Edited to be gender neutral.
Why should some people get to tell other people
what they can or can't do with their own bodies?
The reasons to oppose trafficking, under age prostitution and violence against prostitutes are obvious. And it's obvious why home owners wouldn't want street walkers outside their front doors. Let's set those aside and consider indoor prostitution without slavery or violence.
1. In many places, to collect unemployment benefits you have to be searching for work, and if you're offered work you must accept it. Would you like to see your daughter or mother denied benefits because she turned down a job offer from a brothel?
2. There are a bunch of things we can't consent to. Even if I sign a contract agreeing to be sold into slavery, or agreeing a loan shark can break my legs, or agreeing to work for less than the minimum wage, that part of the contract is invalid. There's precedent for us making it impossible for people to consent to things.
3. If there's someone I wouldn't otherwise have sex with, but I have sex with them to avoid being stabbed, that's obviously rape. If I do the same thing to avoid being starved, is that so different? Oh, admittedly it's more of a grey area, but surely punters could hold themselves to higher standards and avoid things that are even a grey area?
4. Trafficking and violence are giant problems. About 90% of prostitution is one or the other, and legalising prostitution will increase demand leading to more of both. Isn't it better to sacrifice that small fraction of nonviolent prostitution to help clamp down on the much larger amount of violent prostitution? Oh, sure, the 90%/10% ratio might be a bit off, but slavery and violence are really serious, their impact should be given greater weight.
Not saying I agree with all of them, but I can understand why a politician might decide they have other changes to the law they'd like to see first.
Or father, or son. Given that it tends to be mostly male customers, we would presumably see straight men having welfare withdrawn because they refuse to let other men have sex with them for money.
When you look at US laws that attempt to regulate carnal living, they're all over the place. Cigarettes are legal, but not marijuana. Alcohol is okay, but not shromes. We make people wear seat-belts, but don't limit their McDonalds intake. Our age restrictions are crazy too. You can die for your country, but you're too young to have a beer.
Our laws are a mess because they are written based on money, popular opinion & emotion instead of figuring out how to protect without depriving others of their personal liberty. Just like freedom of speech, I might not agree with what you say/do, but I'll fight for your right to say/do it, as long as it doesn't deprive others of their rights. Much like I support Westboro Baptist Church's right to free speech, I support the legalization of prostitution out of principle, even if it's not something I approve of personally. The strength of your principles are usually measured at the extremes.
But isn't forced prostitution a problem whether we make it legal or illegal? Are there any studies that show whether forced prostitution/trafficking goes up or down with legalisation?
>> "And as for the women who choose it freely but only because they are in the "unfortunate situation" where it seems like the best option"
There are plenty of jobs people do because they are the only option. They are physically difficult, dangerous, and pay much less than prostitution. In the documentaries/articles I've read where this point is made it often comes out that the person could do another job but it pays less and they would rather do prostitution as it pays more. Although I do agree with your point about a basic income. I think that would solve a lot of societies problems. It would also be interesting to then see how many people stay in prostitution when they have no financial reason to do so.
The Netherlands, where prostitution is legal and regulated, is still one of the top destinations of human trafficking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands...
Your question is addressed early on in the article linked by this thread. The answer is yes.
Personally I agree on a basic income pegged to a annually updated cost-of-living index to help out those in need. Sure, some people will abuse the system, but I think that overall society would be better off.
Basic income (and in general a good social program) cuts down significantly on this as well but most of the women you are talking about are definitely not from countries with basic income (or at least, not at a level that you could realistically contemplate living of it).
You won't see Dutch women or Danish women or German women as prostitutes in Romania or Bulgaria but there is plenty of evidence that Romanian, Bulgarian and Ukraninian women are in prostitution in Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries.
So the economy most definitely is a factor. In a typical scenario girls get lured to the target country with promises of riches in some kind of career and when they arrive their passports are taken away and they are forced into prostitution.
It's also not rare to see the majority of this be facilitated by people from their home countries.
Very sad stuff.
According to the police, sex trafficking is not actually as common as media and ideological motivated organizations want us to believe.
In Germany there is a kind of basic income if you don't have work. The state will pay for rent, health care and food.