In my city, there are an estimated 20 punters for every prostitute, so you damned well better get onto factoring sex-purchasing men into you thoughts.
I said I don't factor the rights of men who pay for sex into my thoughts, not that I don't factor the men themselves into my thoughts. You quoted me directly so it's hard for me to understand why you would then go on to misrepresent me in the next breath.
You're directly affirming the rights of men to pay for sex. I know you say you feel really bad about affirming men's right to pay for sex, but you're still affirming men's right to pay for sex when you ask for decriminalization.
I didn't say this at any point. Are you confusing me with someone else?
Since criminalising prostitution did absolutely nothing to protect sex workers or to stop sex work from occurring, I am of the view that sex workers should be allowed to make use of whatever measures they want and need to work safely, and this requires decriminalisation.
You say you feel helpless to change men's behavior in any way whatsoever, so you think building better hookers to prevent and withstand the constant assaults by men is the way to go.
Again, not something I said. Please feel free to have an argument with an imaginary opponent if you wish, but don't ascribe their views to me.
'Hookers' is a perjorative term. Extensive research has demonstrated that using terms like this contributes to the dehumanisation of sex workers and leads to such negative consequences as the public caring less when a sex worker is raped or murdered than when the victim is not a sex worker.
I have never made any suggestion that we should 'build' sex workers who can 'withstand' assault. Wherever did you get that idea?
I want sex workers to be given the same employment rights and protections as anyone else, and the same lack of stigma, to enable them to work as safely as possible.
Your repeated refrain that rape victims should "protect themselves" is the most victim-blaming thought expressed here. Victims of other violent crimes are not expected to shoulder all the burden to protect themselves from being criminally assaulted.
You are determined to conflate sex work with violent crime. It's important to distinguish them so that sex workers who are the victims of violent crime (or any abuse of any kind) are able to seek the same kind of help as any other person without the fear that someone like you will simply view it as the inevitable part and parcel of their job.
It is not victim blaming to listen to sex workers when they say 'we would like to be able to unionise and work together' and accept that they are right about the working conditions they need.
Domestic violence victims aren't told to live in group housing so each time someone's husband attacks the women should grab weapons and fight him off. That would be barbaric.
This is a total non-sequitur.
We aren't talking about a choice between decriminalising sex work, and sex work not existing. If we were, I would agree with you.
But as you are well aware, making sex work illegal doesn't prevent it from happening.
The choice is therefore between sex work in the safest possible environment, and sex work in a dangerous environment.
Your victim-blaming solution for prostituted rape victims "defending themselves" from men who attack them is an abandonment of those women and a dereliction of civilized community to deal with violent men.
And your solution is 'better to force these women to work in the least safe conditions possible, better to force them to work alone, better to make it illegal for them to take any of the steps they want to take for their own protection, because it makes me feel better to pretend that if we make sex work illegal it will stop it from happening'.