isn't the bloody post-modern around, or something even more postual than the post? Nowadays, speaking about "morals", you need to clarify - which ones? For there is no more one and only/ There are many.

Any moral argument against consentual adult sexuality would be religious in nature. There is no possibility to argue against, say, prostitution other than from a religious platform. Such a basic natural eternal act as exchange of materialities cannot be prohibited from any non-transcendent moral platform. To prohibit a person from selling sex you need to suspend his/her sovereignty over the own body, and that can be done only from a religious basis. Prohibition of prostitution implies a transfer of sovereignty over the body from a person to the government whereas the government denies an individual power over his/her own organism, - essentially, a robbery. No matter how this is legitimized, the fact of governmental invasion into the most private bodyparts is doubtless.

Some of the left currents merge with the right in the crusade against prostitution. The righties operate the discourse of morals, the lefties, per usual, employ the narration of "protecting the vulnerable". Both essentially come from the Christian moral tunnel, the righties openly and the lefties unconsciously.

What is your obsession with picking one as better. It is a matter of personal preference, not a question of which is more moral.

Actually is not. As I said, it doesn't matter for me, because I never think about those as real problems.

In Denmark it is legal to be prostitute. It has formally been legal since the criminal code amendment in 1999, but in practice it has been legal for a long time. But the fact that prostitution is a bad thing, we may as well be agreed on, but there are still many people who provide food on the table for their children and family along the way. At the same time because people themselves should be allowed to decide what they want to use their bodies to.