ARS 13-1307 defines sex trafficking in Arizona.  It defines intending to cause prostitution (which in Arizona is either buying or selling and is gender neutral) by coercion.  Coercion includes legal abuse or financial harm.  Thus, if men are threatened by the state with the spectre of legally abusive sexual assault prosecutions (due to many cases found to be false accusations by civilian women) and financial harm (civilian women cause financial harm by joint bank accounts and community property pursuant to Arizona laws) then the state is essentially a sex trafficker in that state actions encourages prostitution by coercing hobbyists to choose the lesser of two evils - prostitution is less onerous than traditional civilian women.  

That is stupid,  

Argument stumbles over very first word quoted as definition:  "intending".  To make the rest go, you'd have to prove that Arizona "intended" to cause prostitution.

ARS 13-1307(A) has two prongs, specifically (A)(1) "intent" or (A)(2) "knowledge that the other person will engage in any prostitution or sexually explicit performance by deception, coercion or force."  So the government has the knowledge that men want to have sex and in fact have been having sex for thousands of thousands of years and essentially has funneled men into trafficked prostitution due to the government's coercion as defined in (C)(1).    

Of the hundred's of felony cases I have followed in Maricopa Superior Court and reported on, using 13-1307 is rare since in AZ (unlike some states) needs to be coercion.  

This is why local Pheonix boards all shut down.  
Sec 4 as pandering felony includes " encourages any person to become a prostitute or engage in an act of prostitution."

I think backpage made their change due to money laundering and not the pandering statutes.  Backpage clearly won on the immunity deal for being a website under federal law but they ruled in California their immunity did not extend to money laundering so therefore they can only post phone numbers because a phone number in and of itself apparently is ok.

Ah.  You didn't quote it that way.