Human trafficing happens for many dozens of reasons. Every year, 1000s of men, women and children are smuggled across boarders, and cajoled into indentured servitude bordering on slavery to perform both legitimate and illegal activities. From farm labor, to factory and cheap mine labor, the list goes on; and yes, prostitution is one of these activities. But the primary reason why human trafficing and prostitution are interconnected is because of its illegality. The exploitation of cheap labor (in this case sex workers), is the real crime. A large percentage of this activity would be reduced if prostitution was legal. Moreover, why not make mining illegal, or agricultural work and textile mills illegal? Because there is nothing "morally wrong" with these activities, just the nefarious exploitation of cheap labor. It is hypocritical to say prostitution causes suffering because of this activity, while claiming that any of these other activities do not.

My heart goes out to any one, man or woman, that has been the victim of an unfaithful spouse. I myself, am the product of a broken family when my father ran off with a women 25 years his junior. My mother was devastated, our family was destroyed, and myself and all my siblings are barely on speaking terms with our father. Why isn't my father in jail? Are not the effects of marital infidelity the same whether a prostitute is involved or not. If prostitution should be illegal because of the damage done to spouses and families, then so should everyday adultery. How does the exchange of money between the outside woman and the unfaithful husband have any baring on how painful the betrayal is for the wronged wife? In my father's case, it was obvious that his new squeeze was a gold digger (to everyone but him), and he lavished her with thousands of dollars worth of jewelery, gifts and trips to exotic locations. Does that make her a prostitute? Why isn't she arrested for the pain she has caused my family? The simple fact is that in our society adultery (and all the associated pain) is not a crime. The technicality of what is or is not a payment is irrelevant. Prostitution has nothing to do with it; rather the adulterous husband's actions are what cause this pain and suffering. Going a step further, ask yourselves, why should prostitution be illegal for single men, who are not engaging in an adulterous affair when employing a prostitute's services? No harm, no foul, right? So why throw the baby out with the bath water? The answer, as always, is morality, and those who wish to impose theirs on others.

Perhaps the biggest hypocrisy when it comes to keeping prostitution illegal, deals with those individuals who are also pro-choice with regards to the whole abortion debate. The mantra of the Pro-Choice camp has always been that a woman's body is hers, and it's her right to choose what to do with it. Does this right suddenly stop with the right to sell its use as part of a service? Every year thousands of women "sell their bodies" to marketing, media, and other companies. Not only models and actresses, but also voice actors, child care, nursing, and massage therapists. The list is limitless. All vocations where women are either preferred (by men), or are deemed to be necessary for some reason. Does the simple act of inducing physical pleasure in the client suddenly make the activity immoral? Or perhaps its the penetration involved in coitus? Must all theatrical productions once more be cast with young boys instead of women, so as to forsake the pleasure of a woman's voice? What is it exactly? What is so different between a female masseuse, an exotic dancer, an adult model? All give "pleasure." So does a female vocalist, or the realistic drama only a female actor can bring to stage and screen. The answer, yet again, is morality. The simple fact is this: Anyone who is pro-choice must by definition be pro-legalized prostitution. It's her body, her choice. And anyone who is against legal prostitution, but claims to be pro-choice is a self-admitted lier and hypocrite; and is no different then the Pro-Life supporters who attempt to force their morality on them.

In summation, prostitution, like many other legitimate activities, has its share of victims. Victims not of prostitution itself, but of the vile and debase practices of those who would exploit and their fellow human beings for their own gains. Why not make all diamonds, not just "blood diamonds" illegal? Why not make any and all broken agreements illegal? And as for violent pimps, the other, less used excuse: isn't physical and metal abuse illegal in every professional and domestic relationship? Why not outlaw every job that has incidences of abusive bosses. Why not make marriage itself illegal, after all, think of all the suffering it causes because of all those abusive husbands. Why stop there, why not make having children illegal -- so many cases of child abuse, and of elderly parents abused by their adult children in the winter of their lives.

   Starting with the latter, the woman working for him were controlled by a "network" that provided women to local entrepreneurs located across a broad region. For various reasons it was believed it was good business not to keep the women in one location for long periods of time and they were more or less "circuit riders." These operations occupy sort of a middle ground between the "high end" (no comment) as labeled by Jeralyn and the streetwalker type. It was certainly my impression that these women were not "free" as I would define the term, and while the "coercion" may not have been overtly violent it did seem the manner of operation circumscribed the women's free will.

  The prostitutes I represented were many years ago and they were "typical" streetwalkers who qualified for appointed counsel. They  were poor, had drug habits and all came from deprived circumstances and/or abusive situations. These cases are bottom of the rung stuff usually handled with a single very brief court appearance so I did not learn a great deal about them in terms of whether they had pimps who used direct  physical or psychological coercion but clearly these were woman who felt coerced by circumstances at the least and were not doing it because it was a good job. Typically, the cases would either be dismissed (after they had spent a night or 2 in jail) because the cops were totally lacking actual evidence or where the evidence existed subject to a quick nolo plea and a time served sentence with an admonition from the judge he'd treat them harsher next time(but they never did, because there's only so much room at the inn and the limited space in the local jail was needed for more serious offenders).

