Letters to the Editor
-
the basic premise is
that sex for money is bad and exploitative--more exploitative than what's possible in the typical wage relationship.
All other arguments about prostitution are equally applicable to other types of work. For example,
-"many minors enter the sex industry"
....and many minors don't enter other industries? You can work in most states at what, 15? You can work on a farm at what, birth? Until there's data that show that prostitution brings in minors disproportionate to other fields (food service especially), then the unstated assumption is that minors are somehow more exploited in performing sex for money than say cleaning out McDonald's bathrooms for money--an assumption that I find highly debatable.
-"it is very difficult to leave the industry"
...see above. More difficult to leave than your shit job in your shit small town? How is "difficult" being quantified?
Again, point out the specifics of prostituion as an occupation and show how it is incommensurate to other occupations.
-"the legalization of prostitution typically increases illegal prostitution by legitimizing the exchange of sex for money."
...again, how is this any different than any other occupation? Some people who wait tables are on the books; others aren't. All of these arguments can (until someone produces data about prostitution's specificities) be equally applicable to most other occupations. I think there are some good arguments about outlawing prostitution, but saying that it as an occupation is somehow more exploitative than other occupations is not the way to argue against prostitution.
Oh, and the idea that we don't already exchange sex for money is hilarious. The last time I checked, I could order Skin-a-Max, download a Vivid video, or even buy a dildo to stick in my body at any time. All of these corporations (and their employees--including the ones having sex on film) can take my money for sex, but I can't walk out to the corner and solicit myself?