The survey in the O.P. seems to indicate that most of those surveyed where quite aware of the possibility that they were participating in a harmful and coercive relationship. They thought it was more likely than not. And yet any of them will claim that they were not aware of their actions, were not aware of the possibility, were they to arrive in court.<p>In Canada, if I don't clear the ice on my side of the sidewalk, and someone slips and gets hurt, I am liable. As a result, people clear their sidewalks.<p>If one is engaged in soliciting prostitution, which is already illegal, one should accept and avoid the risks that they are participating in something highly unethical. Those who won't should at the least be forced to avoid doing something highly illegal. People already do this. Bar Bouncers. Medical Doctors. Military Officers. Public Officials. Heads of Public Companies.<p>It is a philosophical argument, but I just don't buy the idea that we are responsible only for what we know about, only what we intend, only for the consequences of our actions that we do anticipate. I believe we're responsible for the consequences of all of our actions, whether we like it or not. And, legally, I think that there's much potential value in stating that, if you engage in an activity that risks creating or perpetuating serious harm, then it up to <i>you</i> to make sure that you aren't.<p>---<p>As a related matter, have you heard of the Seven Dwarves of Big Tobacco?<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs</a><p>And the testimony of Jeffrey Wigand<p><a href="http://jeffreywigand.com/pascagoula.php" rel="nofollow">http://jeffreywigand.com/pascagoula.php</a>