>

My point is that treating it like any other job is not ethically possible due to hazardous conditions
/u/Due-Lie-8710 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

There's a song I like that speaks on this fairly poetically, so I'd like to start by just directly quoting it:

So when you bled on the bed as you fed those expectations, as a whore and not a human, you embraced with hesitation the very parameters of all you can be. Not a mother, not an aunt, not a sister who's not subdued. Because dignity's not physical, and your flesh means more than you.

Many (NOT ALL) of the people purchasing sex look at the worker as a commodity and not a human. And many (NOT ALL) of the general public look at the sex worker as undesirable. And many (NOT ALL) of sex workers are coerced into the industry, either by force or by life circumstance. Until we can truly establish a society which views sex work as "just another job," and rid ourselves of all the aforementioned biases, the people purchasing it are feeding into a broken and hurtful system. >


Many (NOT ALL) of the people purchasing sex look at the worker as a commodity and not a human. And many (NOT ALL) of the general public look at the sex worker as undesirable. And many (NOT ALL) of sex workers are coerced into the industry, either by force or by life circumstance. Until we can truly establish a society which views sex work as "just another job," and rid ourselves of all the aforementioned biases, the people purchasing it are feeding into a broken and hurtful system.

First of all if you aren't trafficked it is just like another job, as for you both being seen as human , make sense hey aren't there to befriend to have sex , you are performing a service, it's like you watching football or a movie,  you only see them as footballers ot actors , half of the time they don't care about their personal life,  there are some jobs that prevent you from getting any high paying jobs or jobs that involve care , as for the people purchasing it , if you can't purchase it then why should they sell it , you don't actually support sex work, because that would mean accepting the consumer base ad well as the supplier >

That’s a really big if though, sex work isn’t exactly an industry where you will know for sure if the service you’re getting is consensual. individuals who are victims of sexual trafficking, coercion, or just life circumstance aren’t likely to just tell their “customers” if it isn’t consensual. they could endanger themselves or not be aware that they can say something. 
Seeing someone as an object vs seeing them as an individual with a job aren’t the same though? yes we recognize actors and football players by their career choice and how well they are at it, but they’re still people at the end of the day? that’s why they have fanbases, interviews, paparazzi, popularity on social media, movie adaptions of their life exist—people are interested in more than them just doing their job.
A persons job is no reason to suddenly strip them of their humanity and rights granted them for being such, that kind of mentality is morally skewed and why a lot of people would not support sex work. plus you can’t say it makes sense for sex workers to be see as commodities only and then believe sex work will be consensual. the whole consent part comes from recognizing that this is another person who has their own boundaries and limits beyond just what you want. >

okay, that’s a plumber and not a person you’re having sex with. unlike plumbing which is clean cut, sex can include multiple aspects of different kinks and fetishes. You can’t expect a sex worker to be okay with say participating in rape play, anal, scat, and a mirage of other kinks simply because they agreed to sex. Sex is not clean cut, there is more to it. There has to be a boundary somewhere, this is another person body not a pipe. >

That’s like the point? recognizing the boundary and proceeding from there by RESPECTING the boundary because they are another person and not some masturbatory object. What you just said was a consensual interaction. The initial point was that there is no consensual sex without respecting the party that’s giving as a person. >

So... there's a concept of a moral hazard. 
There's literally no way for an individual to be certain that their prostitute is not being coerced/trafficked. Even if there are some special circumstances where it might be unlikely, certainty is still impossible, and most people frequenting prostitutes are not in those special circumstances.
Someone using their services is therefore extremely likely to be comfortable with risking that they are unknowingly raping someone. 
Generally speaking, people find that disgusting. >

If you eat chocolate (even the stuff with the fair trade sticker) then there's no guarantee that it hasn't come from slave farms which are not uncommon. If you eat chocolate throughout your life then you are almost definitely contributing to slavery. If you visit a prostitute regularly then the chance they're being exploited is anywhere from functioninally 0% to 100%. So why treat the John who might be discerning with scorn and not the chocolate eater who is a much safer bet in having contributed to coerced labour. >

It's worth trying to avoid those situations, but ultimately it's a very false equivalence to hold people responsible for the actions of others, vs. their own personal actions.
When you buy chocolate, you're not actually holding a gun to a slave, someone else is. The right answer to that is to lobby for worker protections for imported goods, and to try to end involuntary servitude within your country as well. 
When you have sex with a trafficked person, you personally literally raped them. If you don't have good evidence to know they aren't trafficked, you're personally ok with the possibility you're going to personally rape them. 
Both might be considered bad. But it's a false equivalence.
And sure... if someone is paying someone for sex when they are personal friends with them, and interact with them outside of prostitution enough to personally know that they aren't being trafficked... and you're sure they aren't lying, scorning them more than at most some light ribbing isn't justified. It's not like "sugar daddies" aren't a thing as well. At the very least much less disapprobation would be appropriate. >

In both cases, there is a customer receiving a service provided by a potentially enslaved person. They are morally equivalent. It makes no sense to say “sure I bought the slavery chocolate, but you can’t hold me responsible for the slavers actions!” >


you can’t hold me responsible for the slavers actions!”

