# In praise of Amsterdam’s prostitutes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 28, 2004, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455 "2004-09-28T10:15:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/81 "2004-09-30T23:06:20Z")
**Kimstu,** it’s declaring that the pursuit of renumeration is a social ill. Kinda odd in capitalist societies. > [@](#): > > Besides, in practical terms it makes all the difference in the world. There’s no need to discourage women wandering the streets offering sex to strange men for free because almost no women would be interested in doing that (sorry, guys). But if they can make money at it, then some of them will. So if the government wants to minimize random promiscuous street-wandering sex-offering, they don’t have to ban it outright; they just have to make it non-commercial. But here’s the rub: this argument presumes that a woman wandering the streets offering sex to strange men is so bad that the government should eliminate incentives to do so. But that premise is not based in fact. I mean, it is obvious that prostitution does not lead to the downfall of society, because we are all still here, having survived millenia of prostitution. The premise, therefore, is based upon the _dislike_ of women offering sex to strangers. IMO, that’s not a good premise upon which to base a law. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/82 "2004-10-02T07:42:34Z")
> [@Sofis](#): > > It seems to me that any reduction among customers is going to be among the more casual customers - in other words, not the ones you’re concerned about. I don’t see why the people I’m concerned about would be more “casual” customer, and I don’t really understand what a “casual” customer is. But if you’re right, great! The halfway decent folk stay at home and we can persecute the assholes. > [@](#): > > It just seemed a logical conclusion from the fact that you want to deal with the problems of prostitution by attacking prostituition itself. No, I don’t. I’d like to fix all the problems that cause prostitution - poverty, drugs, mental problems, social problems, and so forth. Until such time as the government gets up of its arse and starts working, however, I’d like to minimize prostitution as much as possible. Illegalizing the buyer side is, in my opinion, a good way to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2004, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/83 "2004-10-02T17:10:23Z")
**pervert:** _Because it is most common sensical to see the transfer of money as a private act between the two parties. It just seems silly to say that if they “do it” its private. But if they negotiate a transfer of money first its public._ **If** they use the system of public commerce, it’s public. As I said to **MightyGirl** just a few posts ago, in reality, there is no regulation of **truly** private negotiations of sex for material rewards. You and your wife, or you and a lady you just met at the square-dance class, could easily make an informal agreement that she would slip you a C-note for having sex with her. There would really be no way to regulate that, nor IMO should it be regulated. But if you’re using the public streets and public media for public advertising and public solicitation of sex-for-money exchanges with any or all members of the public, then it becomes the public’s business. And the public is constitutionally awarded a say in what kind of **public commercial** activities are permitted. **Sua:** _But here’s the rub: this argument presumes that a woman wandering the streets offering sex to strange men is so bad that the government should eliminate incentives to do so. But that premise is not based in fact. I mean, it is obvious that prostitution does not lead to the downfall of society, because we are all still here, having survived millenia of prostitution._ Well, we’ve survived millennia of smallpox and child molestation and spitting in public, too. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a good idea for government to try to prevent those things. Mind you, I’m not arguing that prostitution **is** a serious social evil: I’m just saying that your argument along the lines of “it can’t be a serious social evil because it hasn’t destroyed our species so far” is not particularly persuasive. ---
**Author:** ![Sofis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Sofis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofis)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/84 "2004-10-03T02:25:51Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > I don’t see why the people I’m concerned about would be more “casual” customer, and I don’t really understand what a “casual” customer is. The people you’re so worried about are, by your description, the ones that absolutely can’t make do with someone who’d want to have sex with them. It doesn’t seem too likely that they’d go “Oh, wow, it’s illegal. I guess I’d better just stay home and masturbate. Wouldn’t want to break the law, or anything.” > [@Priceguy](#): > > But if you’re right, great! The halfway decent folk stay at home and we can persecute the assholes. Except that doesn’t seemed to have had much effect in the past. It’s not as if it hasn’t been tried before. > [@Priceguy](#): > > No, I don’t. I’d like to fix all the problems that cause prostitution - poverty, drugs, mental problems, social problems, and so forth. Until such time as the government gets up of its arse and starts working, however, I’d like to minimize prostitution as much as possible. Illegalizing the buyer side is, in my opinion, a good way to do that. I think we’re going to have a long wait until the government fixes all the social problems. In the meantime, it still seems to me like making a bad situation worse. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/85 "2004-10-03T08:48:06Z")
> [@Sofis](#): > > Except that doesn’t seemed to have had much effect in the past. It’s not as if it hasn’t been tried before. But it does seem to have an effect in Sweden. > [@](#): > > I think we’re going to have a long wait until the government fixes all the social problems. In the meantime, it still seems to me like making a bad situation worse. Why? To me, it seems like making a bad situation better. