However, to prohibit the activity of prostitution is equivalent to prohibiting the activity of operating a motor vehicle. The activities involved in driving cause death, property destruction, a plethora of bodily damage, and even road rage. The symptoms of what you described of prostitution: rape, enslavement, exploitation, and mistreatment are already illegal – and justly so. The same goes for operating a motor vehicle: speeding, reckless driving, DUI are already illegal – and justly so (in this example). You see, it should not be the activity in which people freely choose to do that which is prohibited – that is unjustified, impossible, and not conducive to a free society. Instead, it should be the sporadic consequences produced by the activity.

This type of prohibition expands to drug laws, gambling laws, alcohol laws, and others. To prohibit the activities of individuals which may result in negative consequences will create a world that is similar in nature to that of an iron cage. Would the legalization of prostitution legitimatize the act? It shouldn’t. Instead, it legitimizes the freedom of choice and liberty each individual is born with.

Isn't your claim much the same in other professions, though? Prostitutes are not the only people in the world with drug addictions who need a job to support their habit. The only reason you seem to have an issue with it is because you abhor the idea of prostitution in general. Many people are pulled into similar situations in other institutions, owing debts to people much worse than their employers. You are assuming that all brothels are run by cold, ruthless individuals who are dragging unwilling women into a trade they did not choose. Though that may be true in some cases, it certainly isn't in all. The world is an ugly place, Jacob K, and there's nothing we can do to completely abolish all the horrible things that happen, but by making things we disapprove of illegal, all we do is turn a blind eye to the evils that will happen regardless. Though you may be reluctant to admit (or believe) it, even if living in the brothels isn’t the most ideal lifestyle, it is certainly safer than performing the very same business on the streets.

I admit that prostitution and teaching are two very polar opposite positions to be in, but I can’t help but argue with you on one point. You make it out that all prostitutes are subjected to things that, quite frankly, they are not. Prostitutes are required to be tested for STIs, and condom use is absolutely required. Though the job is certainly more stressful, it is still a choice.

I find your comparison to murder farfetched and inaccurate. If you murder someone you completely strip them of their most essential right: the right to life. What right is legalizing prostitution taking away? None whatsoever. If a woman chooses to sell her body, it is her decision, therefore her right. Someone doesn't choose to be murdered.

You can stand by your statement about rape all you want, but that won’t make it right. Prostitutes go into the business knowing full well what it entails, just as smokers chose to smoke knowing that it can lead to lung cancer. It is, as I’ve said, by no means the most ideal way to live, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be legal, and it certainly isn't rape. I also stand by marijuana being legalized, but that doesn’t mean that I think spending all of your money on pot is a good idea.

Either way, you seem to be missing my point. I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again, I don’t believe there is anything wrong if a woman chooses to sell her body. It is her property, and she can do with it what she wants. If that means the conditions that prostitutes work under need to be improved so be it, but completely illegalizing it would be a greater crime.

Just because they do not call themselves pimps, does not mean they are not pimps. The “house” as you call it, is simply a person, or group of people, who organize a group of women for the purpose of prostitution and provide protection and a place to work, in exchange for a portion of the profit. If this is not a clear definition of a pimp, I do not know what is. Calling it a “house” is just another attempt to legitimatize the trade.

You also state that the women are “…considered an independent contractor, and can quit any time she wants to.” This sounds all well and good but is also completely false when actually applied. As I have stated before, many of these women have drug addictions and dependencies as well as other vices. The pimps will often act as a drug dealer as well. So the pimp takes approximately half of the prostitutes income to begin with for “rent”, he then further acquires her income through sale of illegal substances leaving her with little money. In the end the prostitute is dependent on the pimp monetarily and for illegal substances and is unable to “quit any time she wants to.” This is a very common method for keeping a prostitute indentured to a pimp.

Your comparison of a prostitute's dislike of her job to a teacher's dislike of her job is both ridiculous and overly simplistic. It is not common for a teacher to be beaten by a student because their teaching was not up to par, or for a teacher to rip their genitalia or contract a venereal disease in the course of work, or to have been dealt immense psychological trauma. This is the problem with saying prostitution is just a profession, the statement makes it sound like it is any other 9 to 5 job. Its not, and should never be categorized as such.

You further claim that: “…we are never going to get rid of prostitution… …Prohibition certainly didn't work, why do we expect keeping prostitution illegal to do the same?” By that logic our prohibition of murder certainly hasn't worked since murders still occur regularly. So furthering your logic should we legalize and license murder? Just because the government fails to prevent all instances of a crime is not reason to legalize it.

And I stand by my statement that “Prostitution is rape in exchange for money.” The women are not consenting until they are paid. And they need to be paid in order to continue paying their pimps, continuing to further their addictions, and to continue making a livelihood.

And you stated that “legal” prostitutes are not necessarily willing, but in order to be legal whatsoever they must be in brothels. Pimping is illegal, point blank, so if a prostitute is in debt to a pimp she is clearly not legal, which makes that argument blatantly incorrect. The way payment works in a brothel is different than “pimping,” and a portion of the prostitutes earning goes to the house. She is considered an independent contractor, and can quit any time she wants to.

My no means am I saying that all prostitutes enjoy it. No one always likes their job, and half the time people fall into a profession that they would never want to do. This happens a lot for teachers–many teachers are only such because their original plans backfired and they had to rely on a fall back plan. I mean, really, who would want to teach for a living when you're underpaid and disrespected?

Mostly what I'm saying is that I respect Nevada's decision that a woman's body is hers to do with what she will. Most of the arguments against prostitution are moral, and I don't think this is really a question of morality. Regardless, let's look at it this way: we are never going to get rid of prostitution. It's the world's oldest profession and I have a feeling it's also going to be the world's longest-lived. Prohibition certainly didn't work, why do we expect keeping prostitution illegal to do the same?

My main issue is with the statement that “Prostitution is nothing more than a profession…”. Prostitution is rape in exchange for money, legalizing it produces the idea that it is somehow a legitimate occupation.

P.S. By pimps I do not refer only to men with purple hats, but also to “madams” of brothels and other various persons in charge of prostitutes. Just because women run the brothels doesn't mean they don't mistreat the prostitutes below them.