It seems to me that Professor Sullivan overlooks a significant point, which is that most workers at the bottom of the socio/economic heap as it were - in general workers across the private enterprise spectrum in factories, production and assembly lines, shift cleaning staff etc - are all subject to varying levels of abuse and exploitation, very low wages, very poor working conditions, and increasing economic vulnerability thanks (at least in part) to the ever increasingly draconian IR laws. It can be said that these people (as with prostitutes) opt to be what they are but such a view is naive and insensitive. Most base workers including prostitutes do not have the intellectual gifts or (as is even more important) the socio-economic mind-set needed to climb out of the morass. The vulnerable, illiterate, and economically sidelined are generally abused and exploited - there is nothing new in this. At least with prostitution there is (for a time) the possibility of higher than average earnings, together with, of course, higher than average risk.

when prostitution is illegal, prostitutes have no legal protection unless they are paying off coppers. then they are not much better off, crooked coppers are no better than the average pimp.

a women working without the protection of law is everyone's bunny. legalization hasn't cured society of being human, but it has reduced the incidence of exploitation.

a women working without a visa has effectively returned to the bad old days of illegal prostitution. they do it to escape bad conditions, and may fall into worse. the cure is not to help the traffickers, it's to catch them, and jail them.

middle class women in good families, or a secure profession, may find prostitution threatening, or demeaning. tough. to a lot of poor women, it's better than available alternatives. as for the politicians looking to make a career enhancing 'cause' out turning back the clock: i hope the australian voter is too smart to pay you much attention.

Someone once said that 'rights' do not define a democracy - 'responsibilities' do.
The celebratelove.com.au enrichment programme for married couples teaches that from our complimentary natures, husband and wife have complimentary needs and responsibilities.
One of the most interesting things which I learnt from attending a weekend recently with my husband is as follows.
A man instinctually expresses his love for his wife in a physical way. A woman tends to receive love via verbal intimacy. Sex is the core part of this communication between man and woman in marriage, however our culture has reduced sex to an activity.
Sex & sexuality means much more than an act, it includes the whole atmosphere of the home and the kind of connection between man and woman. When a couple learns to spend time (regularly) 'skin-to-skin', naked and in awe of one another, it is very affirming of the whole-person nature of our sexuality. Also, in the context of God having gifted us with sexuality, we need to be bold enough to pray for Passion in our marriage. Thereby the limited and observed experience of married life from our own childhood need not be the determining factor for how we can love.
Her fear of abandonment (emotional and physical) and his hurt at rejection means that they each must learn the art of verbal intimacy as well: to listen and share with eachother without being judgemental or withholding information which may make a difference to the other person if they could be told. The website may include information about the listening process, whereby each one can name and embellish with images and words which identify the itensity with which they felt what they did.

What you describe sounds to me like the Western capitalist economic model of supply and demand in a competitive market is working pefectly, Leigh.

I couldn't think at the age of 65 I would have much to say about this subject but I do have a comment or two...

Firstly not all women who participate in prostitution dislike the experience. I flatted next to a woman many years ago, who was the mistress of a doctor and she was very satisfied with the arrangement. At one stage offering to introduce me to one of his mates because she felt so very comfortable in her skin about it. It just wasn't my scene personally, so I declined her offer.

However as a young woman living in St Kilda at the time I was very grateful that there were women who were willing and able to accomodate the guys who needed a physical relief from a very natural act. Prostitutes do a service to the community I believe by being available to take the steam out of what could become intolerable if sexual intercourse between two strangers was outlawed. I personally think they're very brave and many have paid with their lives, I couldn't go to bed with a man I didn't know, but that is not to say that if someone else can, then go for it. It is a service, using one's body, taking all of the risks both physcially and health wise so surely they're entitled to be paid.

I believe in choice for the individual, and mostly men are honorable so the girls are usually safe. But it should be their choice!

I feared that you were going to tell us that prostitution had to be outlawed, and mercifully, you didn't. As others have pointed out, we know what happens when you outlaw something that people want or want to do that they themselves regard as private (drink, drugs and sex are the three great examples): the police force becomes corrupted, and before long some at least of the politicians are as well.

In your last two paragraphs you mentioned the Swedish stand, and I am sure many of us would like to know about it, and whether or not it has been successful, and how we or they would know.

(The pedant in me points out to someone that the heading should start: 'Whose rights...')