>In most places in the US, there is no such thing as consensual prostitution. I have long since rejected the notion of the law having any say in what is or isn

>In most places in the US, there is no such thing as consensual prostitution. I have long since rejected the notion of the law having any say in what is or isn't consensual. If the law says that pi is 3 or that climate change isn't happening, would we give any weight to it? No, and not because the law happens to be wrong in this case, but because any educated person would reject what the law has to say concerning the reality of the situation. (Not to say the law can be ignored if one is looking to stay out of jail, but thankfully online arguments about reality aren't likely to get one jailed.) >But if buying is illegal but selling is legal, the prostitute is the victim. You define the victim based on what the law says? Once again, I reject the notion that what the law says has any bearing on reality. >Bear in mind, the point of not charging the prostitute with a crime is because they don't want to arrest someone who was forced into an illegal transaction, they want to arrest the people who are forcing others to commit crimes. If every prostitute can be considered forced, then so can every john. A john would only be seeing prostitute because a more socially acceptable hookup is not available, and in such they are forced into it in much the same way that a prostitute is forced into it because a more socially acceptable job is not available (BTW, I'm being sarcastic because I reject that whole argument). >But the person who is providing you with that heroin doesn't have to sell it to you. When you are in a gang and are told to go seel some crack, you don't tell the leader no if you favor your health and wellbeing.