Even if our cultural norms radically change, and we start accepting sex more than we currently accept war and violence, we still have to consider the role of our motivations. If sex is coerced or even incentivized via financial rewards, does it fundamentally change the nature of the interaction? I think it does, and not for the better. Loving intimacy is sacred and should be celebrated voluntarily. When we distort these basic desires, we get perversions like sex-trafficking, exploitation, and objectification.
I get where you're coming from here, but I will respectfully suggest that you are missing a key point. I know from prior interactions that you understand the evils of coercion, and the horrible side effects of, for instance, outlawing drugs. Outlawing drugs creates a criminal subculture that goes well beyond just drug dealing itself. It enables and encourages all sorts of illegal activity--theft, murder, etc.
In a similar manner, banning prostitution or porn (whether legally or through shaming) does the exact same thing. "Sex-Trafficking, exploitation and objectification" of women, which you are very right to be concerned about, result not from sexually empowering women, but from sexually disempowering them through laws, through shame, through religious scruples, etc.. These things are a direct result of such bans like the crime associated with drugs are a direct result of those bans.
It's not favoring "loving intimacy" that will protect women in the long run. We've tried that approach for centuries, about as long as we've warred against drugs. Even the most fundamental Muslims who insist that women wear burkas insist that they do it to promote "loving intimacy" and to protect the "honor" of women.
Rather, its the marketplace the that will protect them. It's letting them own for themselves, and exploit however they see fit, that which is most them--their own physical bodies, including their sex appeal. Any attempt to limit that, or to restrict it's expression to certain socially or legally approved instances, will produce the very things that concern you--sex-trafficking, exploitation and objectification.
Steemit is uniquely positioned to facilitate this empowerment. On Steemit, women can "own" their own blog and control what goes on it. There's no need for them to work through male-owned and controlled intermediaries (like Facebook), or to associate with "pimps" to market and "protect" them. They are in complete control, and mostly free from male coercion (though, unfortunately, not necessarily attempted shaming).
Thanks for your comment, Sean! Yes, I should have clarified, I wouldn't support laws preventing individuals from owning their own bodies. I can't support victimless crimes either. Heck, there are very few "laws" (as the legal system exist today) that I would support as every law is backed ultimately by the threat of death and imprisonment. What we see here on Steemit, thankfully, is outside of the "legal" system and doesn't involve coercion.
As for prostitution, it does seem to be run mostly by male pimps and, some argue, leads to more human trafficking as demand shifts and changes between areas which legalize it and those that don't. I'm hoping my friend @schujahn will jump in with his thoughts, as he's looked into this stuff quite a bit.
That's a really good point. I think you and I both agree fundamentalist, dogmatic views aren't very helpful for increasing human well-being. The anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist side of me really wants to believe the market can solve all problems, including sex and gender discrimination. I'm also open to that being a too simplistic view though.
It would seem you are rather conflicted!
You've already commented on how my "anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist side" surprises you because I'm interested in some ideas from people like Noam Chomsky. I don't take as much of a dogmatic view as many others who throw that label around. Also, importantly, the various flavors of anarchy don't advocate or lead to aggression and violence while most "fundamentalist, dogmatic views" do.
@bacchist: not sure if you'll see this reply, but I get where you're coming from. I was just discussing this with @brettflorio today, actually. To me, I think it's clear how free markets and economic freedom increase human well-being. I view things from Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and it's when we get near the top that we even consider our role in fixing social problems, IMO. People can't even talk about this stuff if they are scraping to get by for their basic needs. I see the abundance created by functioning markets as lifting humanity out of poverty so they can actually tackle social problems in the first place.
That's an extreme view, IMO, but I'll look into "market fundamentalism" and see how much of that dogma I might be influenced by without realizing it.
The idea that the market will supply a solution for social problems is dogmatic. There's no evidence that it has or ever will. Wikipedia says that the term "market fundamentalism" is a pejorative, so I avoided using it... but I think embedded in the term is a cogent critique. My intent was not to offend you or insult you, though. I just found it interesting to find those two statements in such close proximity.