Travesty: Abhisit Vejjajiva charged with 'murder'

[Lief 🗽]

Because it is indisputable that, in 90% of cases, prostitutes are the victims of merchandised sex rather than their beneficiaries. Of course they get paid for that, so what? Most of them do this job because they feel this is their only opportunity to maintain economic security, and, as Politicus pointed out, this activity physically and psychologically degrades them.

Again, this is true of most menial jobs. Distinguishing menial labor that involves sex from menial labor that does not is simply an arbitrary moral judgment.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it is indisputable that, in 90% of cases, prostitutes are the victims of merchandised sex rather than their beneficiaries. Of course they get paid for that, so what? Most of them do this job because they feel this is their only opportunity to maintain economic security, and, as Politicus pointed out, this activity physically and psychologically degrades them.

Again, this is true of most menial jobs. Distinguishing menial labor that involves sex from menial labor that does not is simply an arbitrary moral judgment.

Obviously, it is a moral judgment. As I said earlier, it is derived from the belief that sexuality is one of the most fundamental aspect of our experience as humans, and, as such, should be particularly cherished and protected against abuses of any kind.

But tell me, Lief, isn't any policy ultimately the result of a moral judgment? Tell me, for example, why do you support universal health care? Don't you do so because you hold the moral judgment that health care is a fundamental human right?

[Cory]

I do think that the fundamental consequences of legalizing prostitution (ie, spreading a merchandised conception of sexuality) would ultimately outweigh its potential advantages. I just think it is fundamentally necessary for a society to cultivate the idea that one's body is not and cannot be for sale.

Like I said before; this argument amounts to "It's just bad". You are enforcing your arbitrary value judgment upon the entire population.

Because it is indisputable that, in 90% of cases, prostitutes are the victims of merchandised sex rather than their beneficiaries. Of course they get paid for that, so what? Most of them do this job because they feel this is their only opportunity to maintain economic security, and, as Politicus pointed out, this activity physically and psychologically degrades them.

So why are you against the single most reliable say to improve the lot of said sex workers? Taking your "moral stand" does nothing to adjust the situation.

[Gustaf]

I have never heard that we have more male prostitutes in Sweden than female ones and I'd be extremely surprised if such were the case. We import a ton of Eastern European and Southeast Asian women for illegal prostitution.

And it's always fun to see certain leftists come out in favour of radical free market libertarianism as long as it's sufficiently exploitative of women.

[Lief 🗽]

It's always fun to see certain Swedes butt into threads to label people racists/sexists/anti-semites/whatever he feels like today.

Wait, no, tiresome. Tiresome is the word I was looking for there.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

It's always fun to see certain Swedes butt into threads to label people racists/sexists/anti-semites/whatever he feels like today.

Wait, no, tiresome. Tiresome is the word I was looking for there.

It often is, which is why it's especially refreshing when he's completely on-point, like right now.

[Lief 🗽]

Because it is indisputable that, in 90% of cases, prostitutes are the victims of merchandised sex rather than their beneficiaries. Of course they get paid for that, so what? Most of them do this job because they feel this is their only opportunity to maintain economic security, and, as Politicus pointed out, this activity physically and psychologically degrades them.

Again, this is true of most menial jobs. Distinguishing menial labor that involves sex from menial labor that does not is simply an arbitrary moral judgment.

Obviously, it is a moral judgment. As I said earlier, it is derived from the belief that sexuality is one of the most fundamental aspect of our experience as humans, and, as such, should be particularly cherished and protected against abuses of any kind.

But tell me, Lief, isn't any policy ultimately the result of a moral judgment? Tell me, for example, why do you support universal health care? Don't you do so because you hold the moral judgment that health care is a fundamental human right?

There's a degree of moral judgment, sure, but there are also policy considerations. It's good public policy and good economics for a country's citizens to be healthy and for there not to be large disparities between those without access to healthcare and those with it.

