This will be an interesting topic. A couple of comments:
I would be interested in hearing the guest defend what you have termed ?the Exploitative-Institution position? against a particular criticism that I believe would arise from the fourth position.
I am assuming that the guest believes, as described in the blog, that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with sex acts between consenting adults, even if those acts are perfomed in exchange for payment. To the extent then that the evils that an adherent of the Exploitative-Institution position believes surround prostitution are caused by social attitudes and institutions in American society, then is not the answer to work to change these attitudes and institutions rather than to condemn the institution itself?
For instance, to the extent that the speaker believes that the practice of prostitution is invariably damaging to the prostitute economically, because for example the pimp takes a large proportion of the prostitutes earnings, then let?s legalize prostitution, so that there is no need for protection by a pimp. Or, once legalized, we can regulate the amount that a pimp may charge for such protection, and give the prostitute an administrative avenue for redress if the pimp violates this regulation. If the act of prostitution is not in itself intrinsically wrong, then shouldn?t your speaker be helping to educate the public to this fact? Once prostitution is regarded by all as just another profession, then there will be no social stigma attached to it (or at least no more so than any other profession like, for instance, mine -- lawyer -- or yours (just kidding)).
Moreover, we appear to condemn only certain types of narrowly defined prostitution: the exchange of sex acts for money. As the old joke goes: What?s the difference between sex for love and sex for money? Sex for love is more expensive. The woman (or man) who has sex because someone pays him/her a couple of hundred dollars is a prostitute, but one who has sex because someone took him/her to drinks, dinner at an expensive restaurant, and then to a concert is not. The younger, attractive man or woman who consorts with the far older, unattractive, but wealthy person or the older men and women who ?prey? on other lonely, older, and wealthier retirees are all put in different categories than the prostitute, although the only difference would seem to be the directness and honesty of the transaction.
Any comments?

I find it interesting that it is generally recognized that most prostitutes service men. Is this because the male sex drive is significantly different than that of women? Is prostitution governed by understandable economic theories of supply and demand, and unlikely to effected by legislation or moral pressure. What would happen if women no longer needed money due to advances in the social order, etc...?

this discussion, both radio and blog, was shockingly devoid of even a remark upon the socio-political reality of poverty and its inordinate effects on the people we then find in the ranks of prostitution, not only women, but marginalized men and children, who are then further criminalized. failing to make linkages between the way society distributes wealth and power and the value and legal judgements doled out and to whom is so shortsighted as to be maddening. especially maddening become the comments about sexuality (or was it simply sex) being about one's specialness or self in such a way that it should not be shared with another, other than a particular one, or some such la-la. i happen to know folks whose sexuality is clearly of the "polyamorous" variety and they do not appear to be particularly dysfunctional or damaged or otherwise socially or soul-deformed. would either of you admit to having had only one lover ever in your life? why should a woman be constrained by a social more that criminalizes her for the same behaviour as others? sheesh, you guys. you can do a much better job than this. the quote of deBeauvoir won't wash. she never had to worry about whether she would pay her rent, get a meal or feed hungry kids. one has only to look at the disparities that persist in income, health and social status between the folks who currently are involved in prostitution to question the validity of a "moral" discussion of this sort.
bravo to mr. upjohn for his pithy comments.

Listening to the end of the show, I thought a good way of thinking of prostitution, in comparison to selling a service like one's thoughts or goods like one's apples, is in regards to the honesty of the transaction. Part of what makes prostitution worse than a typical non-sexual transaction is the lie involved in the (presumed) representation of the prostitution's enjoyment, and whatever patter is needed to convince the client that there is pleasure.
If John or Ken were to misrepresent themselves in selling their thoughts/talk/writing, though we wouldn't literally call it prostitution, we'd still see it negatively, more negatively than if they provided services without pretense, for pay or not. This also captures the distinction with the proverbial high-class hooker/escort who chooses whether or not to sleep with a particular client: we believe the highly-paid escort only has sex if she really wants to.
This isn't an airtight argument against prostitution, but I think a good way of understanding (justifying?) why even some sex-positive people consider it problematic, and would do so even if it were legalized.
Of course, many people have jobs which involve pretense which is not obvious to the client (with an actor, the pretense is obvious; with a used car salesman or Fox news anchor, it sometimes is not). But those jobs are problematic, too.

Although the reality of same-sex prostitution was acknowledged in the introduction, the radio discussion including listener comments focused on the heterosexual phenomenon where the moral issues involved -- if there are any -- may be more easily contaminated by the power issues inherent in heterosexuality. I wonder whether a clearer judgment of prostitution qua prostitution might be possible were only the same-sex phenomenon analysed.

I think that the economic circumstances of those who enter into prostitution are very important to our evaluation of the practice. I also agree that this could have been emphasized more in the discussion. At the very least, if someone morally objects to prostitution because they worry about the background circumstances of women who turn to the practice, they must take into account that closing off the practice may leave poor women in a worse situation than they would otherwise be. This is often the case when we regulate or close off a market. It is as true of markets in sex as of markets in body parts. But the fact that banning markets forecloses an option that may be best in bad circumstances isn't the end of the argument: in some cases despite something being the "best option" we may have reasons to foreclose it. But then we need to address to the underlying circumstances, which may now be worse.
As examples of "best options" which may be reasonable to ban: think of bans on mercenaries, bans on vote-selling, bans on organ sales, bans on child labor. Sometimes allowing a best option in bad circusmatnces precludes society achieving a better set of options: a society with child labor drives down the price of adult labor which makes it difficult for the poor in that society to avoid putting their children to work. Sometimes, bans are best for us all.
It also makes a difference if a ban on a market produces a black market which is worse for the parties of the exchange. If we care about poor women driven to prostitution than we should care about a black market which leaves them more vulnerable to violence, abuse and exploitation.

