Thanks for the question.

I’ve  been sent a considerable amount of information from a sex worker’s rights activist which I haven’t got around to reading yet so bare in mind that it’s quite possible I’ll change my mind on this and my response is only based on my current level of knowledge.

I don’t like the term “Johns” particularly either, I’m using it purely for ease of communication as people know what I mean and it’s a term that the sex workers themselves often use.

Of course I’d like to protect men and women on both sides, the law should treat both sexes equally and if you remember I did give the rhetorical example of myself selling sex to a woman. With that being said the vast majority of the time it is a female seller and a male customer and the subject is usually approached from the angle of protecting women by people who label themselves sex-positive feminists.

I fully support the vast majority of their goals the only problem is that there is a whole other side which seems to have been almost completely ignored and has absolutely no organised voice.

 ”if you change the societal views of sex workers you are inherently changing the views on their clients”.

There may be an element of truth to this but it doesn’t logically follow that because of this we should ONLY look at what is best for the sex workers and neglect viewing the situation from the position of the client.

I disagree with this logic just as I disagree with statements like:

“we don’t need to worry about men’s right because working for female equality will solve all of men’s problems.”

and,

“We should subsidies the rich because trickle down economics  will ensure that it also helps the poor”

These arguments may sound convincing in theory but in practice they simply don’t  work. For example no matter how much we tell women that they should be earning their own money and should be self reliant they will never earn as much as men on average unless we ALSO destroy the negative connotations associated with being a house husband.

The fact is that what is best for an industry isn’t necessarily what is best for the workers and what is best for the workers isn’t necessarily what is best for the clients and customers.

As a general rule deregulation generally helps the business or sometimes the workers achieve more freedom but regulation is generally in the best interest of the customers and sometimes the workers (a concept that republicans don’t seem to get)

Whilst de-crim gives prostitutes the most freedom I don’t think society will ever accept prostitution as a legitimate profession unless it has at least some level of regulation the same as any other industry and I don’t think it’s in the best interests of the clients.

One such regulation I would endorse is mandatory STD tests for sex workers coupled with free contraceptives and health care. As a response to this issue a sex workers rights activist commented 

“I’m not for mandatory health checks for a number of reasons. Where that is a requirement, it continues the stigma that sex workers are dirty and carry disease. Also, there is no testing for clients, so as a sex worker, you see my certificate that i was tested, but I don’t see yours, & that is something people never bring up when they say they are for mandatory health checks.”

I strongly disagree for many reasons, firstly I don’t think that mandatory regulations would “continue the stigma that prostitutes are dirty” any more than building regulations “continue the stigma that builders like to cut corners”, furthermore even IF this argument was valid I see the safety of prostitutes and their clients as orders of magnitude more important than the issue of what somebody may think of them.

I also would have absolutely no problem with the clients also being tested if sex workers demanded it but if only one party was regularly tested it would make more sense to test 50 people than 1000 people.

De-crim over legalization as far as I can tell IS at the expense of the “johns”  though it would still be 100 times better than it remaining illegal.

“Johns’” issues would include (off the top of my head)

* STDS

* False rape allegations

* Being raped (you think society has a hard time believing prostitutes then imagine how society would react to somebody claiming they had been raped after the payed a prostitute for their company)

* Being over charged or robbed.

* Being assaulted. 

* Not receiving a service which they paid for.

I’m not suggesting that any more than the extreme minority of prostitutes would do any of these action but legalization could drastically reduce the risk of this happening and cases such as that of Aileen Wuornos would be all but non-existent.

Done correctly I’m pretty certain that legalization could help both parties.