But the public policy considerations when it comes to prostitution run against your moral judgment. Legalizing and regulating the profession and protecting sex workers, just like we do with all other jobs, is the best way to protect their welfare.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I do think that the fundamental consequences of legalizing prostitution (ie, spreading a merchandised conception of sexuality) would ultimately outweigh its potential advantages. I just think it is fundamentally necessary for a society to cultivate the idea that one's body is not and cannot be for sale.

Like I said before; this argument amounts to "It's just bad". You are enforcing your arbitrary value judgment upon the entire population.

I like to think it isn't arbitrary, since it is derived from deep personal reflections, as well as scientific findings in domains such as psychology and sociology, which it's not worth detailing now.

But anyways, this is exactly what politics is about. Politics is about determinating, as a society, what we judge as good and what we judge as bad, and what is the best way to favor the good and combat the evil. You cannot found any public policy without basing yourself on some form of morality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So why are you against the single most reliable say to improve the lot of said sex workers? Taking your "moral stand" does nothing to adjust the situation.[/quote]

I think that cracking down on pimps and brothel owners, to the contrary, has the purpose to emancipate their "employees". As I said, ideally the State should take charge of offering prostitutes opportunities to insert themselves in a normal professional career, but I understand that this is a much broader problem. Nonetheless, while legalizing prostitution might improve the conditions of prostitutes, it does not change the fundamentally degrading nature of prostitution.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it is indisputable that, in 90% of cases, prostitutes are the victims of merchandised sex rather than their beneficiaries. Of course they get paid for that, so what? Most of them do this job because they feel this is their only opportunity to maintain economic security, and, as Politicus pointed out, this activity physically and psychologically degrades them.

Again, this is true of most menial jobs. Distinguishing menial labor that involves sex from menial labor that does not is simply an arbitrary moral judgment.

Obviously, it is a moral judgment. As I said earlier, it is derived from the belief that sexuality is one of the most fundamental aspect of our experience as humans, and, as such, should be particularly cherished and protected against abuses of any kind.

But tell me, Lief, isn't any policy ultimately the result of a moral judgment? Tell me, for example, why do you support universal health care? Don't you do so because you hold the moral judgment that health care is a fundamental human right?

There's a degree of moral judgment, sure, but there are also policy considerations. It's good public policy and good economics for a country's citizens to be healthy and for there not to be large disparities between those without access to healthcare and those with it.

But the public policy considerations when it comes to prostitution run against your moral judgment. Legalizing and regulating the profession and protecting sex workers, just like we do with all other jobs, is the best way to protect their welfare.

Then all we disagree on is the advantages/disadvantages ratio of legalization. I think that the latter outweigh the former, while you think the opposite. It's a complex issue and I understand the opposing arguments.

Anyways, I'm glad that you admitted that moral judgments do have a role in politics.

[Lief 🗽]

It's always fun to see certain Swedes butt into threads to label people racists/sexists/anti-semites/whatever he feels like today.

Wait, no, tiresome. Tiresome is the word I was looking for there.

It often is, which is why it's especially refreshing when he's completely on-point, like right now.

Not really. I'm not advocating "radical, free-market libertarianism," and I'm not the one arguing that laws should restrict women's sexual expression and ownership of their labor (nor should laws be passed doing the same for male prostitutes!).

[Lief 🗽]

Because it is indisputable that, in 90% of cases, prostitutes are the victims of merchandised sex rather than their beneficiaries. Of course they get paid for that, so what? Most of them do this job because they feel this is their only opportunity to maintain economic security, and, as Politicus pointed out, this activity physically and psychologically degrades them.

Again, this is true of most menial jobs. Distinguishing menial labor that involves sex from menial labor that does not is simply an arbitrary moral judgment.

Obviously, it is a moral judgment. As I said earlier, it is derived from the belief that sexuality is one of the most fundamental aspect of our experience as humans, and, as such, should be particularly cherished and protected against abuses of any kind.

