And much of the research backs Harris's opinion. Newsweek noted a comprehensive study of prostitution in the places where it's legal (including Nevada) and found that "illegal prostitution, as well as the number of rapes and assaults against prostitutes, has increased. Farley also found that more than 80 percent of the women working as prostitutes in Nevada's legal brothels 'urgently want to escape.'"

A compromise seems to be scaling back the penalties on the prostitutes and increasing the sentences for johns, which is something San Francisco is already doing with its First Offender Prostitution Program, which Newsweek describes as "like traffic school for drivers with too many speeding tickets." People who are arrested for soliciting sex can opt to pay $1,000 and attend the FOPP workshops which are a "a series of 'scared straight' talks about the ills of prostitution mixed with some seriously graphic sexual-health education." Schools like this have a pretty decent track record, according to Newsweek, "recidivism rates of those who completed "Johns school" were 30 percent less likely to be rearrested for soliciting sex than were men who did not opt for the program."

On the one hand, I have no moral opposition to the idea of people selling and buying consensual sex, but knowing the statistics, how could you vote in favor of a law that could increase human trafficking?

A School For Johns [Newsweek]

But according to Professor Roger Matthews, the life of a prostitute is anything but glamorous. "It's abuse and a life of hell," Matthews, a professor of criminology at London's South Bank University tells the Guardian. Matthews has been studying street prostitution for almost two decades and has just published a book called Prostitution, Politics and Policy, outlining his arguments against so-called "liberal" approaches to the sex trade. The "liberal" approach, explalins the the Guardian, "is to think of the trade as simply another form of work, to be 'non-judgmental' in dealing with it, and to set up areas, such as 'tolerance zones', where women can work without fear of arrest."

Matthews disagrees with this viewpoint because he believes that it continues to encourage johns to buy sex and that prostitution, no matter what, is a lose/lose scenario for almost all the women involved. "The women involved in prostitution - particularly street prostitution - are not only among the most victimised group in society, but many of them are multiple victims. If the term 'victimisation' is to have any meaning, then those involved in prostitution must be prime candidates," he argues. He's even against brothels like the Bunny Ranch, because, "When governments are seen to be endorsing prostitution, it leads to a massive expansion of the trade, both legal and illegal." Adds Guardian writer Julie Bindel: "Women working in legal brothels in Nevada, for example, have spoken about how prostitution under such a regime feels like 'legalised rape', and that no laws can remove the stigma of selling sex."

So what does Matthews suggest governments do in order to help prostitutes? He wants to decriminalize prostitution for the women, make consequences worse for the johns, and fund programs to help women find jobs so they can leave hooking behind altogether. He also wants to start studying the men who pay for sex, about whom very little is known. ("The available research indicates that the motivation of many men is relatively low, and that in the vast majority of cases it would not take much to deter them from paying for sex," he says.) Regardless of the available research, I have a hard time believing that prostitution will disappear, no matter what kinds of legislation is passed. While decidedly unglamorous in its gritty reality, prostitution still retains that odd patina of glamor, and sometimes people [men and women alike] want no-strings-attached nookie. It ain't the oldest profession for nothing.

Whorehouses And American Nostalgia [Economist]
'It's Abuse And A Life Of Hell' [Guardian]