That would be incorrect, Toni. I have often covered the social stigma affecting male rape victims and detailed why such stigma which makes them far more susceptible to not come forward compared to female rape victims. And in this thread, my acknowledging prostitution as a phenomenon which covers both male and female sex workers is not "technically" formulated. And I will add that anyone paying attention to my posts would recognize that when I communicated my support towards sex workers refusing services based on GI or/and sexual orientation incompatibility, it certainly covered BOTH male and female sex workers.
I said often, not always. I checked. Indeed I was the first person to mention males also were prostitutes in this thread. Certainly on the other forum, I was sometimes the first person to mention male prostitutes and male rape victims. Not the only and not only the first, but sometimes, indeed I was.
Considering that not every member will join a thread at the same time you do, I cannot accept your drawn conclusion based on who will first comment on/mention male prostitutes and male rape victims whether it be on FRDB or TFT.
This does not mean that I am saying that you do not discuss these issues. Or that you are never the first person to bring it up or the only person to mention.
Well, see, the thought would not cross my mind that there is some type of gender bias agenda at play based on who discusses/mentions first male prostitutes/male rape victims versus the general trend to discuss female prostitutes and female rape victims.
For me to venture in assuming that there is a gender bias agenda at play, I would have to base it on observing and long term a pattern of comments/remarks from a member who will persistently create threads with OPs denigrating one gender or the other. Or a pattern of jumping in threads dragging a hobby horse obsessing on denigrating one gender or the other.
You presented your hypothetical with the specifics of "MoNique and Jasmine" (obviously female sex workers). You set the focus yourself on female sex workers with your hypothetical. If you really mean to test whether there is any gender bias at play, you should have based your hypothetical on male sex workers and examine whether responses Tom or anyone else provided in the course of the thread change or vary depending on the gender of the hypothetical sex worker(s).
Thank you for instructions on how I should post. I wasn't trying to 'test' for gender bias but for bias in compensation/economics. Yes, indeed the free market reigns in prostitution, according to some! The owner of the brothel should be able to legally racially discriminate with respect to pay of prostitutes because some clients are racists and will pay more for a white prostitute than a black prostitute. The only one who isn't allowed to discriminate is the person who is most harmed*. (*Please note: I do not think it is harmful to have sex with a black person. I think it is harmful to have sex with someone you do not wish to have sex with. Period.)
The reason why I engaged you is because of this content in your reply to Tom :
Who are coincidentally female.
I understand completely.
You set your hypothetical on 2 female prostitutes. You then make a comment which does not make any sense as "coincidentally" since you are the party who wrote the script specifically with 2 female characters. Tom received your remark quoted above as you venturing into accusing him of being motivated by gender bias in his reply to your hypothetical the script of which you wrote.
The reality is that you could not be understanding completely. The reality is that there is no rationally constructed justification for you to allude to any gender bias tainting Tom's reply to your hypothetical where you narrowed it down to 2 female prostitutes.
As to female rape victims, the hypotheticals who "almost always focus on female victims" is most probably the product of the reality that there is far greater ratio of female rape victims than male rape victims. To add the obvious tendency of OPs linking to an article or event where the victim or alleged victim is a female versus a male.
It may be true that there are vastly more female victims than male but recent data suggest that there are many more male victims of rape than previously believed.
It is not a "may be true". When it comes to adult on adult sexual assaults to include rapes, females remain the prime targets of such crimes. And I do not need any data "suggesting that there are many more male rape victims than previously believed" as I have often shared about my having been a mediator/facilitator for support groups dedicated to adults attempting to recover from a variety of abuse and exploitation of their persons to include sexual while having specified the inclusion of male participants. Those were male victims who had never reported or come out before.
This is almost certainly because of the stigma attached resulting in under reporting, not to mention that the FBI only recently updated its procedures to include the possibility of male rape victims.
Considering that female sexual assaults and rapes are also under reported I am not sure anyone could somehow conclude that unreported sexual assaults/rapes of males is a factor in assuming that the number of male victims comes close to the number of female victims.
How else will these barriers be overcome if they remain unacknowledged? Why should make victimization not be discussed in any thread about rape? They are also victims!