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/86 "2004-10-03T09:02:58Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > I’d like to fix all the problems that cause prostitution - poverty, drugs, mental problems, social problems, and so forth. Until such time as the government gets up of its arse and starts working, however, I’d like to minimize prostitution as much as possible. Illegalizing the buyer side is, in my opinion, a good way to do that. However hard a government works to achieve social nirvana, there will always be menial jobs that provide relatively low salaries and, as a result, there will always be some who find prostitution a more lucrative and perhaps easier way to make money. In such a situation who have a seller who **wants** to sell and, as long as that seller doesn’t price themselves too high, buyers that want to buy. Is prostitution of this kind a problem? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/87 "2004-10-03T19:20:08Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I don’t really have a stake in it one way or the other but let me put it this way - imagine the most obnoxious, repugnant man you can think of. Now imagine your daughter/mom/sister/ son, whoever, licking his balls for $50 (most Johns don’t look like Richard Geer as most prostitutes don’t look like Julia Roberts). > > or how would you feel about this after-work conversation: > > “Hi honey, I’m home!” > “How was work?” > “Busy…I had to suck about 12 cocks, jerk off another half dozen dudes at this bachelor party get take it up the ass twice…hey kids!! come over and give mommy a kiss!” > > Intellectually, I suppose it shouldn’t be any different than any other crappy job. I still wouldn’t date one nor want my daughter to become one and I can’t imagine what would change my mind. Neither would you want your daughter to become a porn star. But we can’t base our laws on whether mommy and daddy are comfortable with everything you do even as a grown adult. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/88 "2004-10-03T19:53:45Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Neither would you want your daughter to become a porn star. But we can’t base our laws on whether mommy and daddy are comfortable with everything you do even as a grown adult. No, but we can base laws on not wanting a bunch of crack-hos loitering in our neighborhood and attracting an unsaviory element. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/89 "2004-10-03T21:08:04Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > No, but we can base laws on not wanting a bunch of crack-hos loitering in our neighborhood and attracting an unsaviory element. Indeed. It’d be much nicer to have them in, say, a legal brothel. If you don’t want one in your neighborhood, that’s what zoning laws are for. But outlawing it entirely merely makes the problem worse, just like drug prohibition makes drug-related crime worse. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/90 "2004-10-03T21:33:39Z")
**Mr2001:** _Indeed. It’d be much nicer to have them in, say, a legal brothel. If you don’t want one in your neighborhood, that’s what zoning laws are for._ However, that’s the sort of reasoning that tends to clump permitted but unappealing businesses (waste dumps, junkyards, refineries) in or near the poorest neighborhoods with the least power to resist them, which IMO is a form of economic discrimination. You aren’t really solving the NIMBY problem by just saying “well, stick it in somebody else’s backyard then.” The real problem with legalizing prostitution in the US is that most people don’t like it. Even many of the people who patronize prostitutes are ashamed of it and try to hide it, and many of those would be ashamed of it even if it were legal. Like discrimination against homosexuals, bans on prostitution have a lot of popular support because large numbers of people feel it’s icky. Unlike discrimination against homosexuals, there really isn’t a strong human-rights argument against banning prostitution; because it’s not about the government regulating consensual sexual activity, it’s about the government regulating commerce. I think the only way it’s possible to change anti-prostitution legislation is by changing hearts and minds. And the only way to do that is to get the subject out in the open. If you’re pro-prostitution, it’s probably not enough just to post your arguments anonymously on a message board. Instead, be open about your views in your neighborhood and your workplace. If you take a sex-tourism trip somewhere where prostitution is legal, don’t try to hide that from your boss or your acquaintances in conversation. If you’re willing to risk possible legal repercussions, be candid even about patronizing prostitutes illegally. Talk about what you consider the social advantages of legal prostitution. Recommend books to your local school board (for the high-school curriculum, perhaps) that portray prostitutes in a positive light. Start or support a conspicuous legalization campaign for prostitution. Use civil disobedience by publicly and openly soliciting commercial sex (if the media won’t let you run ads, I suppose you could post flyers). Some of these things might have some negative consequences for you personally, but bear in mind that it’s nothing to the risks many openly gay people are running all the time, just by being out and pro-gay-rights. If you really believe in the importance and rightness of your cause, I figure you’ll be willing to make some sacrifices for it. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/91 "2004-10-03T22:51:32Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But if you’re using the public streets and public media for public advertising and public solicitation of sex-for-money exchanges with any or all members of the public, then it becomes the public’s business. And the public is constitutionally awarded a say in what kind of **public commercial** activities are permitted. Ok, but this same reasoning seems to apply to the lady who simply wants to meet and sleep with many men. She uses public areas to find men, so her activities should be regulatable.\* And let’s not go too far in our interpretation of what the constitution grants. It grants the federal government power to regulate interstate trade. It does not create or defend any “public property” principle you seem to be advocating. \*Just for anyone reading this who doesn’t know me, I am in no way defending the idea that sexual promiscuity should be regulated. I’m only interested in the odd notion that monetary exchange makes it fair game, and further that monetary exchange in a public area makes it fair game. