5 questions for people who advocate legal prostitution

misgsy, have you thought about why he watches over you? Or why he isn't working himself?

migsy are you still paying him 40%?

Condoms reduce the likelihood of some STDs but some they have less or no affect on eg HPV and herpes and pubic lice. If course condoms do fail sometimes too.
They are infinitely better than using nothing but are not 100%.

Things have changed and we are together now so he's not just my friend. Im watched over when I work now which makes me feel safer but I do remember what it was like before and wouldn't like other girls to feel as I did. I don't know how unsafe sex with a condom is though, i thought it was very safe and prevented std's.

All STDs are passed on much easier from male to female and from male top to male bottom. It is riskier as a woman.

"Chronic HPV causes cervical cancer. So really yes, sex is.damaging in an aggregate rather than probability sense, for.women"

HPV also causes penile cancer, albeit at a lower rate than cervical cancer. HPV also causes throat cancer (via oral sex) and anal cancer (via anal sex).

So what you can say, really, is that sex can be dangerous. This danger is not limited to women, and it is not even just limited to PIV sex.

"Condoms do not prevent this."

Actually, condoms are shown to offer rather impressive protection against cervical cancer. See where it says "In the HPV study, published in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine, none of the women who reported that their partners always used condoms developed lesions during the three-year period. Fourteen women whose partners used condoms less regularly got lesions."

Condoms can't prevent transmission of the warts (also caused by HPV) that are not covered by the condom. Warts are caused by different strains of HPV than the ones that cause cervical cancer, though.

Well, the more people you have sex with, the more and various HPV you are exposed to. Condoms do not prevent this. Chronic HPV causes cervical cancer. So really yes, sex is.damaging in an aggregate rather than probability sense, for.women. Not really like.car use, in that sense.

I just think that men think the idea of someone penetrating them with their penis for money is massively different than penetrating a.woman who wouldn't have sex with you given an actual choice. I don't recognise that difference as significant in degree. Where's the LP, can't get decent work family man prostitute trope? Nowhere.

migsy I don't want to bring up things you have previously said about your experiences but your previous descriptions of your life do not sound like free choices that you are happily continuing. You have also talked about how much money you make and who takes shares from you. That directly contradicts the myth put out by the previous punter poster that women working indoors make lots of money. It's hard to imagine from your descriptions of your life (which have been pretty bleak) how women working together would change anything for you. Do you think it would? Would you leave your "friend" and work with another woman instead? Or would he have you sharing a flat with someone else and take the same amount from you?

glasgowsexworker.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/our-bodies-our-selves/

An article on the Swedish model by a sex worker, sorry "prostituted woman".

quote:
"Pop quiz! You are a sex worker living in a country that has adopted the Nordic model. Which of these forms of evidence-gathering would you prefer? You may pick one.

a. Condom-possession. Prepare to have your safer-sex precautions produced in court as evidence that a commercial sex act was on the cards.

b. The police non-consensually video your sex life. Y’know, clandestinely.

c. The police conduct an intimate physical examination.

This is of course a trick question, because generally in jurisdictions that have adopted the Nordic model, all of these forms of evidence-gathering are used. In Sweden, even distributing condoms can be seen as “encouraging prostitution”."

What Basil said. Migsy has been here a while, Feminnee if you have anything constructive to add, go ahead.

"migsymoo Sat 30-Aug-14 21:45:28
Having sex for money isn't painful. Why is everyone making assumptions. Yes protect women by making working together legal. That's all, it's not a drastic change in the law but would drastically change prostitutes safety."

Be quiet prostituted woman. We feminists know more about prostitution than you do.

Sex is potentially damaging to women in the same way that driving a car is potentially lethal - i.e. in the vast majority of incidents, it just isn't.

Sex is always potentially damaging to women?

There are ways to minimise the damage, condoms to prevent pregnancy and std's and lubrication to prevent pain. Either way if you are being paid for a service you are allowing the penetration of your body under certain terms.

Sex is not painful under certain conditions, such as when you actively want it and when you are in full control of penetration. But it's always potentially damaging for women

Having sex for money isn't painful. Why is everyone making assumptions. Yes protect women by making working together legal. That's all, it's not a drastic change in the law but would drastically change prostitutes safety.

Well, DWH may well just be getting on with his life, to be fair.

It would be interesting to hear why he thinks someone he's not attracted to painfully penetrating his body is any different to someone I'm not attracted to painfully penetrating mine, though. And why all his measures for protecting women require no change in any man's behaviour.

Hmm, it seems DWH has bowed out of the convo...........

Dadwashere do you think prostitutes are attracted to their clients? Because they are aren't. So why is straight men being same sex prostitutes a bizarre analogy? Because the act is more similar and they aren't attracted to them.

These are men so disgusting they can't find anyone to have sex with them, or so vile the sex acts they want can't be found with women who aren't being coerced.

This is not true. Like on the other sex work thread talking about the guys, clients are normal men. Some are good looking, fit, married with a partner or whatever, others can be fat, ugly and with no social skills. Most are men you'd pass in the street or have in your home fixing your boiler. You can't generalise about all clients same as you can't generalise all prostitutes.

I find the relevance of suggesting heterosexual men should bend over for other men is bizarre...

The fact that you find it 'bizarre' just goes to show how little you get it.

Prostitutes have sex with people who a). penetrate them, and b). have the ability to physically over-power them (i.e. dominate and hurt them) at any point.

Again, if you think that sounds scary, you'd be right.

I find the relevance of suggesting heterosexual men should bend over for other men is bizarre, the analogy would be heterosexual men selling their sexual services to women, not gay prostitution. ?

No woman is going to rape you, if you decide actually you''d rather not fuck her.

Sexuality isn't relevant because these are not men the prostitute wants sex with anyway. These are men so disgusting they can't find anyone to have sex with them, or so vile the sex acts they want can't be found with women who aren't being coerced.

You as a man bending over (like a woman being penetrated) are far more likely to get an STD.

Selling sex to men is the bottom line. If its vile and scary to imagine yourself doing it, then it's vile and scary for the people who do do it, regardless of whether they are male or female.

^^

Why are you so unwilling to police the johns, DWH? Why is your whole answer to the problems associated with prostitution concentrated on anything but asking the johns to behave differently?