But tell me, Lief, isn't any policy ultimately the result of a moral judgment? Tell me, for example, why do you support universal health care? Don't you do so because you hold the moral judgment that health care is a fundamental human right?

There's a degree of moral judgment, sure, but there are also policy considerations. It's good public policy and good economics for a country's citizens to be healthy and for there not to be large disparities between those without access to healthcare and those with it.

But the public policy considerations when it comes to prostitution run against your moral judgment. Legalizing and regulating the profession and protecting sex workers, just like we do with all other jobs, is the best way to protect their welfare.

Then all we disagree on is the advantages/disadvantages ratio of legalization. I think that the latter outweigh the former, while you think the opposite. It's a complex issue and I understand the opposing arguments.

Anyways, I'm glad that you admitted that moral judgments do have a role in politics.

My point is that by imposing your moral judgments on sex workers you are hurting them. Marginalization and stigmatization of sex work (as opposed to treating it like any other work, and affording sex workers the same labor rights as other workers) because it offends your notions of what sex should be actively hurts them, because it denies them basic legal rights (protections against not being paid, workplace discrimination, abuse, rape by their clients, etc.). It's fine that you (and many others) define sex in that way, but by using that definition to inform public policy, you end up hurting the very "victims" you seek to protect. Essentially you are placing the protection of sex as this ideal over the protection of actual people in the sex worker industry.

With regards to your moral judgment point, I'm not sure how what you're proposing is any different from those that think that contraception and sodomy should be illegal (you presumably disagree with these people, yes?) because they deem it morally wrong and degrading to their ideal of sexuality?

[Antonio the Sixth]

My point is that by imposing your moral judgments on sex workers you are hurting them. Marginalization and stigmatization of sex work (as opposed to treating it like any other work, and affording sex workers the same labor rights as other workers) because it offends your notions of what sex should be actively hurts them, because it denies them basic legal rights (protections against not being paid, workplace discrimination, abuse, rape by their clients, etc.). It's fine that you (and many others) define sex in that way, but by using that definition to inform public policy, you end up hurting the very "victims" you seek to protect. Essentially you are placing the protection of sex as this ideal over the protection of actual people in the sex worker industry.

Where did you get the idea that I supported the "marginalization and stigmatization of sex work"? What I am arguing for is exactly the opposite, it's marginalizing and stigmatizing the parasites who benefit from sex work while doing our best to help their victims to escape from this world. I do not feel any hate or disdain toward prostitutes: to the contrary, I view them as the victims of an unjust society, which the State ought to take care of. Now, I understand that legalizing prostitution might somewhat improve the living conditions of prostitutes. This does not change the fact that the activity of prostitution is degrading in itself. Even with all the guarantees of a recognized labor, sexual labor will remain alienating to a degree infinitely superior to all other labor. That's why, I would rather try to combat prostitution and restrain its reach, rather than let it go even with better work conditions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference is that their idea of morality is stupid and bigoted. I hope you don't see mine as such.

But again I must point out that, by establishing universal health care, you are imposing your own moral judgment (eg health care is a right) to people (eg the wealthy) who might not agree with you.

[Cory]

I like to think it isn't arbitrary, since it is derived from deep personal reflections, as well as scientific findings in domains such as psychology and sociology, which it's not worth detailing now.

The same can be said for literally any moral judgment ever. Also, cite your claims about  "psychology and sociology". Because they are worth going into if they are going to be a part of your argument.

But anyways, this is exactly what politics is about. Politics is about determinating, as a society, what we judge as good and what we judge as bad, and what is the best way to favor the good and combat the evil. You cannot found any public policy without basing yourself on some form of morality.

I base my political policy prescriptions on what is materially best for the society. Also, there is no such thing as good and evil. Life is grey.