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/92 "2004-10-03T23:18:16Z")
**pervert:** _Ok, but this same reasoning seems to apply to the lady who simply wants to meet and sleep with many men. She uses public areas to find men, so her activities should be regulatable._ No, because her individual right to private consensual sexual activity is off-limits to government regulation. (Unless it involves “disturbing the peace” or “indecency” or other vague restrictions intended to preserve public decorum.) My point was that if your sex-for-money exchanges are indistinguishable in the public eye from your private non-commercial sex life, then regulation isn’t practically possible or desirable. In other words, exchanging sex for money is impossible to regulate as long as the public can’t tell you’re doing it. If you can successfully keep it within the realm of private consensual sexual activity, it’s none of the government’s business if it happens to involve a few gifts here and there. Typical commercial prostitution, on the other hand, depends for its existence on public awareness of it, just as other commercial businesses do. And when it’s clear that public commercial activity is going on, the public has some say in what’s permitted. Yes, I know that the Constitution specifically speaks of interstate commerce, but AFAIK that’s generally interpreted by the courts as permitting a wide range of commercial regulation. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/93 "2004-10-04T00:24:07Z")
I can understand banning street walkers and all that, but what about call girls and escorts and such? They can theoretically operate out of their own homes, only people who actively search for them will run into them going about their business, any problem there? ---
**Author:** ![Sofis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Sofis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofis)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/94 "2004-10-04T04:23:00Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Why? To me, it seems like making a bad situation better. Prostitutes have chosen to be prostitutes (if they haven’t, then the problem isn’t prostitution, it’s kidnapping, rape, or possibly slavery). Meaning, they’ve considered their options, and concluded that prostitution, bad as it is, is better than the alternatives. Outlawing prostitution (whether buying, selling, or both) does nothing to improve the alternatives. Thus, any decrease in prostitution is due to making prostitution a worse alternative. Those who get out of prostitution because prostitution is now a worse alternative than one of their other alternatives are worse off, and those for whom prostitution is still the best alternative are worse off. Everyone’s worse off. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/95 "2004-10-04T05:55:53Z")
> [@Sofis](#): > > Outlawing prostitution (whether buying, selling, or both) does nothing to improve the alternatives. Whether true or not, that is not an argument against the Swedish policy. Because “improving the alternatives” is in fact a central element of that. From my earlier [link](http://www.sweden.se/templates/Article ____ 2295.asp) > [@](#): > > When the law came into force, some media ran sob stories: what about the prostitutes who could no longer make a living? Naturally, prostitutes will lose income, but the idea is that **social welfare will help them** find other occupations that do not involve humiliation and oppression. A comparison might be made with the steps taken in the United States in the 1960s when segregation was banned. Many black-owned businesses went bankrupt. Their business idea had been to serve the blacks that ‘white’ companies refused to deal with. And yet no one today regrets the laws that forced integration, even if it still does not work fully. You should remember that the Swedish approach is expressly based on a feminist view of prostitution. (“Prostitution is a form of violence against women which must be combated in a society trying to achieve equality.”, quoted from [here](http://www.lygus.lt/article.php?id=160)) It recognizes that people’s attitudes have to change. (Why? [Read this.](http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_sr_prostitution.html)) It is an explicitly stated goal of the Swedish approach to turn around people’s attitudes as well as to effect _broad_ measures to discourage prostitution. Flat-out legalization of prostitution might certainly be less bad than flat-out repression. For the case against legalization, see [this article](http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/prostitution.html), starting about halfway down. Many of the problems with legalization described in that article are in fact confirmed by Dutch experience as recounted in the link I posted earlier, which was actually rather downbeat - it stated that the recent Dutch legislation was “a failure”. (However, this is not to detract from the OP. The situation described in the OP has existed for decades, and is more a result of particularly Dutch(Amsterdam) attitudes and tolerance, than any legislation.) ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/96 "2004-10-04T06:14:07Z")
I don’t have much to offer this discussion, however, this caught my eye: > [@Kimstu](#): > > Some of these things might have some negative consequences for you personally, but bear in mind that it’s nothing to the risks many openly gay people are running all the time, just by being out and pro-gay-rights. If you really believe in the importance and rightness of your cause, I figure you’ll be willing to make some sacrifices for it. All you say is right, I think. But the thing that may make this “cause” less likely to have people fight and sacrifice for it is that, when it comes down to it, visiting prostitutes is not something that most people see as mandatory, or something that people _can’t help_ but do. Being gay, on the other hand, is something that many see as not a choice. Homosexuality just _is_—whereas prostitution does not have that same dynamic. It also has some otherwise liberal thinkers (i.e. some feminists) who are against it. But hey! If someone wants to fight the good cause and be seen as “pro-prostitution,” then what you propose is probably exactly what they should be doing. ---
