Should prostitution be legal?

[andyandy]

Like I've been saying the whole time: Eliminate the need sell sex!

How?

By "eliminating poverty?"

How do you do that then?


Dann I've started a Marxism thread especially for you to explain how this could be achieved, yet after 100+ posts you've offered no suggestions. Your default position seems to be that explaining how to achieve this would be selling the concept, and thus would be inherently capitalist in nature - and this would corrupt the socialist ideal behind it. Surely you can do better than that? With this thread approaching 400 posts you've still offered nothing to the debate about how best to actually achieve these lofty ideals you cling to.

 

[RandFan]

I don't know who exactly "we" are, but 'inherently (!) risky' jobs should be made safe...

"We" is in reference to society. As to making jobs safe, and pigs should fly. How do you make a socio path safe? If some nut job wants to murder a policemen there is nothing you can do to absolutely gurantee that he won't. You are making pie in the sky prounouncements. Sure, it would be nice to make all jobs safe but that is just an unrealistic platitude.

...and I cannot think of jobs that are inherently degrading. Elaborate, please!

There is nothing that is inherently degrading. So now you are without an argument. Let's just make prostitution safe and everyone is happy.

Cool

And they seem to be a great comfort for all those of you who cannot afford them anyway.

This is not an argument against anything.

Only three? Stop being so kind, RandFan!

Please to give us more. I won't object.

No, you do!

No, that is why I believe in choice. Let people do what they want to do.

I think that this is the point where the rest of you would usually say: Prove it!

It is trivially true. Google the word "porn". The sex drive is one of the most powerful of human drives. Couple that with humans who are not able to get sex without paying for it and the point is obvious. You might as well ask me to prove that people will always purchase food.

Prove it! Yes, as long as some women don't have better alternatives, you are probably right.

You have already conceded my point. There are high priced hookers who are educated and don't need to be prostitutes. They choose to.

Exactly!!!

Thank you. Then our argument is over and you have no point.

OK, so let's raise the asking price. As for your "nothing more": I can accept that as a compromise if you are willing to deliver!

I have no idea what this means. Free market economics dictates that if you can eliminate poverty you will reduce greatly the supply of prostitutes. This will drive up the price.

Prohibiting the market is probably no more effcient than prohibiting religion. Like I've been saying the whole time: Eliminate the need sell sex!

As long as there exists men who want sex and can't otherwise get it then there will always be a need for sex.
There is always someone willing to provide sex for some amount of money.

Bottom line, you can't eliminate the need to sell sex. It isn't based on poverty. It never was.

 

[RandFan]

Thank God that we have the right headed RandFan to teach us!

You are welcome but there really is nothing to teach. I'm not stating anything controversial or profound.

No, it would simply mean that you'd have to clean your own toilet, RandFan.

This makes no sense. I'm not talking about my toilet. I'm talking about public toilets. You know, the ones in the football stadiums and gas stations.

But for some reason (maybe you can tell me why?) toilet cleaners tend to be poor!

It's considered degrading by some and it is not all that fun to work with smelly things that have human body fluids and waste from strangers.

Maybe it's news to you, but in most cases it isn't business!

It's a figure of speech and you're turn of a phrase does not obviate my point. I should be free to do with my body as I want.

Well you cannot leave the government out of this equation. You need the whole apparatus of state to secure that the poor people stay poor:

?

This is completly out of left field and does not follow from anything that I have said or any points that we are discusing.

Private property doesn't simply protect itself, poor people don't volunteer to keep themselves down for free. Didn't you just mention the necessity of policemen? When the poor women have no other choice than selling their bodies to strangers for money, that is what is required for forcing upon them the necessity to sell sex. The government is very necessary, sorry!

Non sequiturs. This is not at all coherent. It is full of silly assumptions and claims.

Well, I'm a man, and I can assure you that I wouldn't want anybody to shut down my libido!

Then pray you are not seriusly disfigured or paralyzed. Most people need and want intimacy and or sex. Many can't get it without spending money.

The 'equlibrium of supply and demand' in the market economy is a fairytale, RandFan!

It's not an absolute. It is not static but it is pretty close. There will always be inflation but that does nothing to counter my argument. If you would prefer then I will say that the balance of supply and demand stabalizes.

The equilibrium between suppliers of foodstuffs and hungry people without money is called starvation! You don't need the article to tell you that this is the reality of the market economy, do you?

