Of course the regulation of prostitution fails. At least in Nevada, legalization (regulation) has created barriers to entry (too few brothels, and almost no new brothels built in decades) and absurd regulations (more STI tests than necessary, confinement to the brothel to control their sexual encounters, and provisioning that a bouncer from the brothel accompany them to the grocery store), that it causes exploitative working conditions.
- The women's lives are highly regulated, and they net a small share of their earnings after paying 50% to the brothel owners plus the added rent for room/board.
- They likely work 12 hour shifts, are fined if they reject a customer without "good" reason or they do not show up for the line up.
- Their history of working in a brothel is available to a prospective employer.
- They are legally considered independent contractors, but lack the freedoms of one.

Prostitutes want to avoid the exploitation from brothels, and johns want to avoid the higher prices resulting from the lack of equilibrium the retard Nevada government caused. And from my brief research, I would guess that the prices at a Nevada brothel are at least 2x the amount of an escort, yet an escort can easily net more income even if she pays her taxes (which many do, to protect themselves from the IRS if they are arrested).

I suspect that the failure of Amsterdam's experiment with prostitution illustrates what's wrong with regulating markets, not what's wrong with prostitution. What prostitutes want is decriminalization, meaning that prostitution is both lawful and unregulated.

Silly Conservatives. They promote free-markets except when it doesn't suit their family values. And, as much as they rail against radical feminism, they will cite the "research" of a radical feminist such as Julie Bindel (a lesbian separatist even) when it agrees with their views.

Kemp,

Except, I am skeptical about the number of women going to black market pimps. My understanding of the business is that prostitutes generally arrange appointments online. They use a service that advertises themselves as an escort, and men either call or email them. Then they request your name, number (if they don't have it), and place of work. They use this information to verify a client's identity and do a background check. They may also request references from other prostitutes. Alternatively, prostitutes are also creating services that do the background checks for them, and clients pay a monthly fee to be white listed by the service. On the client side, there are reviews of prostitutes so clients can verify if prostitute is legit or not.

Finally, there is no way that the internet has not lead to the disintermediation of prostitution. The barriers to entry are low, and despite the failures of law enforcement, the market has mechanisms in place to protect both prostitutes and clients.

" They use a service that advertises themselves as an escort, and men either call or email them. Then they request your name, number (if they don't have it), and place of work. They use this information to verify a client's identity and do a background check. They may also request references from other prostitutes. Alternatively, prostitutes are also creating services that do the background checks for them, and clients pay a monthly fee to be white listed by the service."

smells like identity theft

Well, I think my experience is more credible than the "researcher" of the article Yell cited. Julie Bindel is a radical feminist - not a credible source. Likewise, it shouldn't surprise anyone that she says what she does about prostitution. Radical Feminists also universally agree that pornography causes violence against women. Of course, their efforts there were unpopular and shot down by the courts, so now they focus their political energy on prostitution.

Einstein,

Laws against prostitution don't stop it. Their impact can cause more harm to prostitutes than their trade already does, removing their lawful protection from theft and assault that people not engaged in black market trades enjoy.

So what you're saying is that you approve of ripping off and beating prostitutes?

Again, I don't approve of the trade. I have never nor would I ever use one's services, nor do I morally condone the activity of the prostitute nor their customers.

But seriously, this forum could use more specificity. "I don't like this or that topic!" isn't exactly informative. Is that a reason to make it illegal, because you don't like it? Why not acknowledge the results of such laws and their impact on the real world? You claim that prostitution hurts prostitutes (I agree), so your reaction to it is to outlaw it and harm prostitutes more? More explanation is needed, because that doesn't make any sense.

Awww, #3 at the behest of your globalist, authoritarian masters!

Because life is so hard! You can't do it on your own! You've given in to the lie. You've surrendered your freedom, your life.

No

She usually calls your work place

More people should do that before getting married or financially entangled.