The slavers actions are distinct from the consumers' actions for most things. 
This is an actual important difference when it comes to prostitution. 
Ignoring that fundamental difference doesn't make it go away, and it's entirely reasonable for someone to make that distinction. >

The slaver and consumer are different people who take different actions in the prostitution scenario. The consumer in both scenarios is taking the risk of being immoral. If I force you to be my slave that’s still immoral whether or not I put you to work in my brothel or mine or factory or fishing boat. And if I rent your services out to customers who aren’t aware you’re a slave, it doesn’t matter whether the service is sex or mining or fishing or whatever, it’s equivalent. >


And if I rent your services out to customers who aren’t aware you’re a slave, it doesn’t matter whether the service is sex or mining or fishing or whatever , it’s equivalent.

This is where the false equivalence comes in. 
Someone making products with slave labor is not renting out a slave to the consumer so that they consumer can force them to perform mining for the consumer. They are enslaving the labor to create a product, and selling the product. Products don't have rights to violate. The only person violating the rights of the slave is the slaver.
Someone trafficking a victim is renting out that victim so that the consumer can rape them. >

I don’t see how one is worse than the other. in both cases the customer’s purchase decision enables the coerced labor of another through a “producer”. 
If instead of engaging in direct sexual actions, you simply buy a digital “product” that entails pornography, live talks and whatever, is that significantly morally superior compared to normal prostitution? >

If the sex is only contractual to you? Why not just "hook up." Why pay? You will never be able to guarantee they are not being trafficked. If they are, they are not going to tell you. I think the idea of money exchanging hands for sex is the why most have a problem. The idea that you are giving a woman money for sex has been historically seen as her being a whore. 
I am not saying she is. I am saying that from the time it first exchanged hands, that is what it was. Men who could not find a woman, paid a woman. Why do you want others to see it differently? Yes, there will be outliers that will enjoy the work. But those are going to be ones that, like the escort, chose it, and charge what they want. Not the typical street hookers on the corner with pimps to pay. 
Prove they are not trafficked, they work for themselves, they are clean (of both drugs and diseases - because they are taking care of themselves and being safe), and that they are a sex worker because they enjoy the work or that that chose the work. Then, hey! Pay 'em and get to it! >

I think it is morally unhealthy to normalize it. Even though you have to be an adult to smoke weed, we definitely see weed as a normal thing to do in moderation compared to a few decades ago. This is how we would see prostitution if it was normalized. And I think weed has a lot less complications than legalizing prostitution. A LOT!
Sex work online is a lot safer and requires a lot less mental issues to engage in and promote. But even then, I know some sex workers (online type), and they are scarred by the stuff they have seen when it comes to their job. They have told me stories that are extremely disturbing. These are women who just do stuff by themselves. Not working with a porn company and other people.
Also, sex has a huge reputation for being violent and demoralizing towards women in general. I'd assume those numbers would be much higher in men looking to pay for sex. You'd have to have extremely strict and tight regulations for this sort of thing, which would take the fun out of it for a lot of people. And even then, there would still be many mistakes that would happen before we find out all the regulations that are needed. And I don't think we could ever make it mentally and physically safe for women.
Now, do I think it should be decriminalized for prostitutes? Definitely. I don't see them as disgusting. I feel quite bad for them. Most of them were trafficked at a young age. Do I see men wanting to pay for sex as disgusting? Not necessarily. It depends on the person and the situation. However, this isn't a simple issue where if we just "stop judging people," everything will be fine. >

Decriminalizing prostitution for both those selling and buying is demonstrably safer for prostitutes. If it is criminal for the buyer but not the seller, the buyer is often highly defensive and paranoid about the seller, specifically the possibility that they may be working with law enforcement. The buyer will often push to do it in a highly isolated setting as well. These things increase violence that sex workers face, and the averages go down in places where it is decriminalized to both buy and sell. If you have a designated work place for it and no one needs to be distrustful and worried about being arrested, that is the safest situation for all involved. 
We may disagree with buying it for whatever moral reason, but if we choose to criminalize the purchase of it, we are prioritizing punishing behavior we morally disagree with over prioritizing the safety of those involved, which I can't get behind. >

But there are so many more facets to the safety of legalizing it for the buyer other than them being pushy or wanting to do it in a hidden area. If we legalized it, it still wouldn't really help any of the points I made or is even something that is so overwhelmingly an issue compared to the points I made. >

So long as we have to work to live, all jobs are coercive, even sex work. I’m skeptical that there can ever be a consensual exchange within our current economic context. >

Exactly , I get sex is intimate but if you are willing to view sex work as any other job , you should be willing to treat it as such >

Sex work has certain occupational hazards that cannot be regulated away. OSHA (in the US) dictates that a person cannot be subject to bodily fluids without proper PPE in the workplace, and often johns just need to pay more to not wear a condom. Imagine a construction site paying workers more to not wear a hard hat. The greater potential for bodily harm is intrinsic to the work, and it will always be unsafe. >

True but this doesn't really answer my question