Prostitution is necessary because some men can't get laid (because they are ugly?).

Regarding the same Poor But Happy Sex Tourism debate:

Mr Angry, apart from being angry, actually has a point here, so here's my answer.

Here lies one of the differences
between men and women.
Once you understand these differences
then you will
have a better understanding of why
prostitution exists,
and why it is necessary. 

I am fair.

Prostitution - having no string sex in return for payment is no more wrong (that is, damaging for the parties involved and society in general) than any other kind of no-strings sex. For this reason I advocate tolerance zones and health checks. Let's say I enjoy having sex with you, Mr Angry, but still make you pay for it. Does that make me any less of a whore? But it would, alas, make you less of a man. Substituting money for personality (not looks, as you seem to think) will do that. I know tonnes of ugly guys who are successful with the ladies. So what's your beef exactly?

What makes it worse is that it is often systematic and industrialised in many developing countries, and of course, because it is often combined with exploitation and the slave- trade: the worst form of bonded labour. And of course, sex-tourists, who hit Latin America and East Asia in droves. When men pay money for a prostitute, they finance the slavery and trafficking of women and children. Its more than just no-strings sex. It's evil. If I were a man, I would hold the same opinion.

Are you going to seriously argue that sexual slavery and human trafficking are ok? If so, then sorry Angry, you are one poor sick bandit who needs a shrink.

What your email does reveal to be is that you are jealous. If you as a man seduce a lot of women, you become some kind of demigod whose name is uttered barely above a whisper in male circles. If I seduce a lot of men, where's the glory in that?

Any girl with her own hair can do it.