I think that cracking down on pimps and brothel owners, to the contrary, has the purpose to emancipate their "employees". As I said, ideally the State should take charge of offering prostitutes opportunities to insert themselves in a normal professional career, but I understand that this is a much broader problem. Nonetheless, while legalizing prostitution might improve the conditions of prostitutes, it does not change the fundamentally degrading nature of prostitution.

The government has been enforcing anti-prostitution laws and has not had your desired effect. As for the bold, if by "might improve the conditions of prostitutes" you mean "it will utterly and massively improve the lot of sex workers" then yes. Every first world nation with legalized prostitution has improved the lot of sex workers dramatically. Legalizing and regulating prostitution has the facts to back it up.

Again your opinion on the matter ultimately boils down to the fact that you just don't like prostitution as a concept personally.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I like to think it isn't arbitrary, since it is derived from deep personal reflections, as well as scientific findings in domains such as psychology and sociology, which it's not worth detailing now.

The same can be said for literally any moral judgment ever. Also, cite your claims about  "psychology and sociology". Because they are worth going into if they are going to be a part of your argument.

I will admit I am not an expert on these argument. Anyways, I think the point as already been made that engaging in regular, impersonal sexual activity generates major troubles with regard to the relationship between the mind and the body. It leads to think of oneself as an object rather than as a person, and certainly destroys self-esteem. Sociologically speaking, I just would think that making of sex a commodity creates a norm that disemphasizes the importance of feelings, and forget about the importance of mutual respects. It makes of sex a desire similar to desires for commodities in a consumer society, rather than something to base on a profoundly individual experience. Ultimately, I would say it alienates both the "workers" and the "consumers" into having significantly lower and less mature form of sexuality.

Edit: I notice that Politicus, below, has put it much better than I could, so refer to her post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But the point is, there is no objective standard for "what is materially best for the society". What we think is best for the society is always influenced by certain fundamental beliefs and values we hold. In one word, it depends on our moral judgment. Whether you like it or not, you are as much dependent of it as I am.

You make a good point that, in politic, there is never absolute good and absolute evil. There is, however, a right and a wrong direction, and it is up to political debate to sort out what policy goes in what direction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you paid attention to what I said earlier, you will notice that there are very few countries which have prostitution laws like those I advocate. Sweden is one of the few, and from what I've hear of it it seems to work pretty well.

[politicus]

Why treat potentially distasteful manual labor involving a vagina any differently from potentially distasteful manual labor involving one's hands? Surely you don't advocate saving female janitors or factory workers and "offering them opportunities for professional orientation"? At least a prostitute gets paid considerably more (a prostitute in a place with sensible laws, at least).

Short answer is that selling your body is very damaging to your health, at least if you do it over an extended period of time. There are severe long term psychological effects of being a prostitute. The myth of the happy whore is indeed a myth.
As I understand it the main problem is that prostitutes block the contact between body and mind when they are with a customer to endure it, this practice is psychologically very problematic in the long run. Prostitutes are also very exposed to violence, rape and other kinds of abuse.
The problems factory workers encounter are psychical and generally much less severe.

There are plenty of jobs that are damaging to your health, both physically and psychologically. Scrubbing toilets for your entire life isn't very fun. Working in a coal mine isn't fun. I don't see anyone advocating that we outlaw those jobs or find all the janitors and coal miners new professions. A lot of prostitution is exploitative (though far from all; there are many prostitutes who enjoy their job or at least tolerate it as much as anyone with a normal job does theirs), but so are many other manual labor occupations. The only reason that a distinction exists is because of out-dated moralistic concerns that constrain sexual behavior and expression.  

There are problems with the working conditions of prostitutes and with sex slavery/trafficking. Those are real concerns. But these are analogous to safety concerns or slavery in any other profession. Prostitution, in and of itself, is not the problem.

Did you not read what I wrote or are you being deliberately dense? I am not talking about whether it is fun(!), degrading or anything like that. It causes severe long term psychological damages, this is well documented. You simply cant compare the effects of long term prostitution to that of unskilled menial jobs.
Do some research on this before you jump to conclusions.

