So men often pay women for sex. Some people want this practice to be banned and the purchaser prosecuted. I’ve no doubt that the practice of women paying for sex is also not unknown.
If people are able to buy sex, if consent, the key principle in rape law, can be purchased with cash, it raises moral questions. However, should it also raise legal questions?
What is the difference between: a woman marrying for material gain and providing sexual favours in return; a mistress who receives material support but remains faithful to one lover; a woman that accepts expensive gifts from her lover; a woman that receives expensive gifts from many lovers and a whore? It is a spectrum but all have a component which puts a value on sex. So how should we define “prostitution”? In fact, in many consensual marriages in the Western world wives would soon find themselves ex-wives if they decided to withdraw the physical aspect of the relationship. The same is true of husbands. Sex is part of the deal.
Sex can be beautiful and poetic, urgent and base, purely recreational or merely mechanical for the purpose of bonding or procreation. It may also be a solution to a physical need which can be bought and sold in different ways. It is also a good way of controlling men. The physical presence of women has been proven to make men more docile, less aggressive and gentler. Boxers are told not to have sex before a fight because it reduces their aggression. Many of the problems of the Middle East are caused by testosterone charged young men who do not have ready access to the calming effect of a physical relationship with young women. They are sexually frustrated and this sometimes causes them to act irrationally, angrily and aggressively.
Sex is a continuum of intention and activity and can even be different things to the same couple at different times.
Why should The State have the right to tell consenting adults under what circumstances they are allowed to have sex?
(P.S. Human trafficking is already illegal).