But in the case of prostitutes, they would only 'stand outside of society' if you take your moral guidance from the likes of the Daily Mail.
A professional, tax paying woman, or man, who provides sexual services isn't a member of any underclass nor are they 'riff raff'. Just productive & valuable members of society in my opinion.
I take no moral guidance from the Daily Mail and am well to the left of that right wing rag, despite apparent convergence of views here and there, they are rare but fundamentally my conclusions on what to do next and my objectives for the kind of society we would have are totally different to theirs. The Daily Mail identifies 'hate-groups' with the sole intention of slashing the welfare state purely to cut the taxes of the rich considerably (and of the rest of us by a little). Unlike the Daily Mail I would go on to identify other groups that are harmful to society; and that would include the Daily Mails' respectable friends in the City, the bankers & financiers and all the lynch pins of the military-industrial-complex. I do believe that if Marx were alive today he would describe the groups I listed in the thread as part of the lumpenproletariat, and, in English, the underclass. Despite listing the voluntarily unemployed into the underclass I do not mean those who take a few weeks or even months on the dole - I meant those who are on for years rather than months. I am not a supporter of the protestant work ethic for its own sake, nor do I believe that 'work makes us free' (New Labour's cult of work has such undertones), but I do believe (alas) that it is every citizens duty to provide for him or herself individually or for their family unless physically or mentally unable. The welfare state, a noble creation to support the temporarily distressed during an age of want and real poverty in the 19th to mid 20th Centuries, is degenerating into one that supports a growing army of the voluntarily economically inactive.