are "relationships" based on money or "sugar daddies" any different than what you describe I think you mean well but you are naively trying to treat prostitution as a simple issue and not see it as a spectrum.

Also the arguments are a bit weak, the mortality rates may be higher than a guitar but what about a crab fisherman or police officer? You can be extreme on both sides. You could be so myopically libertarian as to neglect how certain forms of prostitution will affect society but you are on the other side of that extreme.

There are some forms of sugar-daddying which are not so different than prostitution. However, women who marry or date wealthy and elderly men do not necessarily commit themselves to prostitution. You are right to argue that there is a spectrum. I do not see how it negates a moral statement against punters.

You are also right to argue that I'm on one side of the extreme, it is radical to call for the abolition of prostitution. I do not consider it as a pejorative description. I would just like to remind you that the faction in the antebellum Republican Party who called for the abolition of slavery was called the radical wing, and was considered extremist by Lincoln himself as well as many other northerners who could not imagine the emancipation of the slaves.

So you are calling for complete abolishment and criminalization transaction that can occur between consenting adults and you liken your position to that of the slavery abolitioners?

It's very easy to take a radical position and just appeal to "well these people thought the world was flat, but look how silly they are now" type observations but I don't think it strengthen to position. Slavery was the forcing people to work and leave their families against their, amongst other things.

When people argue against the criminalization of prostitution, they are not in support of traffickers. It's not radical to say people should not be forced to have sex, even if you think this makes you like Lincoln.

I'm calling to the criminalization of the client, meaning prostitution would not be held illegal but buying sex would be prohibited by law.

My argument was not prostitution equals slavery per se. My point was that the term radical refers to the abolition of a phenomena and therefore should be considered in relation to that phenomena and not by itself. If you believe that prostitution, or even some forms of it, is a wonderful thing that promotes human dignity then I can see why my radical stand against it seems bad to you. I think prostitution harms the people in it and harms us and therefore taking measures like legislation in hope of a radical change seems to me to be reasonable and positive, even if there is a very tiny minority among the people in prostitution who claim to have chosen freely with their eyes wide open.

So you believe prostitution harms the people in it, so your remedy is to cause further harm by sending the clients to jail?

If there are women being forced into sex then there are laws already to protect them.

Why do you feel its necessary to tell other people how to live their lives?

Who are you to decide whether a woman and a man can agree to exchange money and sex?

Not that I necessarily disagree with your points but, I'm sure you're aware the wiki article you referenced also mentions:

"Her prostitution studies have been criticized by sociologist Ronald Weitzer, for alleged problems with their methodology. In particular, Weitzer was critical of what he viewed as the lack of transparency in how the interviews were conducted and how the responses were translated into statistical data, as well as the sampling bias toward highly marginalized groups of sex workers (such as street workers) and for the way the findings of Farley's studies have been more generally applied to demonstrate the harm of sex work of all kinds. A 2002 study by Chudakov, et al. used Farley's PTSD instrument to measure the rate of post-traumatic stress disorder among sex workers in Israel. Of the fifty five consenting women interviewed, 17% met the criteria for PTSD, compared to Farley's 68% figure. Farley's critics also claim that her findings are heavily influenced by her radical feminist ideology.

Farley has also been criticized for accepting significant funding from anti-prostitution organizations. She has acknowledged that 30% of funding for a prominent research project into prostitution was provided by the United States Department of State Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, an agency with an outspoken policy which conflates sex work with human trafficking. However, Farley has stated that such funding has not in any way swayed her research, in particular its methods or conclusions."

What an idiotic comment. I am so serious about gender rights that I have talked to an actual prostitute and treated with her as much respect as I would do to a mother, sister or friend. Especially in my country where the average people are so regressive that if they hear that a girl has kissed before marriage, they look down upon that girl. However, like a lot of professions, I think the best way to tackle prostitution is to legalize and regulate it. It's only in poor places where it is illegal that human trafficking is rampant, whereas it is very easy for some humans to take advantage of the situation. And yes, there are people who are in prostitution by choice. As long as it is regulated by the government (sorry American libertarians, the government actually has a lot of use in countries like mine, irrespective of what you like to think) with proper medical check-ups, strict laws against abuse, it is a very important part of civilization which should never be allowed to become "extinct". In fact, I would argue that prostitution is what keeps a natural lid on male aggression and violence and helps society in more ways than people give it credit for.

There is no need to argue about the issue of legalizing prostitution since it has been tested and failed to produce better conditions for the people in prostitution. Just look for reports on the results of legalization in Germany for example, where the legalization increased demand, expanded the "market," and increased human trafficking.

Regarding your conviction that it "keeps a natural lid on male aggression and violence." I would argue that it is completely false and degrade men, but if you insist I would urge you to volunteer to the joy division and keep the lid on male aggression and violence yourself before volunteering other people to do the nasty job.

Interesting about Germany and the increase in human trafficking. When they chose to legalize, I thought may be this is a good thing.

So you disagree by insulting and bullying. "What an idiotic comment", was that line necessary.

> * Can a teenager truly and freely choose prostitution? Does she have an alternative?

In Sweden, there are more teenage boys that have prostituted themselves than teenage girls. The majority of these are middle-class kids who use this extra income to buy themselves status items such as clothes, gadgets, or jewelry.

This issue is very nuanced, and you should be skeptical of anyone making definitive claims about all prostitutes, or all prostitution.

So one answer to your questions would be 1) Yes, see above, and 2) Yes, these kids could get any number of legal part-time jobs, but they freely choose this. They're not stupid, they're not poor, they're not forced, yet this is the choice they make knowing, or thinking they know, the full consequences of it.

Not just in Sweden, it's a global phenomena, some call it Designer Sex. In many cases there are predators involved who seduce the children, predators who have developed some very sharp sensors to detect the child who will consent because it's not always just about the money. What do you consider the appropriate age of consent to this kind of proposition? 17? 16? 14? why not 10?

One of the major obstacles to leaving prostitution, and not just for kids, is the addiction to money. However, it is not an easy money and it does not bear good memories and in many cases people in prostitution would get rid of it very quickly and spend it on stuff they don't need.