I responded to some of these comments in "Sex, Prostitution and Well-lived Lives." I think I didn't quite realize that there were 2 prostitution threads.

I respect very much the Prostitutes in countries where other honest work is impossible to find. Though Prostitution is dirty and dangerous, it does feed the family. I say legalize it, regulate it, and tax it.

Has anybody read `She-Saviour`, by Mikhail Armalinsky?
He is a controversial Russian writer of erotic litrature.
This 44 page short essay about prostitute & prostitution is a brilliant & honest appraisal of the way society looks at prostitution & why! He finishs his essay with a lovely statement which I think is worth serious consideration:
`If prostitution is legalized as a necessary concession, as the lesser of two evils, it will remain a social problem. Prostitution will be, in that case, merely tolerated, which means that there will be moments when our leaders run out of patience & it will be once again criminalized. The legalization of prostitution `must` be based on the return of the divine, sacred character, so that prostitution will be considered the most honourable profession, the one closest to God, the holiest. In the distant future, people will realize, admit & openly cling to the miracle of orgasm & pleasure, embodied in the prostitute, & the essence of the world will change. The world will once again be pagan, but on a scientific-technical foundation that reachs for the stars.`
I know most of stopped the conversation re: prostitution, but I thought someone might be interested to view this subject from a males point of view,as well as a females, in a country where prostitution has stared to predominate, as with other east european countries, on the sex industry level.
Even though his work is `good-grief` level, I totally agree with the way he sees prostitutes & the way he sees `so-called-proper women.

Feminists all have the idea that prostitution is wrong and bad. They see this because of the way society has made them believe that certain things are right and others are wrong. This is how they evaluate prostitution; by looking at its rightness and wrongness. Prostitution, however, is one of those things that is seen bad not only by the radical feminists. Conventional morality tells everyone it is wrong and prostitution is forseen as inappropriate behavior. The reason as to why prostitution is wrong has nothing to do with the fact that it degrades other women, and this is what feminists incline towards.
The true reason to why prostitution is wrong is because it leads to a degenerate behavior, and so, it should be illegal. There are two types of behaviors, generative and degenerative and the government should enforce the prohibition of the latter.
Prostitution has been something that has been prohibited in our society always and it shouldn?t be up to the new morality or new ethical theory to change all of this. Classical ethical theory tells us it is wrong and it would not logically hold to change this view today.
If society was to change the norms as they would please, then all systems of moral theory would be inconsistent and there would be chaos. The fact that society is what determines morality would be even more apparent and people would lose respect for any moral laws.
The fact that prostitution is morally wrong derives from moral sentiments that view certain behaviors as degenerative and others as generative. The parties involved in prostitution must consider what they are doing in terms of generative or degenerative behavior. If prostitution is causing a degeneration of values and attitudes, moral concern must be taken into consideration.
On one hand, if prostitution was a positive circumstance that leads to personal growth, other people ought to focus their attentions on other aspects of potentially degenerative behavior in society. For example, the consumption of alcoholic drinks at social gatherings seems fairly generative up to a certain point. However, if consumption becomes frequent and obsessive it then becomes alcoholism, which is a degenerative behavior that can totally change the person. Alcohol addiction changes a person?s behavior radically. That is why for some people the consumption of alcohol is a degenerative activity.
If prostitution is not regulated, degenerative behaviors can evolve. Prostitutes want rights and the freedom to practice their trade. But problems can arise from this. Making prostitution a professional and legal occupation will help keep prostitutes on a generative course of personal evolution. To the extent that prostitutes are willing to regulate themselves, as other professionals do, society might be inclined to a greater acceptance of sex workers. This potential relationship is later explored in a theory of social assimilation.

Personal experience with someone I know patroning a prostitute caused me to look up blog comments on the issue. It seems many women and men have a casual idea about the use thereof. And though I agree with you on some of your transaction points, the moral dilemma for me is it is taking advantage of someone, who whether they understand this or not, is not healthy. I know the liberal advance for women on many respects is "its my body" But we are not talking about just a body, we are talking about a human, heart, mind and emotions. The funny thing is that society is always telling women that their emotions are counterproductive to their success. Strength is in stoicism, and I think that is a canker sore waiting. I think the design of women's sensibilities, nurturing and closeness to heart matters is a very important fiber to a society. Destroying that is a catastrophic blow to the foundation of a "good" society. By good society I mean that it is one to model, one that gives its citizens the freedom to become the free-est beings. Too often freedom is defined in self destructive terms, and the line especially for women has become too blurred. No matter how empowered a women feels by sexually exploiting herself, it still in the end is exploitation. But we have taken the things that take strength, commitment, determination and self will and made them weak, giving power to shallow instant pursuits that destroy the spirit of man and women alike. A man, no matter the reason, that patrons a prostitute is going to satisfy his self. Whether it is the itch, or basic loneliness there is no noble cause to why this transaction occurs. It happens in relationships as well, we look to our partner to satisfy our emptiness-es our with-outs, and that is not all bad, but it is when it is how we value them. How important they are is defined by how well they meet our needs.
So the issue for me is human to human, somebody who sells "their body" is usually operating from a depraved or mistaken place. Some where that tells them being accepted sexually by men is a powerful place, somewhere that tells them that sex can be deployed separate from their heart mind and self value. Sometimes it is just out of desperation and all in all someone who takes advantage of or patrons that could never pay for the actual cost of what they are taking from that person.

A lot of the johns are alcohol or drug addicts. So are the "sex workers". This is the part that is getting overlooked.