All economies are market economies. I'm refering to free market economics.

1. I live in a free market economy.
2. Starvation is evidenced by certain diseases including rickets, scurvy, famine dropsy, hyperammonemia, etc.
3. If what you are saying is true then we should be able to find evidence of these diseases in America.
4. If what you are saying is true then there should be data demonstrating starvation in America.

Here is something for you to try at home. Go to Center for Disease Control (CDC) and look up the number of starvation related diseases in America. Now subtract the cases that are the result of neglect. Please to tell us what those numbers are? Now find some demonstrable data that show what the death rate due to starvation in America is?

I'll be waiting.

 

[dann]

"We" is in reference to society. As to making jobs safe, and pigs should fly. How do you make a socio path safe? If some nut job wants to murder a policemen there is nothing you can do to absolutely gurantee that he won't. You are making pie in the sky prounouncements. Sure, it would be nice to make all jobs safe but that is just an unrealistic platitude.

You probably haven't noticed, but policemen are not the primary victims of sociopaths. They tend to be very picky when they choose their victims. They go for the weak ones, prostitutes, for instance, not the ones who are armed.
The best way of making people safe from psychopaths is to make a society that doesn't produce as many of them as the market economy does.

There is nothing that is inherently degrading. So now you are without an argument. Let's just make prostitution safe and everyone is happy.

Did I say "nothing"?

No, that is why I believe in choice. Let people do what they want to do.

Let people make the choices that are forced upon them, is what you mean. I know your argument: If a woman has the choice between selling sex and starving, she still has a choice, right?

It is trivially true. Google the word "porn". The sex drive is one of the most powerful of human drives. Couple that with humans who are not able to get sex without paying for it and the point is obvious. You might as well ask me to prove that people will always purchase food.

Back to the old and very studid argument: Sex drive equals prostitution. No, it doesn't!
By the way, why do you think that johns are "humans who are not able to get sex without paying for it"? It simply isn't true! There may be some of those among the clientele of prostitutes, but nothing seems to indicate that this is a description of the typical john!

You have already conceded my point. There are high priced hookers who are educated and don't need to be prostitutes. They choose to.

And there are low-priced hookers who are not educated. They also choose to, right?

I have no idea what this means. Free market economics dictates that if you can eliminate poverty you will reduce greatly the supply of prostitutes. This will drive up the price.

As long as there exists men who want sex and can't otherwise get it then there will always be a need for sex.

As if ANYBODY had argued that "the need for sex" would disappear. This is just the strawman that won't die! You seem to think that it gets better just because you repeat it a lot!

There is always someone willing to provide sex for some amount of money.

Yes, this is what you need to prove!

Bottom line, you can't eliminate the need to sell sex.

So now at least you acknowledge that it is a need, the selling of sex? Thank you![/QUOTE]It isn't based on poverty. It never was. [/QUOTE]It is, and it always was.

 

[RandFan]

You probably haven't noticed, but policemen are not the primary victims of sociopaths. They tend to be very picky when they choose their victims. They go for the weak ones, prostitutes, for instance, not the ones who are armed.

I'll grant you your argument. Humans are dynamic and therefore often dangerous. You cannot eliminate the danger of police work or fire fighting so long as humans can kill other humans or start fires.

Did I say "nothing"?

No, I did.

Let people make the choices that are forced upon them, is what you mean. I know your argument: If a woman has the choice between selling sex and starving, she still has a choice, right?

I have already conceded that it would be good to eliminate poverty. This is not an argument.

Back to the old and very studid argument: Sex drive equals prostitution. No, it doesn't!

This is just gainsaying and abusive. It's poor form.

1.) I never said that the sex drive equals prostitution.
2.) Not everyone with a sex drive can satisfy his or her desires.

Those are facts. They are not "stupid". Please use argument to counter my points rather than rely on rhetorical devices.

By the way, why do you think that johns are "humans who are not able to get sex without paying for it"? It simply isn't true!

More gainsaying. Could you use argument?

Question: Why would a person pay money for something that can be had for free?

There may be some of those among the clientele of prostitutes, but nothing seems to indicate that this is a description of the typical john!

Yes, there is something. Humans don't like to throw away money.

And there are low-priced hookers who are not educated. They also choose to, right?

I have conceded that poverty increases the supply of prostitutes. This is irrelevant to the question at hand.

