NYT Op-Ed, accessible here.
I am comfortable with the criticism that the vast majority of prostitutes are subject to some form of coercion. However, I question the premise, inherent in editorials like this one, that commercial sex contracts are never victimless transactions. What is it about sexual contact that makes it harmful 100% of the time when exchanged for specific types of consideration?
I wonder how traditional criticisms of prostitution hold up in a culture that has become increasingly comfortable with anonymous sex. The internet is host to dozens (hundreds???) of sites that facillitate consensual, non-commercial anonymous sex. These liasons look very much like a traditional commercial sex transaction, absent financial consideration. I don’t think anyone would have a problem with one party in such a liason offering to cover the travel expenses of the other party. What is it about the presence of profit that makes sexual contact per se exploitative?