Here is a short description from a British organisation working with prostitutes, but there is a ton of research out there if you care to enlighten yourself.

Psychological Impact:

Most psychologists believe the long-term psychological harm resulting from prostitution is comparable to that from rape or domestic violence, 76% of those involved in prostitution experience some form of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The core experiences of violence and psychological trauma associated with prostitution are disempowerment and disconnection with others. Internally these experiences often cause a ‘split’ between the mind, body and spirit.

Individuals involved in prostitution often develop complex coping mechanisms and rituals to minimise their pain and brokenness:
 Dissociative disorders (e.g. disconnection, distancing)
 Anxiety disorders (e.g. fixation, memory loss, panic attacks, flashbacks)
 Substance abuse (leading to long term addiction and mental illness)
 Sleeping disorders – oversleeping, insomnia
 Depression
 Self harm
 Eating Disorders
 Obsessive-compulsive behaviour

[Velasco]

My point is that by imposing your moral judgments on sex workers you are hurting them. Marginalization and stigmatization of sex work (as opposed to treating it like any other work, and affording sex workers the same labor rights as other workers) because it offends your notions of what sex should be actively hurts them, because it denies them basic legal rights (protections against not being paid, workplace discrimination, abuse, rape by their clients, etc.). It's fine that you (and many others) define sex in that way, but by using that definition to inform public policy, you end up hurting the very "victims" you seek to protect. Essentially you are placing the protection of sex as this ideal over the protection of actual people in the sex worker industry.

With regards to your moral judgment point, I'm not sure how what you're proposing is any different from those that think that contraception and sodomy should be illegal (you presumably disagree with these people, yes?) because they deem it morally wrong and degrading to their ideal of sexuality?

Believe it or not, everybody has a sense of morality. Though serious differences of opinion exist, there is consensus over of some basic things: killing is bad; forcing people to do acts against their will, particularly in matters that concern the sexuality (rape, constraint to force women to exercise prostitution) too.

I understand (and to a certain extent I support it) the favorable point of view on legalizing the prostitution, when it affects persons that exercise it voluntarily. But the reality of the prostitution is so sinister that it produces stupor to me to see that someone argues that it's a question that only concerns different points of view on the morality. The exploitation exists, specially in this sector. A high percentage of the sexual workers in Europe are women and girls from the East, Latin America and other places led to the West with constraint and deceits. Many people works in prostitucion due to addictions or miserable living conditions. As someone has said before, sexuality is a serious matter. Certainly for me this subject goes beyond the debate between the puritanical or freethinking conceptions on the sexual morality.

The last phrase, regarding contraception and sodomy seems a bit ridicolous to me.

[rejectamenta]

Employment as a whole is a dehumanizing and miserable process for most of the world's inhabitants. I agree that the negative impact of working in the sex industry is more severe than what one might experience after a lifetime folding boxes or stuffing meat into bags as a "career", but I also see the two as sides of the same coin. Ideally nobody would be coerced into such an existence, but the machine presses on, harvesting the same herd of desperate poors with no options to grease its gears.

The problem is that one field in compensated for in a much greater fashion than the other by virtue of being legal. The conditions are unsatisfactory to say the least, but there does seem to be a shred of imaginary-yet-comforting dignity in shoveling pig crap for food stamps that isn't afforded to ladies of the night. I don't know that legalization would give it to them, but it would at least provide enough oversight to keep them safer, accounted for and compensated as the workers they are.

[Kitteh]

I definitely don't see prostitution as just another form of manual labor, but the argument that legalizing it would allow for it to be regulated better and lead to better conditions for the women involved overall seems persuasive to me. I'm inclined to support legalization as the lesser of the evils.

