Con to the question "Should Prostitution Be Legal?"
"A few years ago, prostitutes disappeared from the pages of medical journals; they returned as 'sex workers.' Nor did they work in prostitution any more: they were employees in the 'sex industry.' Presumably, orgasms are now a consumer product just like any other. As for pimps, the correct term is probably: 'brief sexual liaison coordinators.'
The editors who decided on the new terminology almost certainly felt, and probably still do feel, a warm glow of self-satisfaction (one of the few emotions than never lets you down). How they must have prided themselves on their broadmindedness, as they strove to reduce the small-minded stigma traditionally attached to offering sexual services in return for money! How morally brave and daring they must have felt, to fly so boldly in the face of two millennia of unthinking condemnation!
...The idea of the state coercing its population into prostitution is, of course, repellent. Even the most liberal of liberals would probably agree with that. This means that there is after all a moral difference between prostitution and washing dishes in the local restaurant or stacking supermarket shelves. And that prostitution is both age-old and ineradicable does not make it any less degrading to all concerned."
Experts Individuals with MDs, JDs, PhDs, or equivalent advanced degrees in fields relevant to the study of prostitution. Also top-level government officials (such as foreign leaders, US presidents, Founding Fathers, Supreme Court Justices, members of legislative bodies, cabinet members, military leaders, etc.) with positions relevant to prostitution issues.
Involvement and Affiliations:
Dietrich Weismann Fellow, Manhattan Institute
Contributing Editor, City Journal,
Writer published in the New Criterion, National Review, and The Spectator
Retired physician, prison doctor, and psychiatrist