Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I could see some job opportunities for some women to start schools to teach wives how to "keep" their husbands from wanting to test the waters. The other side of that will be more need for divorce lawyers.
Realize there's wives who lost their desire to have sex with their husbands, even early into their marriages, and would breathe a sigh of relief to know they're frequenting prostitutes, so that "work" could be performed by someone else! In fact, the wife, if working, might even slip a $50 into their pockets to pay for it!
That's how effective the mandatory STD test is. It only protects the first client after the test
You seem to be contesting a point that no one has actually made, that the STD tests would somehow be perfect. No one is claiming that.
What they are saying is that when there is a regulated licensing practice in effect which requires periodic testing, that the risks of STD are REDUCED. Not eliminated. Reduced.
Take the three scenarios below for example:
1) You meet another person in a bar who you know nothing about and have a one night stand with them.
2) You pay a prostitute you know nothing about for a night of sex.
3) You pay a prostitute who on her premises has and displays a prostitution license from an industry standard that requires periodic and frequent STD testing.
Now I do not know about you but if I personally were to list those three scenarios in order of DIMINISHING STD risk, I would probably rank them 2, 1, 3.
The point being made in other words is that a legal regulated industry gives us the tools to COMBAT STD vectors. Not eliminate, combat, in ways that simply are not available to us in the presence of an illegal underground industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer
That's because condoms are seldom, if ever, used.
I am not sure how we moved from a thread about prostitution to one about pornography, but you are right that it is unfortunate that actors in pornography are compelled not to do their work safely. I believe someone.... I think the UK...... just passed a law recently banning the production of pornography without condoms for example.
There is one difference between pornography and sex work in this regard however. Sex work is more of a "now now now" thing. The John phones or shows up, and they want the sex there and then.
Pornography production however has production times and dates which are planned. This, at least, gives people time to obtain medical tests and papers to prove their STD free status. Further, unlike prostitution, the pornography community is a closed community and the actors are not having sex with large swaths of the public community. So while STD transfer is possible, it is not the problem vector that STD transmission in prostitution can be.
There are however people in the pornography industry who take steps to eliminate this issue. For example the Abby Winters production company in Australia only relatively recently started producing Boy-Girl hard core pornography. And for the VAST majority of that they only work with couples who are actually already couples in real life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer
For some wacky reason, some men apparently like to see proof of ejaculation. As a woman, I do not understand this.
Nothing wacky about it. It is perfectly congruent with human physiology and psychology and something quite easily understood if you know the biological underpinnings of it. Basically we are an emphatic species with what is called "Mirror Neurons".
That is to say, when you observe another human being perform an action, or have an action performed on them....... much of the same neurons that are firing in THEIR brains, fire also in yours as if the action were happening to you.
If I stab my hand with a knife in front of you, at the level of the brain you experience that action too. There are OTHER "filter" reasons why you do not physically feel that pain, but at the level of the brain you ARE experiencing it just as much as the person you are observing. In fact there are some medical conditions where people lose this "filter" and if you stab yourself in front of them, they actually DO feel it. That must be awful to suffer from, though I imagine they get a LOT more pleasure from watching pornography than most people do.
The same is true of pornography. Part of the appeal of pornography in humans is that when we observe others having sex, or reaching orgasm, we are experiencing part of that at the level of the brain ourselves. Much of the "reward centers" stimulated in the person actually orgasming.... are similarly stimulated in the observer. So why people enjoy the sight of other people achieving orgasm is the opposite of "wacky". It makes perfect total sense.
Do you mean the prostitutes would lose control or women who are not prostitutes would somehow lose control (by virtue of there being a pool of sexually available women)?
And why would that be a good thing?
Frankly, I don't think any woman—prostitute or not—should have to grant sexual access to any man not of their own choosing, unless the prostitute chooses to state that "all men are welcome."
For the record, I am strongly against prostitution and do not consider it a victimless crime.
I meant the latter, which would be a good thing for men but not for women(which I explained in greater detail in a different post), at least not directly. As far as the former is concerned it might give the working girls more power to choose, not less. If it were legal it would be out in the open so coercion would not be tolerated. Any prostitute who was too choosy would find herself broke though. Limiting herself only to men she WANTS to have sex with would be self defeating because those are probably the men with more options to begin with. So long as the dorky sexless virgin took a shower before going to the brothel he'd probably be ok.
I meant the latter, which would be a good thing for men but not for women(which I explained in greater detail in a different post), at least not directly. As far as the former is concerned it might give the working girls more power to choose, not less. If it were legal it would be out in the open so coercion would not be tolerated. Any prostitute who was too choosy would find herself broke though. Limiting herself only to men she WANTS to have sex with would be self defeating because those are probably the men with more options to begin with. So long as the dorky sexless virgin took a shower before going to the brothel he'd probably be ok.
In the countries I have been where it is legal the relationships between men and women are no diffrent than they would be if it were illegal. I doubt if it were legal in the US that much would change in that respect.
In the countries I have been where it is legal the relationships between men and women are no diffrent than they would be if it were illegal. I doubt if it were legal in the US that much would change in that respect.
Well I'm sure it's different in at least one respect, even if you don't realize it.
I think some of you folks think this is such an easy answer.
The disease factor...valid.
Victimless crime...sometimes it is, and sometimes prostitution is forced.
It's sort of like gambling. Does legalized gambling eliminate illegal gambling?
The disease factor is valid because of it's illegal status. If you look into the legal operations in Nevada, they have a house doctor they see once a week and are only allowed to use condoms, and they are tested all the time for STDs anyway. The "disease factor" is far, far lower in places where prostitution is legal than where it isn't. The legal brothels are also subject to state inspection, since they are licensed by the state. Safer for the girls and the buyers, both.
The forced part is also part of the consequences of illegality....women in it currently don't feel they can go to the police when they are taken advantage of because it's illegal, any more than a drug buyer feels they can go to the police to complain they paid for a 1/2 ounce and got a baggie of oregano.
You're never going to stop it, prostitution was around even in biblical days, so why continue to spend so much money fighting it? Legalize it, license it, regulate it.
What would the consequences be if Prostitution were fully legal in the U.S?
The Consequences would be a lot of people getting Laid
The one thing these mass shooting/shooters have in common is loners can't get laid.
What if Prostitution was legal?
Maybe these guys wouldn't go out and shoot innocent people.
Maybe there should be an elective class to teach sexual satisfaction through masturbation. Sexual frustration can easily be accomplished without a partner.
Now that is a victimless crime.
Having worked as a prostitute, I never considered myself a victim, but the customer was much more the victim.
A really good, professional, talented prostitute is very good at that, turning their clients into victims/slaves, hooking them. We're talking about Hookers!
Like the client who came back to see me for 16 years, every week, or every 2 weeks, now that falls under the heading of victim!
The services I provided, a no-brainer, his wife would never, ever be able to perform! And, perhaps, no other prostitute!
There's plenty of STDs being passed around by people having sex with others who aren't prostitutes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
