General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The imaginary victims of victimless crimes [View all]zazen
(2,978 posts)"How things really are" is that you presume to speak for the supposed freedom of women while referring to brothels full of "girls."
You refer to technology to put "men" on the moon, so you're clearly able to refer to males as adults, and then you use the term "girls" twice in your justification of the legal sex trade as having nothing to do with women under 18.
Why do you need to infantilize grown women? Why do you assume that women who are sex workers are "girls" for the purposes of having their flesh purchased?
Why? Because purchasing their flesh requires that they be "girls." That's the whole point. They can't be fully agentic. That'd take the transgression, the kick out of it--knowing that they were fully subjectified humans capable of judging (and ridiculing) the pathetic sexuality of their johns as much as they are defined by their sexual use by men. No--they need to innocent enough to make their faux conquest exciting to pathetic men who can't find partners any other way, and innocent-seeming enough not to threaten said men's delusion that they themselves are sexually great performers.