When I first decided to write on the topic of legalizing prostitution, I thought I would be in favor of it, despite my personal moral objections. I thought I would address the topic in a similar manner to the issues of legalizing gay marriage or legalizing polygamy: No matter my personal moral beliefs, the law should not interfere with an individual's right to pursue happiness, love or pleasure — as long as that right does not infringe on another individual's right to the same pursuit.

In the case of legalizing gay marriage and polygamy, this type of reasoning is a slam-dunk. Anyone who takes issue with a lifestyle that does not infringe on his or her own civil liberties is either claiming fallacious necessary consequences of legalizing the action, or is claiming moral superiority, most often due to religious principle.

Plain and simple, both of these premises are unacceptable grounds for making any action illegal.

And indeed there is the argument, which appears to follow sound logic, that says illegal prostitution is yet another example of this type of infringement, as it is the inhibition of two individuals from pursuing happiness: the consumer seeking sexual pleasure and the consenting prostitute seeking financial reciprocation. Under this lens, prostitution is nothing more than a business transaction, satisfying the consenting desires of both consumer and supplier.

Likewise, there is the argument, which may appear to be sound logic, that equates prostitution with legal pornography. Pornography — although having a far more ambiguous legal definition than prostitution — essentially achieves the same end under this logic. There is a demand for sexual pleasure that is met by consenting adults: the pornography participants and the pornography viewer/consumer. Pornography, as a legal and regulated business nonetheless, is yet another transaction between consenting adults, as would be the case if prostitution were legalized.

Yet when we consider legalizing prostitution, we are faced with an entirely different dilemma that is not always readily recognized.

With polygamy, gay marriage or pornography, the questions of consent and consequence are virtually nonexistent. Aside from some fundamentalist polygamous communities, these sexual activities have little consequence to anyone not directly engaging in them, and those who are engaged do so under their own accord. Yet under these two premises — consent and consequence — the logic for legalizing prostitution falls short.

Consent

Truly, in the most literal sense, prostitution is, in fact, an act of consent between two adults. In all practical terms, however, the way prostitution almost always plays out is nothing more than glorified rape.

"Consent" is a variable that misleads and misrepresents the reality of women who are forced or lured into prostitution (I will refer to prostitutes as women from here on because of the importance of gender power roles as they are most often manifested in the relationship between prostitute and consumer, and because 98 percent of prostitutes worldwide are women, according to the United Nations.)

The term consent, meaning authorizing yourself to do something or have something done to you, has an inherent implication of authority in the decision-making process one engages. For most prostitutes, however, this could not be further from the truth.

The factors that draw women into prostitution — primarily stemming from poverty, which can lead to other factors such as homelessness or drug addiction — remove the authority from a woman when she decides to participate in prostitution.

In many instances, pimps cultivate dependency in women whose circumstances have dictated a certain environment of desperation. Pimps are then able to offer immediate gratification to financial problems or to a drug addiction, and then are able to cultivate that desperation into fear with physical abuse and the threat of further physical abuse.

According to a 2003 study published in the scientific Journal of Trauma Practice, 89 percent of prostitutes said they wanted to "escape" prostitution — not just find a new job — but agreed to the term "escape" when questioned about their lifestyle.

The reality of prostitution, then, is not one of true consent.

Many who argue for the legalization of prostitution claim that if there is a demand for consenting prostitutes and there is a supply of consenting adults, then illegal prostitution is a clear violation of basic civil rights. They argue that sure, very few women actually want to be prostitutes, but very few people want to work for minimum wage either. They then ask if this means that all poor-quality or poor-paying jobs should be eliminated entirely.

But there is a remarkable difference between a minimum wage job and the sexual abuse that nearly always ensues from a pimp-prostitution relationship; sexual exploitation in an act as personal in nature as intercourse is a clear example of abuse that certainly does not exist for a McDonald's cashier.

"Consent" — as pertaining to prostitution — is a word that distorts the circumstantial factors that exist in nearly every case of existing prostitution; it is a word that ignores and euphemizes the necessarily dire circumstance that would warrant such personalized exploitation.

To legalize prostitution would be to advocate a pervasion of this type of exploitation, all under the false guise of consent.

Consequence

The legalization of prostitution, even if explicitly consensual can, in fact, lead to nonconsensual prostitution. It is called human trafficking.

The legalization of prostitution has time and again been linked to human trafficking — the process of forcing humans, most always women and children, into another country to be sold into prostitution. Usually, these individuals are deceived into coming to the country under the false promise of a "regular" job, usually without money or legal documentation, and are even more dependent on their pimps than prostitutes who are native to the country.

Human trafficking amounts to modern-day slavery, and is most often linked to legalized prostitution because of the exponential increase in explicit demand that ensues when a country, state or municipality legalizes prostitution.

A greater demand for prostitutes leads to a greater demand for trafficked humans. If prostitution is legalized it could, potentially, increase health standards, regulation and wages for prostitutes. But with an increased demand, there will also be an increase in the demand for cheap, exploitable, undocumented humans — similar to any other illegal worker but with consequences of rape and blatant exploitation as necessary results — a consequence that eclipses any shred of moral permissiveness.

Certainly, human beings have a fundamental right to seek pleasure — sexual or otherwise. Yet, as a most basic qualification, that right ceases to exist the moment it crosses the boundary of infringing on another individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Prostitution crosses this boundary with the consequences of exploitation, both through virtual rape and human trafficking.

Prostitution, along with any other action, should not be subjected to religious standards, which is the faulty reasoning given by many social conservatives when defending outlawing gay marriage, polygamy, pornography and prostitution. But that does not mean that an act should not be subjected to a moral standard to determine its permissiveness.

Quite simply, prostitution does not meet this moral standard. The right to prostitution is the right to violation, and while the sound logical argument for legalization of an act that does not immediately appear to infringe on others' human rights may be enticing, it is entirely misleading and irresponsible in this situation.

Pleasure is an end that every individual has a right to pursue. But when a certain method of achieving that end violates the basic human rights of another human being — especially under a false sense of consent — prohibition of that method is a societal obligation.

Andy Granias ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and legal studies.