**Author:** ![Sofis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Sofis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofis)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/97 "2004-10-04T06:14:14Z")
> [@Frankenstein Monster](#): > > Whether true or not, that is not an argument against the Swedish policy. Because “improving the alternatives” is in fact a central element of that. From my earlier [link](http://www.sweden.se/templates/Article ____ 2295.asp) > > > [@](#): > > > > When the law came into force, some media ran sob stories: what about the prostitutes who could no longer make a living? Naturally, prostitutes will lose income, but the idea is that social welfare will help them find other occupations that do not involve humiliation and oppression. There is absolutely _nothing_ stopping us from providing that aid _without_ outlawing prostitution. I have nothing against providing economic-or-other aid for those who want to get out of prostitution - that’s wonderful. But outlawing prostitution does not make that aid more effective. It just makes prostitution a worse alternative. > [@Frankenstein Monster](#): > > You should remember that the Swedish approach is expressly based on a feminist view of prostitution. (“Prostitution is a form of violence against women which must be combated in a society trying to achieve equality.”, quoted from [here](http://www.lygus.lt/article.php?id=160)) Yes, I’m aware. I happen to think that view is a load of bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/98 "2004-10-04T06:17:00Z")
[Prostitution : Rights of Women or right to women ?](http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=108) > [@](#): > > In Quebec, members of Stella have spoken the loudest in favour of the liberalisation of prostitution. They reject the idea that prostitutes should be treated as victims and say that most prostitutes have freely chosen this role, finding in their work a source of empowerment. (…) But despite this courage, and the claims of Stella, there is room for scepticism, especially when data from an international study show that 92% of the prostitutes would leave prostitution if they could (2). I still have to add, I am not invested in the feminist side of this debate. But I am very sympathetic to their analysis. Certainly after reading another heart-rending trafficking / forced prostitution story recently. My problem with authoritarian feminists is with the authoritarianism. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/99 "2004-10-04T07:05:14Z")
> [@Sofis](#): > > Prostitutes have chosen to be prostitutes (if they haven’t, then the problem isn’t prostitution, it’s kidnapping, rape, or possibly slavery). Meaning, they’ve considered their options, and concluded that prostitution, bad as it is, is better than the alternatives. Then why do so many prostitutes have abuse histories, drug addictions and/or assorted mental problems or problems with self-image and self-esteem? Because they do _not_ sit back and make an informed choice. Their alternatives are artificially limited by other problems they have. > [@](#): > > Those who get out of prostitution because prostitution is now a worse alternative than one of their other alternatives are worse off, and those for whom prostitution is still the best alternative are worse off. Everyone’s worse off. No. The people who thought prostitution was their only alternative are now better off. One element that goes again and again in the stories of former prostitutes is how they thought they were worthless and the only thing they could do was be sexually abused for money. That’s a downgoing spiral, and getting them out of it is a good thing. > [@marky33](#): > > In such a situation who have a seller who wants to sell and, as long as that seller doesn’t price themselves too high, buyers that want to buy. Is prostitution of this kind a problem? In the hypothetical situation where we have a seller who has considered all the plentiful options and made an informed, voluntary decision to become a prostitute, and we have a buyer who simply wants easy sex and doesn’t have a crappy outlook on women or any other similar problems, _even then_ we have the problems of making certain areas hostile to women and changing the societal outlook on women. Furthermore, if prostitution is a free and easy option, the women who don’t have plentiful options and/or cannot make informed voluntary decisions will end up in prostitution. ---
**Author:** ![Sofis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Sofis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofis)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455/100 "2004-10-04T07:40:51Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Then why do so many prostitutes have abuse histories, drug addictions and/or assorted mental problems or problems with self-image and self-esteem? Because they do _not_ sit back and make an informed choice. Their alternatives are artificially limited by other problems they have. Quite likely. Given the societal status of prostitution, it is not surprising that many of those who choose it have various problems. But I do not see how outlawing prostitution aids. > [@Priceguy](#): > > No. The people who thought prostitution was their only alternative are now better off. One element that goes again and again in the stories of former prostitutes is how they thought they were worthless and the only thing they could do was be sexually abused for money. That’s a downgoing spiral, and getting them out of it is a good thing. People who think that prostitution is their only alternative are not better off, since they think prostitution is their only alternative. You yourself said that if the laws have reduced the number of prostitutes, it is due to reducing the number of customers. If some prostitutes are leaving the profession due to lack of customers, it seems likely that it’s the ones that think they _do_ have alternatives. Showing prostitutes that there are alternatives is great. But I do not see how outlawing prostitution helps with that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-praise-of-amsterdam-s-prostitutes/266455.md?page=6)