As if ANYBODY had argued that "the need for sex" would disappear. This is just the strawman that won't die!

It is not a strawman because it is critical to the argument.

1. So long as there is a need for sex then there will be demand.
2. So long as your argument ignores this fact I will have to repeat it.

Yes, this is what you need to prove!

It is trivially true.

Three words, Anna Nicole Smith. She was not poor when she married Marshal.

For a few million dollars I could have a lot of attractive middle class women for sex.

So now at least you acknowledge that it is a need, the selling of sex?

Meh, I should have said there will always be someone willing to trade sex for money.

 

[dann]

This makes no sense. I'm not talking about my toilet. I'm talking about public toilets. You know, the ones in the football stadiums and gas stations.

It's considered degrading by some and it is not all that fun to work with smelly things that have human body fluids and waste from strangers.

If the pay and working hours are right, I wouldn't consider it degrading. That is not the case, however. If I switch jobs, I will in no way be compensated for the smell etc. by having to work fewer hours or being paid better, on the contrary.

It's a figure of speech and you're turn of a phrase does not obviate my point. I should be free to do with my body as I want.

Please, do. However, we are not talking about people who are free to do with their bodies as they please, we are talking about people who have to flip burgers or turn tricks. Oh, the wonderful freedom of choice in a market economy, the joy of free enterprise!

This is completly out of left field and does not follow from anything that I have said or any points that we are discusing.

No, it simple follows from reality, sorry!

Non sequiturs. This is not at all coherent. It is full of silly assumptions and claims.

I knew you wouldn't like it!

Then pray you are not seriusly disfigured or paralyzed. Most people need and want intimacy and or sex. Many can't get it without spending money.

And many haven't got the money to spend! Don't pretend that prostitution was invented as a work of charity to help the handicapped! Your john definition is getting more and more absurd!

It's not an absolute. It is not static but it is pretty close. There will always be inflation but that does nothing to counter my argument. If you would prefer then I will say that the balance of supply and demand stabalizes.

All economies are market economies. I'm refering to free market economics.

1. I live in a free market economy.
2. Starvation is evidenced by certain diseases including rickets, scurvy, famine dropsy, hyperammonemia, etc.
3. If what you are saying is true then we should be able to find evidence of these diseases in America.
4. If what you are saying is true then there should be data demonstrating starvation in America.

Here is something for you to try at home. Go to Center for Disease Control (CDC) and look up the number of starvation related diseases in America. Now subtract the cases that are the result of neglect. Please to tell us what those numbers are? Now find some demonstrable data that show what the death rate due to starvation in America is?

So you never heard of globalization? You never heard that farmers in the third world are now blessed by the free market economy to the extent that they have been put out of busines and been reduced to starve on the land that they don't even own any more? Why don't you want to consider the countries that have the free market economy forced upon them by the leading global player, the USA, and it competitors and team mates, the EU, for instance?
Why are many people in developing countries poor?

I'll be waiting.

Don't wait up for my sake, RandyFandy.

 

[RandFan]

If the pay and working hours are right, I wouldn't consider it degrading.

Sounds like the attitude of many prostitutes.

That is not the case, however. If I switch jobs, I will in no way be compensated for the smell etc. by having to work fewer hours or being paid better, on the contrary.

What is your point? If we can eliminate poverty then the pay and working hours for prostitutes will improve.

Please, do. However, we are not talking about people who are free to do with their bodies as they please, we are talking about people who have to flip burgers or turn tricks. Oh, the wonderful freedom of choice in a market economy, the joy of free enterprise!

{sigh} All economies are market economies. The soviets had a market. The North Koreans have a market. The Chinese have a market. I'm talking about "free" market economics.

The argument here is whether or not prostitution can be eliminated. I've conceded that poverty can reduce choices. That is not in question.

No, it simple follows from reality, sorry!

I'm not arguing that it doesn't follow from reality. Assuming that it does it does not obviate any argument that I have made.

I knew you wouldn't like it!

"Like" doesn't figure into it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with like or dislike.

1.) The claims are false and beside the point.
2.) The assumptions are false and beside the point.

And many haven't got the money to spend!

How does this obviate my argument? The point is true regardless of whether anyone has the money to spend.

Don't pretend that prostitution was invented as a work of charity to help the handicapped!

Strawman and demonstrably without foundation.

