I tend to agree here, but there's a reasonable viewpoint that people shouldn't be able to consent to some things if they're assumed to be unreasonable or socially harmful.
For instance, we disallow the selling of organs. I'm all for bodily autonomy, but this seems reasonable.
At the very extreme case, one might say "I give you permission to murder me, if you provide for my family".
While I agree that self-direction and autonomy are essential rights (pretty strongly, in fact), everyone puts limits on them. For some people, the dynamics of prostitution might be that limit. It's not the case for me, but reasonable people might draw the line there.
> people shouldn't be able to consent to some things if they're assumed to be unreasonable or socially harmful.
I think this is the nub of it. When you strip away the BS, views on the legality of prostitution boil down to whether (safe) sex between strangers is (a) a harmful thing, or (b) a fun thing like a massage.
Discussions centered on trafficking or abusive buyers are a red herring. These are relatively rare scenarios. We don't close down eBay or Craigslist because of the occasional bad actor; we police the bad actors.
For instance, we disallow the selling of organs. I'm all for bodily autonomy, but this seems reasonable.
At the very extreme case, one might say "I give you permission to murder me, if you provide for my family".
While I agree that self-direction and autonomy are essential rights (pretty strongly, in fact), everyone puts limits on them. For some people, the dynamics of prostitution might be that limit. It's not the case for me, but reasonable people might draw the line there.