Varun Kandukuri attempts to explain (albeit, with a little humor) why decriminalization and legalization of prostitution has a negative effect.
Decriminalization/legalization of prostitution has always been a topic of common discussion and criticism: with positive statements ranging from how it will miraculously cure the victims of trauma,to eradication of global issues like trafficking itself.
But do they even share the same meaning?
Apparently not, as I learnt recently.
Nothing to fret though, understanding the difference is simple. Decriminalization is something like Schrodinger’s cat, considering that you may or may not be accused as a criminal and punished for whatever it is you’re doing. Unless you belong to DPRK; Oh well, too bad then.
Jokes aside, in the crucial matter of prostitution these two words are seen overlapping several times.
Contextually speaking, they are brought up under the pretext that imposing them would have an encouraging affect on human trafficking victims. However, every coin has two sides, and the cons of this one far outweigh the pros it so minimally brings into picture. Since I wish to debunk both these terms on equal grounds, let’s consider them as a single entity(hereinafter D/L).
Amidst the plethora of reasons, I’m going to elucidate only the one which contradicts why it should be done for the betterment of human trafficking victims.
It does not in any way enhance a woman’s choice. No young girl ever said “Daddy, I wanna grow up to be a prostitute”. I’m certain we haven’t reached such a social phenomenon just yet. A woman enters prostitution either due to her dire circumstance or a wide realm of NO other options.
This has been statistically proven(Raymond et al. 2001, p. 91).
But who am I to judge?
Alright, let’s assume a Ms. Jane doe volunteers to prostitute herself. Will jane lead an untroubled life then?
No. Needless to say, it is this very distinction between forced and voluntary involvement that sex industries try to encourage, as it would allow them more legal security. If D/L were legalized, the rise in sex industries and pimps a entrepreneurs would be drastic. Ms. Jane doe, if ever so mistakenly, were ill-treated during her job(cause it’d be absurd to think men could be capable of physical violence) then there’s even less ground beneath her due to D/L of her profession.
How could they ever prove coercion whilst being part of such a marginal occupation?
Not many women in prostitution will have legal representation, and hence not many offenders will be prosecuted.
In the end, nothing can be as solid as the fact that if a woman ever chose to be a prostitute, it’s not because she likes it.
I say we just condemn it like all the Islamic states. They say they follow the Shawarma law, something to do with fine wine, dine and a tinge of human rights violation.