I recently came across some material supposedly put together from comments by sex workers (http://www.pleasureactivism.org/goff_reply.html) in response to Stan Goff's article "The Porn Debate" (http://www.xyonline.net/Goff_Porn_debate.shtml).

Some interesting comments in there.

R0bert

This is really well argued article.
Wouldn't it be great if mothers on the pension didn't have to earn that bit extra for the kids. That the women without an education could get a decent job. That society allowed men to pleasure each other more. That sexually transmitted diseases could be wiped out. That sexual gratification becomes normal and not confused with religion and politics. That sex workers get the same employment rights as other workers. That sex becomes fun and not violence. That sex stops being obsessive compulsive. That people become kind and not cruel.
Where is that perfect world?

Which women/men who are prostituting themselves are we talking about? The men and women working at street level, or the ones who marry for money and social prestige. If we are going to talk legalities I think the whole topic and stratagem of sexual accommodation should be reviewed. Otherwise highlighting the street worker alone is feigned politics not true social concern And falling back on the tired and oft abused, man as perpetrator of prostitution is more of the continual one sided sexism put forward by feminist to portray woman as victim. They conveniently forget many men are also sex workers.
Anyone who has done any work (with the many different people) in the sex trade know, that the women themselves were recruited or given the knowledge and opportunity by other women. And the same goes for the men.
There is no conspiracy to trap anyone into the sex trade other than that persons own morality or lack there of.

"The US Government has intimated that after drug dealing, trafficking of humans is tied with arms dealing as the second largest criminal industry in the world, with the majority of people trafficked for sexual exploitation."

I know the above statement is emotive, however just imagine for a minute that maybe the vast majority of people who are trafficked is not for the sex trade, but mostly men who do menial work for extremely low wages or boys who are kidnapped to serve as combatants in wars.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey124.htm

Every so often we hear about the bodies of illegal immigrants being washed up on the shores of some country like Turkey.

Boys or men working as slaves just don't carry the same emotional impact as girls workings sex slaves!

Laws prohibiting prostitution no matter male /female are a moral issue rather than the protection from harm in our society.

People should be able to choose what form of work they do with the same legal protection of any other job. Never forced or only option. As well as services should be provided such as councelling, help etc. A lot of jobs carry risks but not with as much controversy or media coverage.

By no means does prostiution replace an intimate caring relationship. Unfortunately not everybody has the ability, opportunity, or the want for a relationship.

This is gender politics disguised.

Prostitutes are also male. Catering to male and a growing female clientle. Never hear about that. How unusual.

The power/exploitation driven victimolgy is par for the course in todays society. Someone is always 'taking advantage of', whatever that means.

A client exploits a prostitute like a junkie exploits a drug dealer.

Now, to put it in those typically banal self pitying victimology terms thats so popular these daze... has anyone ever considered, that the natural sex drive of some people is being expoited for a dollar? l mean, what sort of person blames you for the hand that nature dealt you.

Oddly enuff, back on the gender politics front, female cheavinism is define as women who let other women down by buying into male chaevenistic projection of what women should be. Oh, the irony. What a wounderfully political revisionary hackfest. A cheavinist is someone who makes an unearnt claim to superiority based on arbitrary qualifications like, gender, race, religion, nationality. Its not a gender specific term. Thus, a female cheavinist is a woman who perceives herself as superior due to her sex. There's more than a few women like that about. Whatever, the baser, more negative sort of equality is in vogue these days.

Another lovely intellectual slight of hand is the idea of 'legalising' something. You dont need permission to do a thing. You can only sanction particular types of behaviour. Sex for money cannot be 'legalised.' It can only be DECRIMINALISED. Of course, one can use a whole host of subtleties to disguise payment. Like gifts, paid trips, dinners, paying the rent, etc.

The article is a bit twisted and makes good use of misrepresentation.