Thank you and, no.

In my experience, the first problem the anti-prostitution activist comes across is how to deal with groups advocating ‘decriminalisation’. These groups will typically represent ’sole operator’ prostituted women. On first meeting, the anti-prostitution activist will want to stand in solidarity with these groups, because they appear to have the interests of prostituted women at heart. However, after a while it will become apparent that these groups have a pro-prostitution agenda. I have never encountered a pro-decriminalisation group that lobbies for the criminalisation of pimps and buyers.

If anyone on this list has encountered such a group, I would like to hear from them. But my understanding of the radical feminist position is that we are working toward the criminalisation of the sex industry and the treatment of prostituted people as victims of crime qualifying for social services. I think if the radfem literature has advocated for the ‘decriminalisation’ of prostituted people this is a mistake that de-emphasises our concern for prostituted people as in need of social support and welfare.

‘Decriminalisation’ is an idea that leaves prostituted people still vulnerable to the predation of buyers and pimps, and almost certainly doesn’t prompt the re-organisation of society’s thinking and structures to accommodate prostituted people as victims of crime.

So, I would urge, please consider the idea of ‘decriminalisation’ as solely the domain of the pro-prostitution lobby, and instead argue for the simultaneous criminalisation of the sex industry and the provision of support for prostituted people.

I completely agree that everyone’s default should be set to “no”. I also agree that prostitution is problematic in the current patriarchal (yes, I can say the word) set-up.

However,
* I don’t agree that all sex is necessarily about “pleasing [my partner] or “proving my worth”. And I sympathise with those who do.
* Legal measures against prostitution are useless, and legalising it gives women much more protection… except with those discriminatory situations like you have in Nevada, where the State is the pimp. And the jailer.
* Naturally women are horribly exploited personally and professionally now, but I also believe that selling sexual services can be done like selling any other service - I know people who do, and who have no angst about it, and they are not oppressed drones. I totally agree this is not the majority experience - and I’ve not seen a formula where we get from prohibition to the acceptance of prostitution as a respected profession. Mainly because people of your feminist persuasion here don’t want it (imagine if we ever did get post-patriarchy - why not?), and the more woo-woo kind deny the problems with it now.
* I do think denying some women’s agency by saying that there is no such thing as a powerful, in-control prostitute is not helpful. There are too many counter-examples. Explaining how they can exist now might be an interesting exercise, and provide a model for future ways of getting that power away from the men.

Also, I’d like to say that the vitriol in the comments here about those of us who are not reflexively anti-prostitution (or anti-porn) is crap. I particularly resent the emphasis on “sex-positive” “feminists” (with scare-quotes). Unfortunately (for some here), there is no one true way of feminism. There never was. Being told I am not a “real” feminist is a nice way of shutting down dialogue. I value those who have assumed the “RadFem” banner these days (and hasn’t the meaning of that term changed in the last 40 years?), because questioning sexuality is an important part of feminism. Funnily enough, it’s what the “sex-pos” crowd do too. Also, characterising people like me as young silly twits (by implication) is ridiculous - I’m nearly 40, and my eyes are as open to oppression as much as anyone else’s. Including from our own.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/19/opinion/edsonesson.php

I think the most important point here is: if you legalize prostitution, the only thing that happens is more men go to prostitutes, more women go into the sex industry and more pimps and crime syndicates start trading in human lives.

The word ‘decriminalisation’ is solidly the invention of the pro-prostitution lobby. It disguises their aim to have the sex industry treated like an economic sector, and its customers treated like consumers (cf. NSW and New Zealand). The word is redundant in the anti-prostitution legislation of Sweden and South Korea. In these jurisdictions, prostituted people are treated as victims of crime, and are given access to a range of social services.

To ‘decriminalise’ the ’selling’ of prostitution is a bogus concept that has no meaning outside the pro-prostitution agenda. It is a nonsense to ‘decriminalise’ prostituted people while the activities of johns and pimps are still legal. This is the equivalent of ‘decriminalising’ mugging victims while making mugging legal.

The idea of ‘decriminalisation’ is a decoy used by the pro-prostitution lobby to make people think they are concerned about the welfare of prostituted people. They pretend to care for these people by lobbying for the removal of laws that treat prostituted people like criminals, while opposing criminalisation of the parties that create prostituted people.

Feminists should not be distracted from the project to criminalise the sex industry and its customers–the call to ‘decriminalise’ prostituted people is just a red herring.