prostitution should be legal

The Case for Legalizing Prostitution

Understanding the Oldest Profession

Prostitution—the exchange of sexual services for money—has been around since the dawn of civilization. As the world’s oldest profession, it’s not going away anytime soon. But should it be legal?
There are good arguments on both sides. Those in favor argue that legalization allows better regulation to increase safety, improves access to healthcare, and recognizes a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body. Those against counter that it leads to more human trafficking and violence against women. It’s a complex issue for sure.
Let’s walk through the pros and cons in a thoughtful way, considering the implications from ethical, legal, and pragmatic standpoints. There are reasonable cases to make on both sides—ultimately it’s about striking the right balance.

The Ethical Argument

The heart of the debate lies in the ethical domain: should prostitution be allowed from a moral standpoint?
Some argue that prostitution is inherently exploitative—it commodifies women’s bodies and reduces them to sex objects for male pleasure. But others counter that banning it infringes on civil liberties: women should have the right to choose what they do with their bodies, even if others object morally.
As with many divisive social issues, there are good-faith arguments on both sides stemming from people’s deeply held beliefs. Reasonable people can disagree.
Perhaps the question we should be asking isn’t “is prostitution morally right or wrong” which is arguably subjective. But rather: “does banning it make the situation better or worse for the vulnerable people it impacts?”

The Pragmatic Argument

Regardless of one’s ethical stance, the pragmatic reality is that prostitution has persisted despite bans. Even where illegal, the world’s oldest profession continues to operate in black and gray markets.
So we need to consider: does outlawing prostitution protect people and communities as intended? Or, as with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, have we simply driven the industry underground and made things worse as a result?

Does Criminalization Help or Harm?

Here’s the pragmatic case for legalization: banning prostitution makes the industry more dangerous for those involved. Without legal oversight, it gets controlled by organized crime and pimps who exploit workers. There’s increased risk of violence, trafficking, disease transmission, and other harms.
Essentially, prohibition has the same effect as with banning alcohol or drugs: supply doesn’t stop, it just gets channeled through the black market where the most unscrupulous operators thrive outside the law. Workers have little recourse to report abuses.
So while the intentions may be moral, in practice criminalization puts vulnerable people at greater risk.

The Benefits of Legalization

Conversely, where prostitution has been legalized and regulated, there is evidence of improved health and safety:
In Nevada, legal brothels enable health checks, condom use, and support services for workers. There are no underage workers or reports of trafficking.
In Germany and the Netherlands, violence against sex workers declined significantly after legalization. There was no spike in trafficking as some predicted.
In New Zealand, sex worker rights groups reported improved relations with police and ability to report abuse after decriminalization. Over 60% felt the law afforded them better employment protections.
The data shows that, on balance, workers are safer when not pushed to the margins. Regulation works better than prohibition.

A Public Health Approach

Some argue we should view prostitution not through a moral lens, but a pragmatic public health perspective instead.
Rather than drive it underground by criminalizing, we should bring it into the light through legalization—regulating it to mitigate the risks and harms as best possible.
This is akin to needle exchanges for IV drug users. While we cannot condone illegal drug use morally, we recognize that providing clean needles is better than further marginalizing vulnerable addicts. Harm reduction trumps hardline prohibition.

The Legal Argument

There’s also a civil liberties argument. Consenting adults should have the right to engage in victimless crimes, even if others find it morally objectionable.
Your freedoms extend until they infringe upon mine. So what right does the state have banning an exchange between consenting adults in private? It could set a dangerous precedent around government overreach into personal liberties.
And if two consenting adults agree to exchange intimacy for compensation, who are we to judge? The legal system draws the line at exploitation, coercion, abuse, violence, trafficking—not the voluntary exchange itself.
In fact, labor laws already cover these contingencies. It’s perfectly legal for consenting adults to have casual sex, even with people they just met. So why should exchanging money make it illegal? What exactly changes in the equation if finances are involved?

The Way Forward

The decision ultimately lies with lawmakers to decide which balances of civil liberties, public health, and ethical considerations make the most sense for their communities. It’s a complex issue with reasonable arguments on both sides—all stemming from positive intentions.
Perhaps the right path forward isn’t binary legality or prohibition, but a spectrum of regulations between the extremes. Just as we allow and regulate gambling, alcohol, marijuana, and other vices without outright bans, maybe we need a nuanced set of policies that aim to mitigate harm while preserving basic freedoms.