I claim that prostitution is the result of A.) People who need and want sex and B.) Women who are willing to trade sex for money.

Your john definition is getting more and more absurd!

What definition are you talking about?

John: Person who is willing to pay for sex.
Prostitute: Person who is willing to trade sex for money.

So you never heard of globalization? You never heard that farmers in the third world are now blessed by the free market economy to the extent that they have been put out of business and been reduced to starve on the land that they don't even own any more?

Assuming this is true it does not address the issue at hand.

Why don't you want to consider the countries that have the free market economy forced upon them by the leading global player, the USA, and it competitors and team mates, the EU, for instance?

Assuming that this is true it doesn't address the issue at hand.

Why are many people in developing countries poor?

If you would like to start a new thread I will join in. As it is the point has nothing to do with the issue at hand which is:

1. There is and will very likely always be humans who desire sex and can't easily get it to their satisfaction.
2. There is and will very likely always be humans who are willing to trade sex for money.

Don't wait up for my sake, RandyFandy.

Rhetorical.

 

[dann]

1.) I never said that the sex drive equals prostitution.
2.) Not everyone with a sex drive can satisfy his or her desires.

Those are facts. They are not "stupid". Please use argument to counter my points rather than rely on rhetorical devices.

It is so boring to discuss with you, RF, because you don't acknowledge arguments, evidence or even reality! Nobody denies the existence of sex drive or that "Not everyone with a sex drive can satisfy his or her desires", but you pretend that this is the cause of prostitution. It isn't! If it were, the group of johns would be insignificant in size. Or do you actually believe that the so-called luxury prostitutes cater mainly to the handicapped or the butt ugly? Well, they don't.

Question: Why would a person pay money for something that can be had for free?

Because they prefer what can be had for money? Don't ask me, ask all the married johns. Read some of the many links I have provided you with in this thread. Johns as a group aren't single, handicapped or ugly men.

Yes, there is something. Humans don't like to throw away money.

No, they enjoy it if they have enough.

I have conceded that poverty increases the supply of prostitutes. This is irrelevant to the question at hand.

It is not a strawman because it is critical to the argument.

1. So long as there is a need for sex then there will be demand.

1. For sex, yes, for hookers, yes, but only if there are women who are willing to meet this demand for money.
   

   [*]So long as your argument ignores this fact I will have to repeat it.
   It is trivially true.

   It is neither trivial nor true.
   I'm probably the only one here who doesn't ignore arguments. Again you have left out of the equation that the demand does not create the supplier. No matter how much you starve, the supplier of foodstuffs is still looking at the bottom line: Can you pay? So the wonderful equilibrium comes into existence only when the demander dies.
   

   Three words, Anna Nicole Smith. She was not poor when she married Marshal.

   So we're back to marriage is prostitution.
   

   For a few million dollars I could have a lot of attractive middle class women for sex.

   Dream on ...
   

   Meh, I should have said there will always be someone willing to trade sex for money.

   Yes, that is the claim you (all!) have to prove!

 

[dann]

Why doesn't anybody want to comment on this one?!!!!

http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/fempsy3.html
Apologists for prostitution legitimize it as a freely made and glamorous career choice. We are told that people in prostitution choose their customers as well as the type of sex acts in which they engage. Bell (1994) suggested that prostitution is a form of sexual liberation for women. We are also told that 'high-class' prostitution is different, and much safer than street prostitution. Referring to prostitutes in general, Leigh said 'most of us are middle class' (in Bell, 1994).
None of these assertions was supported by this study. Our data show that almost all of those in prostitution are poor. The incidence of homelessness (72 percent) among our respondents, and their desire to get out of prostitution (92 percent) reflects their poverty and lack of options for escape. Globally, very few of those in prostitution are middle class. Prostitution is considered a reasonable job choice for poor women, indigenous women and women of color, instead of being seen as exploitation and human rights violation. Indigenous women are at the bottom of a brutal gender and race hierarchy. They have the fewest options, and are least able to escape the sex industry once in it. For example, it has been estimated that 80 percent of the street prostituted women in Vancouver, Canada, are indigenous women (Lynne, 1998).

 

[dann]

1. There is and will very likely always be humans who desire sex and can't easily get it to their satisfaction.
2. There is and will very likely always be humans who are willing to trade sex for money.

