The majority of the abolitionists seem to be approaching the issue in an entirely one-sided manner: prostitution is male customers and female prostitutes. It co

The majority of the abolitionists seem to be approaching the issue in an entirely one-sided manner: prostitution is male customers and female prostitutes. It completely ignores that women can desire purely sexual encounters (which Tinder and Chippendales are big examples of evidence against) or that sex can be a moral and healthy experience for both parties even if money is involved. > "They’re sexual objects. What does that mean for how professional women are seen? And if women are sex toys you can buy, think about the impact on relationships between men and women, in marriage or otherwise." They're really showing their hand here. First, they want you to believe that all women are accountable for all other women. They see every sexual depiction of a woman to be representative of all women, which to me is the real objectification of the gender. Second, as it relates to "relationships between men and women", they want to exert control over personal relationships, which is just ludicrous. Do they honestly think men only have monogamous relationships for the sex?