I am not sure why that outcry on your part. You are free to start a thread focusing on male rape victims so you can actually test whether there is indifference towards male rape victims or/and a lack of acknowledging those barriers. Personally I do not recall in my history with IIDB, FRDB and now TFT that, any time I mentioned and detailed the extent of the trauma escorted by a social stigma affecting male victims, anyone giving me a dismissive reply.
That is definitely not my observation. IMO you are crying out wolf here when there is no wolf. That there be a suspicion of misogyny tainted/influenced opinions in some of the rape centered topics and only with an extreme minority of posters, I can certainly agree. But not the case in this current topic.
I disagree. I noticed it on the first page and since.
IMO the remarks you made I quoted above which implied a gender bias motivated response from Tom (which he received as such and I did too) are not justified. You are free to stick to it and attempt to rationalize your remarks but it certainly does not mean it could influence my or other posters' perceptions.
Adding (usually gay) men in the group of prostitutes being discussed simply includes another group of individuals that have a long standing history of being victimized sexually and with other violence. Yes, I know we are all so open and progressive now, we are acknowledging the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry, have a family, have the same family rights but this is an extremely new development. Old ways and old attitudes die hard. Women and LGBTQ individuals still experience a disproportionate amount of sexual violence which is even greater for persons of color who are in these groups.
How does that refute the reality that everyone acknowledges and is fully aware that sex workers encompass both male and female sex workers? How does your reply in any way confirm that there is a gender bias at play in this thread when it comes to posters who expect that in the context of a legal sex services business employees should be upheld to the same standards specified in anti discrimination laws extended to all legal businesses in the US?
That was not my point. The point was that most individuals who go into sex work have already been significantly victimized and that victimization directly led to prostitution. This is a group of individuals who deserve the same control over their bodies as does any other human being on the planet. We should be more sensitive, not less sensitive to this need and desire.
One may be sensitive to the plea of ANY human being who was in any way shape or form the victim of any abuse/exploitation but still focus on the reality of us all living in a society where employees and workers of any category who have any jobs requiring interaction/communication with the company's clientele are expected to set aside whichever racial prejudice they may be cultivating. If they will not or cannot meet such expectation, they will need to consider seeking employment which does not require interactions/communications with any customers/clients.
As to clients/customers to any business, such expectation is not placed on them simply because it is not a profession or employment to be a client or customer. Thus consumers as a whole can discriminate all they want. If they are racially prejudiced against Asians and will not patron a business owned by Asians, they can. In the domain of health care, a patient/client has the right to reject a nurse assigned to them based on her/his ethnicity. The company will assign the nurse to a different patient. It is ugly like any other prejudice and ignorance based preference but the reality remains that consumers represent the demand in any capitalistic economy. As a result and in order to generate profit, businesses are going to accommodate those preferences among their clients/consumers no matter how much they are the result of prejudice and ignorance.
Sex workers in any legal sex service business are fully empowered under Health Dept. and OSHA directives to refuse to provide services to any prospective client demanding they do not wear a condom. Fully empowered to refuse to provide services to any prospective client whose expectation/demand would present a breach or violation of those specifics formulated within Health Dept. and OSHA regulations.
Oh, please. Look, once I nearly lost my job at a crappy chain restaurant for truthfully answering questions of the health department inspector. The ONLY reason I did not was because someone didn't show up for work that day, and two other people quit and we were slammed and if I had been canned, they would have not been able to get food out. Technically, yes, I would have had a case for wrongful termination but honestly, I had ZERO idea how to do that and if I had had 3 or 4 days worth of pay to tide me over so I would not literally be on the street, I would have quit that job long ago. But management only gave management enough hours to allow for such contingencies so we were all stuck. ALL of us had very legitimate workplace claims against the management, including but not limited to sexual harassment, and OSHA and health dept. violations. Why do you think currently restaurants employ so many illegals right now?
I am aware of illegal immigrants being exploited within the agricultural industry but was not aware it is such a common phenomenon within the restaurant industry. Is it that common that "so many illegals" will be hired to work within the restaurant industry? Or are you referring to family owned (usually recent immigrant origin) restaurants/eateries where they will have a family member from their country of origin either working in the kitchen or serving customers or cleaning while they are awaiting to be processed to get their permanent residency and work permit?
Of course restaurant work is legal and without the same stigma as sex work. So go ahead and pretend that legal prostitution would allow sex workers the same rights as office workers. That is not the case now where prostitution is legal. There is a big difference between de jure and de facto.
