> Who said consentual sex causes any harm? I'm arguing the opposite. The comment I'm replying to is. They are arguing that prostitution is somehow harmful to t

> Who said consentual sex causes any harm? I'm arguing the opposite. The comment I'm replying to is. They are arguing that prostitution is somehow harmful to them and should be banned. I'll note the analogy of a poster on the wall of ones workplace is pretty poor, unless someone is advocating that prostitutes should be manning the hallways of Google. If you don't want to be exposed to prostitution it's easy to avoid. If you don't want to be exposed to the decoration of your place of work it's a lot harder. > The argument that women will interpret the posters as a message that they are seen as objects is potentially interesting, but then what about all the women who work at modelling agencies and ad agencies and actual sex related businesses? You mean the women who signed up for this line of work voluntarily rather than walking into their software engineering job and finding these posters on the wall? I think there's a clear differentiation between the two. Google probably shouldn't decorate it's offices with graphic images of say, people being operated on, I think that'd arguably be just as hostile a work environment. That doesn't mean that every surgeon is being abused. > So the image itself can not be said to posess any intrinsic harm or evil. Agreed the harm is not in the inherit to the image. As with many (most?) human interactions, context matters.