Regardless, I think the social stigmatization of working as a prostitute definitely has to end. I'd imagine a good amount of the trauma caused by being a prostitute comes not just from the work itself but also the shame that society makes you feel for it, having to hide your job (or your past, since the stigma of having been a prostitute in the past stays with you even if are no longer involved) from friends, family, and potential romantic partners, etc. I don't know if legalization would have any effect on that but I think it's more of a social/cultural issue more than a legal one.

[Lief 🗽]

Politicus:

It is certainly true that prostitutes in countries where the law marginalizes and does not protect them and they are forced on to the streets generally exhibit pretty severe psychological damage. But in countries where prostitution has been fully legalized and treated like any other work (with the same legal protections, rights and responsibilities) and most prostitutes work in the much safer (both physically and psychologically) location of brothels, these psychological harms aren't anywhere near as apparent, and in fact some studies show that escorts and brothel workers gain psychological rewards and empowerment through their work.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Burnout Among Female Indoor Sex Workers." (in Netherlands)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"The Mental and Physical Health of Female Sex Workers: A Comparative Study" (in New Zealand)

Unfortunately, most academic writing on prostitution has focused solely on street workers, and then applied these conclusions to all sex workers (even though, at least in western countries, the vast majority of prostitutes work indoors). This article includes a very good comparison of street workers and brothel workers/escorts, showing that on basically every measure (safety, psychological health, community impact, etc.) the latter are better off.

Also there's no need to be so condescending.

[opebo]

It's surprising this praise of the easy money coming from someone who supposedly should be a fierce critic of the exploitation of the human beings by the merciless market laws. Because the sexual trade has more to see with the laws of supply and demand than with questions relative to private life or the free exercise of sexuality. There exists the demand of feminine bodies in the same ways that there exists demand for assassins of easy trigger or dealers to pass the drug. On the other hand, there always exists a convenient supply of desperate people arranged to earn easy money, given the lack of opportunities that exists in many societies. I guess that you aren't naive enough to believe that a relevant percentage of persons who devote themselves to prostitution works for pleasure. In an overwhelming majority of the cases, it's the money or the constraint (human trafficking).

Dude, it is almost invariably a huge income, and very easily had compared to working at a regular job.  Being critical of employment as a whole is not a reason to blind oneself to the obvious fact that some jobs are worse than others - obviously being a prostitute pays a lot, in Thailand typically about five times what one could make in a normal job.

As for the 'trafficking', obviously that's mostly a fiction designed to creat support for making prostitution illegal - the idea that someone would go to all the trouble of kidnapping someone when the good salary attracts sufficeient workers  is silly.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

opebo, your version of the global prostitution industry would be easier to believe in if you didn't have quite such a blatant vested interested in it.

[Velasco]

As for the 'trafficking', obviously that's mostly a fiction designed to creat support for making prostitution illegal - the idea that someone would go to all the trouble of kidnapping someone when the good salary attracts sufficeient workers  is silly.

Must I answer this seriously? Please. In my country bands trafficking with women are dismantled frecuently: Russians, Ucranians, Brazilian... it's the same. Certainly the bands remain with the most of the income. Apparently it's a good business. Prostitution isn't illegal here, nor legal; simply it exists in a judicial limbo. Women working in prostitution aren't chased nor the owners of 'brothels' (Spain is plenty of them).

[opebo]

As for the 'trafficking', obviously that's mostly a fiction designed to creat support for making prostitution illegal - the idea that someone would go to all the trouble of kidnapping someone when the good salary attracts sufficeient workers  is silly.

opebo, your version of the global prostitution industry would be easier to believe in if you didn't have quite such a blatant vested interested in it.

Must I answer this seriously? Please. In my country bands trafficking with women are dismantled frecuently: Russians, Ucranians, Brazilian... it's the same. Certainly the bands remain with the most of the income. Apparently it's a good business. Prostitution isn't illegal here, nor legal; simply it exists in a judicial limbo. Women working in prostitution aren't chased nor the owners of 'brothels' (Spain is plenty of them).

