I think we agree what the problems are. I just think we disagree about the solutions.
I think we disagree about both, actually.
And that's where I have a problem with your solution. While reducing the demand is a nice theoretical solution, it's not a practical one. This means that a solution needs to take into account that this won't really happen. It's like having safe injection sites and needle exchanges for drug users. It would be better to just have people not use drugs in the first place, but since they're going to be doing so, the question is what can be done to make it as safe and secure as possible.
It's a good comparison except that most drug users use by choice, even if you or I might think that their choice is driven by some dysfunction(s), often coupled with biology. And we have treatment programs, even medical insurance (sometimes) and multiple social support systems in place to help people kick their addictions.
On the other hand, prostitutes are often coerced, literally, which is relatively rare among drug users. And we do not have well recognized, socially acceptable, funded programs to help prostitutes leave that life, with some small scale programs being the exceptions.
There is some stigma to being a clean drug addict, but almost none to being a recovered alcoholic. Prostitutes, if their history is known, always face the perception that they still prostitute themselves and if they aren't willing, are at higher risk of coercion. Not to mention a much greater burden of social stigma.
Well, I think that any solution which includes the phrase "they don't get beaten up or raped or murdered as often" is a majorly positive solution. I'm not aware of any solution that keeps prostitution criminalized which includes that phrase, therefore decriminalization is the solution I favour.
LEGAL prostitutes are not as subject to violence, but the illegal sex workers still are. From what I've read, there are no places with legal prostitution that do not have right along side it illegal sex trade going on. Those workers are still unprotected. I would wager that they are subject to even greater risk because those who specifically get off on hurting other people would go there where they can do what they want with relative impunity.
No matter how legal we make sex work, there will still be limits on age of sex worker, level of violence acceptable, use of condoms, testing (which protects the clients only, not the sex worker), etc. Those who willingly participate in sex work are not able to keep up with demand in areas where sex work is legal. I don't see this as changing, meaning there will always be a market for those who are too young, who are not willing, who have no choice but to accept whatever the client and pimp dish out. I cannot see a way around this and I would really, truly like to.
I'm having a hard time coming up with any 'acceptable' level of violence directed at sex workers, or how we would decide what was an 'acceptable' risk.
You're correct that prostitutes have a higher risk of STDs et al than workers in other industries have. Similarly, boxers and football players have a higher risk of concussions and other physical injuries. If banning boxing and football isn't a viable solution, the next best thing is to have organizations and structures in place to educate the workers about these risks and have procedures in place to minimize them and proper medical services to deal with them when they happen. It's the same with prostitutes and STDs. A legal and regulated industry can have these organizations and procedures in effect to a much better extent than an underground one run by criminals can. It's the second best solution, but since the best solution of getting rid of prostitution entirely isn't viable, it's the optimal choice.
Are you sure you want to use pro football (American) and boxing as examples of protection of those who work in the industry? Because they aren't well protected and there is a LOT of money being thrown at keeping the problems of TBIs out of sight/out of mind (forgive the pun), not to mention the potential for other life threatening and life limiting injuries. IMO, there is not enough financial compensation that mitigates the damage of a TBI for the player and for their loved ones. Keep in mind that my mother had a TBI (obviously not sports related) so I am somewhat familiar with what that entails.
It will probably not surprise you that I am not a fan of (American) football or boxing for precisely the risk of TBIs and other injuries to players. I also am in favor of getting the world out of the coal mining (and other mining) industries as much for the damage done to those who do the work as for the environmental damage done.
And yes, I'm a pacifist (if an extremely imperfect one) so I'm not much in favor of what we expect out of our armed forces.
In my work, I am daily exposed to hazardous materials, and even infectious materials. There are many extremely non-sexy precautions taken and engineered in place to prevent actual exposure that could lead to harm or disease. It's all very well regulated and procedures well established for how to handle an event that would cause me to say, have a stick with an infected sharp, or a splash to the eyes, etc, as well as prophylactic medications plans in place in the event that those precautions fail. In the years that I've done this work, exactly one co-worker in my work unit had an actual potential exposure and the plan put into place until it could be determined that the risk of infection was actually nil was....not at all sexy and involved some pretty expensive and nasty meds, as well as intrusion into the personal life of my co-worker. Trust me when I say that these are not likely to be implemented in sex work --and would not be acceptable to clients! and the exposures I risk are far less risky than the exposure that a sex worker would risk, even with condoms, etc. We're far more covered up than any sex worker,for one thing. And anyone who even attempted to hit one of us or even swore badly at one of us would be fired and if physical assault occurred, arrested and prosecuted, with full support of the institution.
Regardless of why they're doing it, the fact is that they are doing it. Since you agree that they're not going to just stop and nobody will be prostitutes anymore, the issue to deal with is how to make their job as safe and secure as possible. I do not see what you put in place to help ensure that in a better way than a legalized and regulated framework would.
Ah, I want to heal the world, actually.
One real issue I have with legalization and regulation is that so far, everything that I have read indicates that right along side the legal, regulated trade is a burgeoning illegal trade that involves trafficking. Legalization/regulation does not stop that and some think it even contributes to the growth of illegal trade.
I think that a huge part of the puzzle is that as societies, we believe that it is OK to use some people: women, children, gay people, heck: LGBTQ people, black/brown/yellow people, people with funny accents or religions or no religion however it suits our purpose, regardless of the harm or potential for harm to the person providing the service, or the labor.
We need to change that thinking.
