There are some real problems with this piece, problems that using “fuck” in the title are not transcended.
E.g. the author endorses law enforcement initiatives that arrest johns & potential johns, but makes no reference to prostitutes themselves. Is that to maintain his feminist cred? Or does he believe they ought not to be sanctioned at all? Is he, by comparison, in favor of throwing the book at drug addicts while allowing dealers to ply their trade?
If so, then that would leave practitioners of the world’s oldest profession to compete for a shrinking group of customers. They’d become like photojournalists, which I can say from experience, is not a pleasant spot to find oneself in right now.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, because I’ve never used the services of a pro & honestly can’t imagine doing so. But as a taxpayer, I’d rather see my money go to helping women find alternatives: e.g. job training, child-care, addiction treatment, then putting sexually feckless males in the hoosegow.
Historically speaking many societies have viewed the availability of sex-for-pay as a safety valve — not against sexual violence, but against numbskull insurgencies that young, underutilized males in particular are notorious for.
People will always pay for sex & be paid for it.
Does anyone honestly believe that Melania found Donald’s orange skin & absurd hair so irresistible?
Finally, the issue of alleged left-wing hypocrisy — rampant, unregulated capital causes endless harm to people, even ultimately to those few who appear to benefit from it. Prostitution? Not so much. I have no intention of denouncing the author as a “moralizer”, but it’s clear he’s not paying attention to those women who sold sex as an alternative to an abusive marriage, or drudge work in a factory, or begging in the streets.