  I still represent johns now and then. Almost all caught by undercover stings where decoy police girls play dress up. I  always get dismissals or acquittals because these operations are not designed to assure convictions but merely arrests. The convictions they get are almost always the result of people deciding not to hire a lawyer and simply pay the fine and get it over with. And, a dismissal or acquittal is really of little comfort after you've been tossed in jail for the night and had your picture in the local news identified as a john. The goal of the cops is to shame them not to build cases.

  In sum, they were all rather sad people  in one way or another. It did not seem to me that any of them (even the massage parlor guy who made good money) felt good about what they were doing and didn't wish they were doing something else. For reasons of perhaps varying  nature and strength, all felt compelled to engage in the business to satisfy one need or deisre or another.

   Does the criminalization really accomplish anything worthwhile? Probably not. There is little or  no deterrence (and the deterrence such as it is is in my opinion based solely on the "shame" factor with johns and not the legal proceedings themselves). There is no rehabilitation or correction. The "clean up the streets" aspect is illusory because if you clean up 10th street, your city isn't really clean it just pops up on 24th Street until you case them out of there and then it circles around until it eventually ends up back on 10th again. One could certainly argue that the illegality itself increases rather than decreases the risk of violent behavior and disease transimission. I tend toward the belief the prohibition just makes a bad scene worse.

one could easily prove there are "victims" in just about any industry; to single out the sex industry as somehow more prone to victimhood than the sweatshop is a flight of moralistic fancy.

The spectrum of "prostitution" is so wide that those of you who are categorizing it are certainly wrong.  There are certainly happy "prostitutes" and there are certain happy erotic massage practitioners, and there are unhappy ones.  In America, note, the vast majority of such people are doing what they do because they have chosen it.  (And, there are people happy to manage a McDonalds and those unhappy to manage one.)

There are lots of massage practitioners in every state.  I've seen massage practitioners in Washington, California and Nevada.  In those states--and perhaps every state in the USA--a % of the massage practitioners include some genital teasing and/or stimulation as part of their practice.  Some charge extra for it; some don't.  Some do it for nearly all clients; some do it for a fraction of their clients they trust; some do it for only a few.  Some practitioners, for moral or legal reasons, abstain for all or nearly all.

Here in Southern California, of a dozen practitioners, you'd probably have to go looking for a massage practitioner who doesn't do erotic massage with some (or all) clients.

There are dozens of practitioners whose practice is outwardly "legitimate," in advertising and general conduct, and for whom there is sexual conduct with a small fraction of their clients.

There are heterosexual massage practitioners who have willingly and happily given erotic massage to someone of the same sex as them.

The vast majority of massage practitioners have been to massage school.  There is a small fraction in a few states which are perhaps untrained foreign imports in some massage parlors.

Those practitioners (whether of massage or escort) who work "independently," at home or outcall have a freedom to choose that those who work for an agency may lack.  

I was chuckling over the ill-informed comment above - that "sweatshop" jobs are "just as dangerous" as prostitution. That fact is, prostitution is an extremely dangerous job, especially for the huge majority of them who are not super high priced call girls. We would never tolerate the existence of working conditions remotely as dangerous in a legal job in this country, whether in manufacturing or something else.

That doesn't make for a very compelling argument.  

More to the point, men who believe high-priced prostitution is a "victimless" crime are in serious denial and looking for a way to defend engaging in it. Families are destroyed! How is that "victimless"? And the prostitutes themselves do not generally stay in the business for more than about a year. A high-priced call girl was interviewed on ABC last week explaining that she chose to get out after a year because, in fact, it was too stressful having to hide her life from her family and friends. She was always "on call", and leading a double life made it impossible to have a normal relationship.

anyone forced, against their will, to engage in any act, whether it be prostitution, working at mcdonalds or a sweatshop, is a victim. all should be treated accordingly.

those, of the age to legally enter into a valid, binding contract, should be treated as business people, providing a personal service for their clients.

anything else is merely a doomed attempt to legislate morality. not that it's ever stopped anyone mind you, but it's never been successful either.

with regards to the families of those using the services, that's pretty much the client's responsibility, just as it would be if we were discussing alcohol. the only difference, what makes it newsworthy at all, is that it involves sex.

If both people are getting paid and it's done in front of a camera, it's commerce.

Just sayin'

I'm not sure that this is either an argument against the notion of it being a victim less crime or for it. I used to do the web site for a local 'escort' who managed herself at $400 per hour and she didn't seem victimized to me.

One guy in Newark, NJ, paid the girl and agreed to meet at a certain time and place, and she, surprise, surprise, never showed up for the "date."

The second guy once paid a bunch of dough for a girl in Vegas, and then her pimp called and she got up and left before he was, erm, "done," and another time he paid a girl in LA who, he noticed after-the-fact, had an Adam's Apple.