What you need to prove, RandFan, is that prostitution is caused by "humans who desire sex and can't easily get it". When you now add "to their satisfaction", it's just a trick. You can always claim that if they buy it, it must mean that all the sex they get for free is not to their satisfaction. It isn't true, however. When I sometimes go to a restaurant, that does not mean that the meals I make myself or get for free are not 'to my satisfaction'.
At least you appear to have acknowledged your implied lie so far that prostitutes cater mainly to the poor souls who cannot get any for free!

 

[RandFan]

It is so boring to discuss with you, RF, because you don't acknowledge arguments, evidence or even reality!

?

Odd, why did I say "I will concede your argument" to one of your arguments?

Nobody denies the existence of sex drive or that "Not everyone with a sex drive can satisfy his or her desires", but you pretend that this is the cause of prostitution.

It is but one of the causes. Thanks for acknowledging this though as it is crucial to my argument.

So long as there is A.) people who want sex and can't easily satisify it without money and B.) peoplw who will trade sex for money then there will be prostitution.

End of story.

It isn't!

Gainsaying.

If it were, the group of johns would be insignificant in size.

Non sequitur.

You are ignoring a very important fact. Men do pay for sex, why?

Or do you actually believe that the so-called luxury prostitutes cater mainly to the handicapped or the butt ugly?

This has nothing to do with my argument. The point exist for one reason. Ok let's go back to the argument.

Premises:

1. There will always be humans willing to pay for sex that they couldn't otherwise get.
2. There will always be humans willing to trade sex for money.

High class prostitutes who are educated and capable of a differnt source of income are an extreme to prove #2.

Because they prefer what can be had for money? Don't ask me, ask all the married johns. Read some of the many links I have provided you with in this thread. Johns as a group aren't single, handicapped or ugly men.

Handicapped and ugly is only an extreme to prove #1.

#1 is proven.
#2 is proven.

Unless you can demonstrate that men love to throw away money on something they can get for free then you've got a problem.

For sex, yes, for hookers, yes, but only if there are women who are willing to meet this demand for money.

Demonstrably it is true.

It is neither trivial nor true.

Gainsaying.

I'm probably the only one here who doesn't ignore arguments.

Perhaps but gainsing isn't the attention that is needed.

Again you have left out of the equation that the demand does not create the supplier.

?

If I have a need for something and I have money and the supply exists then there will be a supplier.

The best example I can think of to demonstrate that fact is prostition.

No matter how much you starve, the supplier of foodstuffs is still looking at the bottom line: Can you pay? So the wonderful equilibrium comes into existence only when the demander dies.

I've not a clue what this means. It makes no sense nor does it follow from anything that I can think of. What are you talkingabout.

So we're back to marriage is prostitution.

Not in all cases.

But why else did Smith marry an old man who was incontinent?

Dream on ...

You doubt it? Why? Howard Stern has more than abundanly demonstrated this. He throws money at people and they suddenly do just about anything.

Yes, that is the claim you (all!) have to prove!

Prostitution is one of the oldest if not the oldest professions. It has existed in all cultures and political and economic systems. It's just life. You might as well ask me to prove gravity.

 

[RandFan]

Why doesn't anybody want to comment on this one?!!!!

http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/fempsy3.html
Apologists for prostitution legitimize it as a freely made and glamorous career choice. We are told that people in prostitution choose their customers as well as the type of sex acts in which they engage. Bell (1994) suggested that prostitution is a form of sexual liberation for women. We are also told that 'high-class' prostitution is different, and much safer than street prostitution. Referring to prostitutes in general, Leigh said 'most of us are middle class' (in Bell, 1994).
None of these assertions was supported by this study. Our data show that almost all of those in prostitution are poor. The incidence of homelessness (72 percent) among our respondents, and their desire to get out of prostitution (92 percent) reflects their poverty and lack of options for escape. Globally, very few of those in prostitution are middle class. Prostitution is considered a reasonable job choice for poor women, indigenous women and women of color, instead of being seen as exploitation and human rights violation. Indigenous women are at the bottom of a brutal gender and race hierarchy. They have the fewest options, and are least able to escape the sex industry once in it. For example, it has been estimated that 80 percent of the street prostituted women in Vancouver, Canada, are indigenous women (Lynne, 1998).

No one is arguing against it. Clearly prostitution, like cleaning public toilets, isn't a preffered job. So long as women are poor and provide an abundent supply of prostitutes then this will all be true.

