Basically, your argument is that the law doesn’t prevent any homelessness contrary to what you argued in the OP because the woman can just prostitute themselves and pay the landlord?
It is worth noting that if they prostitute themselves with another person that person is going to have less power over them and thus has less ways to exploit them. The justification for the law is that the power balance is a problem.
Given how easily you change from “the law is going to leave woman homeless” to “the law isn’t going to leave anyone homeless because the woman can just engage in normal prostitution” that suggests you have a predetermined conclusion and haven’t really thought much about the effect of the law.
I think the middle paragraph of this comment is a very good point, and could easily be enough to justify the law. (The tenants has nowhere to go if the landlord gets pushy or aggressive.) However, the last paragraph I think is a bit uncharitable. The OP makes no secret of the fact that they have a certain class of laws/restrictions that they are arguing against, with this being just one example, and that loophole is specific to the example.
Given how easily you change from “the law is going to leave woman homeless” to “the law isn’t going to leave anyone homeless because the woman can just engage in normal prostitution” that suggests you have a predetermined conclusion and haven’t really thought much about the effect of the law.
Basically, your argument is that the law doesn’t prevent any homelessness contrary to what you argued in the OP because the woman can just prostitute themselves and pay the landlord?
It is worth noting that if they prostitute themselves with another person that person is going to have less power over them and thus has less ways to exploit them. The justification for the law is that the power balance is a problem.
Given how easily you change from “the law is going to leave woman homeless” to “the law isn’t going to leave anyone homeless because the woman can just engage in normal prostitution” that suggests you have a predetermined conclusion and haven’t really thought much about the effect of the law.
I think the middle paragraph of this comment is a very good point, and could easily be enough to justify the law. (The tenants has nowhere to go if the landlord gets pushy or aggressive.) However, the last paragraph I think is a bit uncharitable. The OP makes no secret of the fact that they have a certain class of laws/restrictions that they are arguing against, with this being just one example, and that loophole is specific to the example.
I’m not the OP.
Sorry. My mistake.