Look.

[novapsyche]

If you think that prostitution involves "paying for sex to use a woman," then you are totally disregarding the agency of the woman in question.

Along the same lines, if you follow the logic far enough, you're saying that a woman has no right to decide for herself to have an abortion.

You're even saying that she has no capability of choosing what person she would like to marry.

Agency is agency. Accept it, or deny it completely.

Damn, people suck!

Comments

[riverrealm.livejournal.com]

To which part(s) of the world do you refer?

I agree with you for countries that have strong economies, such as ours.

However, in many parts of the 'developing' world, a woman's only choice for earning monetary income is either picking through trash for pennies a month, or prostitution for US and European currency. Certainly, she is exercising agency, but when economic conditions are so crushingly grim, it seems that women are restrictively compelled by global economic forces to exercise their agency in certain ways.

But yes, agency is agency, and many women everywhere try to do what will provide best for themselves and their families.

(I assume your post is in response to some discussion elsewhere, which I didn't see.)

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Agency = self responsibility? I'd have to say yes in that case.

[brendand.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's just me, but I think your first sentence is oddly worded.

And I don't think you'd really be happy if people denied it completely. ;)

[entheo.livejournal.com]

I was going to comment on but of course I cant.
"I thought prostitution was legal in all states apart from South Australia? (not counting street prositution which is still ilegal in most states as it is dangerous for the prositute)"

[dr-pipe.livejournal.com]

did someone use that phrase in the discussion you linked to? if so I missed it. I can't quite parse it. maybe they meant "paying to use a woman for sex"?

I think prostitution certainly can be more broad than that, but it seems like in the steriotypical case, that's pretty much what the client has on his (usually his) mind. It seems like you have some specific objection, perhaps an alternative phrasing you would use instead?

As for your 'along the same lines'... I don't see how that follows. If I think that a starbucks employee is there for me to use for my coffee making needs, does it follow that he can't choose who to marry? what does one have to do with the other? He can do whatever he wants anytime but when I'm paying him to brew my espresso, for example.