Global warming will force more women into prostitution
I AGREE that global warming is a real problem, that it’s one we might want to do something about as well. But that doesn’t stop people from taking the arguments in favour of doing something a little too far. Like this recent bill introduced into the US Congress. Apparently we should fight global warming because more women will become prostitutes:
A group of American politicians has introduced a resolution into Congress saying that climate change (among many other bad things it does) forces women into prostitution, and that as a result the USA should use “gender sensitive frameworks” in battling the scourge of global warming.
Whereas women will disproportionately face harmful impacts from climate change …
… insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health …
That is, I submit, really rather pathetic.
But this does leave us with a difficult question that needs answering: in the face of this, should we be for global warming or against it? If it gets warmer and then there are more women prostituting themselves then presumably, given the increase in supply, that transactional sex will become cheaper. This is clearly good for those men that avail themselves of such services. So should we thus in fact be encouraging global warming to the benefit of those men?
Alternatively, if global warming means more women charging for it, would global cooling mean more women giving it away for free? Which would presumably benefit rather more men rather more?
It’s difficult to know which way to argue really, isn’t it?