However, improving the lives of women won't eliminate prostitution anymore than it will eliminate folks who clean public toilets or policemen or firefighters.

As long as there is a need there will be people to meet that need.

But all of us agree with you that we would like to improve the lives of women. We are with you there.

 

[RandFan]

What you need to prove, RandFan, is that prostitution is caused by "humans who desire sex and can't easily get it". When you now add "to their satisfaction", it's just a trick. You can always claim that if they buy it, it must mean that all the sex they get for free is not to their satisfaction. It isn't true, however. When I sometimes go to a restaurant, that does not mean that the meals I make myself or get for free are not 'to my satisfaction'.
At least you appear to have acknowledged your implied lie so far that prostitutes cater mainly to the poor souls who cannot get any for free!

The proof is in your corner. You will have to prove that men are forced to buy sex.

This is the elephant in the room that you won't address. Men DO pay for sex. Why? Is it because they are being forced? Do they walk down the street and see a hooker and go insane?

You answer this question and you will resolve the dilemma that only exists if we assume your logic.

Fact: Men spend money and risk prosecution for sex. Why?

 

[RandFan]

I'm probably the only one here who doesn't ignore arguments.

In all fairness to me and others you are not. Please to show me one argument of yours that I've igonred?

 

[Earthborn]

But why else did Smith marry an old man who was incontinent?

Because she loved him? Stranger things have happened.

It has existed in all cultures and political and economic systems.

Poverty also has existed in all cultures and political and economic systems, so this is not in itself an argument against dann's thesis.

 

[Earthborn]

Yes, this is what you need to prove!

While it is true that Randfan presents here an unproven assumption, it is not for him to prove that something that has always existed, will always continue to exist. It is for you to prove that some sort of social organisation can exist that is capable of making it dissappear.

As if ANYBODY had argued that "the need for sex" would disappear.

If we assume that society can be changed in such a way that it makes poverty and prostitution dissappear, there is no reason to assume that sex drive is immune to the same sort of social intervention. In fact, I can easily imagine a future society that does away with it completely; all that is needed is some advances in ectogenesis and some already existing medical interventions to prevent children developing a sex drive.

Trying to make prostitution a thing of the past without altering people's sex drives seems to me to be quite a bit more difficult.

 

[RandFan]

Because she loved him? Stranger things have happened.

Anything is possible I suppose. Parsimony being what it is and the lack of attractive women falling in love with old men who also happen to be poor leaves me with little choice here as to what to conclude.

Poverty also has existed in all cultures and political and economic systems, so this is not in itself an argument against dann's thesis.

Hmmm.... I'm not sure that it has existed enough in all systems to draw a possible causal connection but that's fine. I'll let the argument go.

Thanks.

 

[andyandy]

still no ideas about how to eliminate poverty?


no?



you've still got nothing to add to this debate dann.

 

[RandFan]

still no ideas about how to eliminate poverty?

no?

you've still got nothing to add to this debate dann.

I agree.

Earthborn raises a good point that to date humans have never been able to and I think we can extrapolate reasonable probabilities from that. Is it really reasonable to expect to eliminate poverty?

 

[dann]

While it is true that Randfan presents here an unproven assumption, it is not for him to prove that something that has always existed, will always continue to exist. It is for you to prove that some sort of social organisation can exist that is capable of making it dissappear.

No, it is for you and RandFan to prove that prostitution has always existed. I know that it is often referred to as 'the oldest trade of women'. This, however, is nothing more than a misogynist joke. As already mentioned, in our time such a social organisation existed in Cuba from the 1960 to the 1980s.

If we assume that society can be changed in such a way that it makes poverty and prostitution dissappear, there is no reason to assume that sex drive is immune to the same sort of social intervention. In fact, I can easily imagine a future society that does away with it completely; all that is needed is some advances in ectogenesis and some already existing medical interventions to prevent children developing a sex drive.

There is reason to assume that sex drive is immune to social changes. The primal urges are part of basic human nature. Prostitution isn't, poverty isn't. That you can influence it surgically or medically, however, is a well-known fact: eunuchs in harems, treatment of sex offenders today. Your sci-fi scenario is uninteresting.

Trying to make prostitution a thing of the past without altering people's sex drives seems to me to be quite a bit more difficult.

Abolishing prostitution has nothing to do with alterations of people's sex drives.