The Oldest Profession In The World: Yea Or Nay

[Revoltingest]

Petri dishes are regularly reused. They would have to be safer than a desperate heroin addict.

Heroin addict could use an artificial internal purging system too.
But there might be controversy.

 

[PureX]

I actually think that very few limits are needed that transcend mutual consent. In your example, the mentally ill person was not capable of making an informed decision. That is the only reason the state has a right to step in as far as I can see. But that is NOT the case where sex is exchanged for money.

I believe it's very much the same situation, because I don't believe a healthy person would relinquish their dignity and autonomy for money. And it's because healthy people know this is unhealthy behavior that they do not wish to see their loved one engaging in it.

Some people would have sex with strangers even without being paid. But being paid helps them financially, so why not? Or, someone might well be willing to have sex with someone they know, but having some money thrown in would help them out.

If willingness were not a problem, no money would be necessary. The very fact that money has to be paid infers that the willingness is not authentic.

Most jobs require payment to get people to consent to do them. That is why we pay people, after all.

But this is not like most jobs. This job involves unredeemable and unnecessary humiliation.

 

[PureX]

I really don't see sex as humiliating.

I know. But how long would I have to purchase you for, and for what purposes, before you would finally recognize it as being humiliating?

 

[Revoltingest]

I know. But how long would I have to purchase you for, and for what purposes, before you would finally recognize it as being humiliating?

I suppose he'd do it as long as it's not humiliating.
Then if he disliked it, he'd stop doing it.
Nothing wrong with that.

 

[PureX]

This is getting kind of overwrought. I don't think it's my place to "allow" family members to do anything. I certainly don't think avoiding "humiliation" gives me such cause.

Then I can't help you understand.

 

[PureX]

I suppose he'd do it as long as it's not humiliating.
Then if he disliked it, he'd stop doing it.
Nothing wrong with that.

In that case, there would be no need for me to pay him.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That depends, because data is scarce. Truly regulated sex would eliminate STD's (using faithful monogamy as the example). When we say sex generally we are talking about all kinds both marriage, extra-marital, pre, post etc. How does one go about gathering the evidence on sex workers? I look at the CDC web page and see statistics about diseases, but I don't see studies that reveal what you are asking about. Maybe somebody gathers that kind of information, but how would they verify it? I think it would require a very persistent and invasive monitoring authority, but that would by its own nature make the data generally inapplicable since people behave differently under observation. It would have to be unethical in order to accurate, because people lie. Maybe a behavioral scientist could think of a way around it, but it looks like they haven't.

Look at this pdf file from the American Journal of Public Health: The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) publications which cites "...the absence of an effective national system for STD prevention..." and "Managed care organizations offer the greatest potential in the private sector for a comprehensive approach to STD control but have demonstrated little interest in the issue to date." It also says that condoms are proven to help but that much more research is needed. That doesn't give us a lot to go on towards answering your question.

Beats me. You were the one making the claim.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Then I can't help you understand.

Your inability to explain it should really give you more pause than it seems to be doing.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I know. But how long would I have to purchase you for, and for what purposes, before you would finally recognize it as being humiliating?

You keep making this argument, but how is that different to any other service industry job?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

But this is not like most jobs. This job involves unredeemable and unnecessary humiliation.

Again, you keep claiming this. You have yet to explain how this "humiliation" is different to that involved in any other job.

With the arguable exception of a monarch, I can't think of any job that exists without potential humiliating aspects.

I also wonder what makes you think it's reasonable for you to project your feelings about the job onto others. The fact that YOU think something would be unacceptably humiliating doesn't mean anyone else should find it so.

 

[Jollybear]

Consider real estate brokerage....
The broker is the one licensed & tested.
The broker pays for this, not the clients they charge for their services.
I'm sure that you & I could design a regulatory system to reasonably ensure health, profit & happy endings.
With your cute & innocent avatar, who could object?

Yes, i agree, the prostitution company would have to pay for testing.

However, would it be a law to be tested? If yes, does this not mean taxes go up for audits? If no law, do you think the companies would test there prostitutes?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, i agree, the prostitution company would have to pay for testing.

However, would it be a law to be tested? If yes, does this not mean taxes go up for audits? If no law, do you think the companies would test there prostitutes?

It would very likely be a law.
But it could be self financing.
Think of building inspections...my town uses them as a profit center (in violation of state law).

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, i agree, the prostitution company would have to pay for testing.

However, would it be a law to be tested? If yes, does this not mean taxes go up for audits? If no law, do you think the companies would test there prostitutes?

It is in prostitute's professional interest to be tested regularly, and, indeed, most of the ones I have worked with in a nursing capacity were getting tested at the time. In the one case of those from a brothel, the brothel management organised the testing. I appreciate that things might be different in places where such testing is prohibitively expensive and such costs result in triangular buck passing between employer, insurer, and employee, but that seems like an argument against American style healthcare, not regulated prostitution.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I didn't question whether sex workers spread STDs, I asked if there's any evidence that regulated sex work spreads STDs at a significantly higher rate than sex generally?

Beats me. You were the one making the claim.

You lost track of the conversation, probably talking to too many at once.

 

[dfnj]

.

Religious and safety considerations aside, what are your thoughts about a woman or man having sex for money? That is, having sex for money that would in no way adversely affect the person.

(Some of the words here have been put in bold because some respondents are missing these key qualifications)


View attachment 27544

​

Not another gun control debate. Oy vey!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You lost track of the conversation, probably talking to too many at once.

If you say so. Still pretty happy my opinion is the most logically correct that produces best outcomes for most people.

 

[Jollybear]

It would very likely be a law.
But it could be self financing.
Think of building inspections...my town uses them as a profit center (in violation of state law).

So the inspectors are the auditors, but the client pays for it and the inspection complies with the law? I understand?

 

[PureX]

Your inability to explain it should really give you more pause than it seems to be doing.

How do I explain that an individual's personal, physical autonomy should not be for sale for money, because it places money as being more important and more valuable than even our most intimate individual autonomy? And to someone who has completely bought into our culture of unchecked greed and selfishness so fully that they actually believe doing so are expressions of liberty? How is it an expression of individual liberty when you have to bribe someone to engage in it? And how is it an expression of liberty when it's the most personal form of liberty that is being purchased, and then ignored, by someone else, for their personal gratification?

 

[Revoltingest]

So the inspectors are the auditors, but the client pays for it and the inspection complies with the law? I understand?

The licensee pays government for inspections.
The client pays the licensee.

 

[Jollybear]

The licensee pays government for inspections.
The client pays the licensee.

If the licencee is doing the inspections, why does he have to pay government for inspections that government does not do themselves?