so it's kind of intellectually sleazy of you to blend the two together.

but renting the real estate much further in for a much longer time under much more hazardous conditions is not? Yeah that makes sense. Of course it has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE HAVING A PROBLEM WITH SEX. We are assured of this by the people in charge so it must be true.

it does more than imply they think it is wrong, it implies that they have to right to use the force of law to enforce their moral opinions, without, as you say, having to explain them to others in a convincing way or subject them to real critical scrutiny. In addition of course, and somethings this is the most important of all, the failure to subject the proposals themselves to open analysis also shields the motives and agendas of those making the proposal from scrutiny as well.

for the idea of taking steps to broaden the content and personalities of this dominant medium.

(though as long as there is a social stigma and the "employees" have more emotional problems than the general population "employers" will get away with more than they normally do) and of course illegal immigrants working as prostitutes will face the same kinds of problems that all illegal immigrants face now. Actually, thanks to prohibition, the situation that ALL prostitutes face is similar to what illegal immigrants face because of their illegal status.

since everyone there believes all gender is a social construct anyway.

maybe it is because men and women are different when it comes to sex. A further irony is that unlike an ugly straight man, who has make some investment to secure the company of even an ugly woman, a ugly gay guy can get another ugly gay guy anytime. So the claim of feminists that prostitution is only about men paying for better than they have a "right" to is much more true for the gay market than the straight market.

This is the crux of the problem, a woman can't imagine having to pay or wanting to pay for normal sex with a normal person so they refuse to believe that that is what men who go to hookers are doing. This really illustrates why denial of the reality of gender differences is such a problem; it furthers and offers a justification for a female refusal to admit to the legitimate existence of any reality other than the emotional responses of themselves and others like them.

enforce the laws against trafficing and abuse and END PROSTITUTION?

why aren't you in favor of calling our bluff. Maybe it is because there ARE places, such as Australia, where prostitution is widely practiced and accepted WITHOUT the problems you refer to and you are desperate to keep that reality from being known or spreading.

The final feminist word on everything where men don't agree with them or apologize for not doing so. and in the "patriarchy" we live in they get away with it.

but men are not permitted to inquire into the private lives of women. More evidence of womens second class citizenship.

and raw power rules alone. Gloat all you like for now, I guess, but someday the target may be your friend and not your enemy.

of every argument that feminists used in the 80s to try and outlaw all porn.

the same argument that is being made about prostitution now and laws were passed in some jurisdictions based on this view. A woman set herself on fire in an adult bookstore to make the point. About the time this was happening the internet was starting and as a result of its existence people have apparently given up trying to stop all men from looking at porn. I am curious if anyone knows or can know how much prostitution is really taking place in Sweden. If girls can, without penalty, set up online "communities" consisting of themselves and their customers I don't see why business can't be freely conducted on a large scale. Does anyone have reason to doubt this is happening or know the extent of it. I know that in the US authorities bust LOTS of girls using craigslist to hook.

you will get right wing prudes who are obsessed with keeping everyone else in line and/or those who have no energy to challenge the established powers that be, OR you will get rigid wacko monks like Nader (although those of his type will not usually get elected). Is this what you want. Here's a radical thought: as long as what they are doing is legal how about EVEN FOR A PUBLIC FIGURE how often and in what precise manner they do or don't have sex with their wives or other consenting adults is nobody's business but the people involved.

Or since women are much pickier and less horny and most of them aren't interested in fucking around as long as they have a devoted and subservient spouse we could just require that all positions of authority in society be held by women. This seems to be where a lot of people are heading emotionally.