Guys, I just report what I see here in Asia - the girls make a huge income when young living very well with only a fairly small amount of 'work'.  As they get older they will generally see their income potentially slowly fall off, and finally their services become fairly unmarketable after about 35-40 years of age.

I suppose Velasco the distinction in your country is that you are talking about illegal or quasi-legal immigrants - here in Thailand most sex workers are Thai, and are these are almost never 'forced' in any sense. 

However, the brothels near the border are staffed by illegals - Laotian, Burmese, or Cambodia, depending on the border -  and while definitely not forced and usually quite free to roam about the city, these ladies are much more limited in their 'rights'.  I've chatted with them extensively however, and they describe the typical system one would find in any such business anywhere in the world - 50/50 split between girl and house for each 'sex service', and the girl has a right of refusal for any particular customer.  The girls typically do owe a set amount of work before they go home, to pay for their initial costs of entry - typically just 3-6 months, though , nothing onerous.  Most go home every few months for holidays to see their families.  And perhaps most importantly, most feel they're making a  huge income compared to their situation back home, and are not regretful of their decision to come.

By contrast the Thai sex-workers in their own country are completely free agents, typically changing bars or massage parlours at any moment and at will for any reason, or working entirely as freelancers.  Reasons for changing bars or venues are as often tempting offers of higher salary, 'better split', or provision of more and higher-end clientele as it is any 'problems' with the initial employer.  I suspect you might find that any Spanish sex-workers working within their own country would also experience similar levels of independence.

[Velasco]

Opebo, I won't question your knowledge of the situation in Thailand; I have never been there. I've read some press articles and watched some documentary in TV about prostitution and  pedophilia in Cambodia. Both serious matters. My impression is that the situation in the Khmer country is far away from being idyllic. On the other hand, I have no opinion on matters concerning the people's privacy.

[politicus]

Also there's no need to be so condescending.

Well, maybe but you need to understand that it is very provocative when you talk about prostitution in terms of "not all jobs are fun" etc. Whatever you write about prostitution please remember that selling your body is a fundamentally different thing from selling your labour. Using that comparison is both disrespectful and absurd.  

I will admit that you can find several studies that disagree with the majority view.

One important thing to consider when evaluating studies of prostitution is that the worst psychological problems with prostitution are not related to shame, stigma etc. but to the simple fact that a prostitute has to have sex with someone he or she doesn't want to have sex with. In order to cope with this you need to disconnect your mind from your body and it is this process that in the long run is very harmfull and dangerous. Since we are talking about long term injuries it is not necessarily relevant how the women (and men) currently working in the sex industry are doing, since they may not yet have been damaged enough to have the problems.
Remember that psychological damages can potentially occur decades after the actual event.
(think war veterans, victims of violent crime etc.).

Another problem is that many prostitutes are former victims of sexual abuse and they have already had to build up the defence mechanisms I was talking about in my last post in their childhood making the consequences of having to prolong this process in adult life even more problematic.

Prostitution is a complex issue. It can never be fully eradicated and I am not necessarily against legalization (for people over 21, you are generally not mature enough to make that choice earlier) under all circumstances since it might be the least bad option.
If I were to support legalization it should be combined with an active effort to discourage young people from entering into prostitution and attractive exit offers to the ones already in the trade offering an alternative (including rehab programs for drug addicts) + a strict control with the industry including a license to buy prostitutes given only to people without a police record of being charged or convicted of violent and/or sex related crime.
This is hardly realistic in a US context, where the authorities are not exactly known to be generous regarding social work and it would obviously create a black market for unlicensed and underage prostitution, but at least make it safer for the regulated trade. The penalties for customers enganging in illegal prostitution should be very harsh in this scenario (comparable to rape).
 
What made me angry was therefore not your support for legalization, but this callous comparison of menial work and prostitution and the general carefree attitude in your post.