Sure. However, the reason why legal sex workers are still hesitant to invoke their rights is because of a lingering mentality which still vilifies their profession. But what we can all observe throughout the history of this nation is a succession of changes in mentality where groups who used to be subjected to exploitation and/or sub treatment of their person are now fully empowered to invoke their rights and take whichever exploitative employer to court.
I know that you are medically sophisticated enough to know that HIV and other STI are most infectious in the days to weeks to months before they are detectable. And that rarely is HIV detected earlier than 6 weeks after infection, usually not until long after that. It is estimated that 20 percent of those infected with HIV in the US are unaware of their HIV infection status.
Legal sex services businesses (again) in order to maintain their license would have to comply with Health Dept. and OSHA issued regulations. Which cover contagious diseases prevention and control. Which means the use of protective barriers as well as maintenance of the locale/facility so that all employees comply with hygiene and sanitation designed to prevent cross contamination. Same applies to all health care workers employed by a licensed business providing health care services. I am totally empowered to refuse to provide services to a patient demanding I not wear any protective barrier when handling any of their bodily fluids or coming in contact with them. I need not to have any confirmation that a patient is HIV sero positive or HP sero positive or any other infectious/contagious diseases to systematically apply standard precautions established by the CDC and enforced via the Health Dept. Any sex worker (again legal and licensed business) employed by such business would in fact be empowered to refuse to provide services to any client demanding or expecting the sex worker to forego/dismiss applying the set of precautions established within the content of Health dept. and OSHA regulations. That is an extremely compelling argument to support the legalization of prostitution because the State can then monitor and audit and inspect legal businesses and via legalization is removed the current heavy burden of a high potential of hazards to the public health.(while both sex workers and clients would be protected).
Testing for STIs does NOTHING to protect sex workers as the clients are not being tested.
And to my knowledge our patients/clients are not systematically tested for a variety of infectious/contagious diseases. But every 2 years, I have to get an X Ray for TB detection (X ray versus PPD because as a French national as I was BCG vaccinated). The fact they are not systematically tested for a variety of infectious/contagious diseases means that I am not protected. What I am pointing to here is that sex workers are not unique in the situation of being tested resulting in not being protected due to clients not being tested.
Early infections of many STIs, including HIV are not detectable before seroconversion except with 4th generation screens for HIV which do not detect any infection within a minimum of 10 days, during which time the infected individual is HIGHLY contagious because virus is actively and rapidly replicating.
Again, you are treating the sex worker situation as if it is a unique one. It is NOT. Health care workers face the same dilemma of potential exposure to a variety of contagious/infectious diseases since clients/patients are not systematically tested for a variety of infectious/contagious diseases.And to add that when it comes to the specific "sexually transmitted" attached to HIV, such blood borne pathogen which also thrives in specific bodily fluids is not exclusively transmitted via the sexual contact route. The main reason why the CDC content of Contagious/Infectious Diseases Prevention/Control focuses on HIV is because the 2 bodily fluids (semen and vaginal fluids) OTHER than blood are typical of a sexually transmittable contagious/Infectious disease. With the specific vectors of : multiple partners and anonymous.
You tell me which of the 2 parties involved in sex services trade is most susceptible to be the party meeting those 2 vectors of "multiple partners and anonymous"? The client or the sex worker whose profession revolves around sexual activities and several times daily? My point here is that it is not some great injustice which directs testing towards the sex worker rather than the client. Rather which of the 2 parties is most susceptible to meet the vector of "multiple and anonymous". I will safely assume that due to your experience "working in environments which mandate universal precautions", you had to be somewhat familiar with the yearly updated guidelines issued by the CDC addressing Infectious/Contagious Diseases prevention and control ,those guidelines being the source of measures known as standard precautions and universal precautions (noting there is a difference between them according to my most recent CEU). You would then have no difficulties relating "multiple partners and anonymous" to the reason why it is the predominant vector for HIV and other sexually transmittable infectious/contagious diseases.
I've actually spent quite a number of years working in environments which mandate universal precautions. This includes more than a decade of working in a health care setting where not only was I required to use universal precautions but also to provide appropriate testing after employee and/or patient exposure which sometimes involved needle sticks but not always. Certainly when I worked in a preschool, there was no needle stick exposure yet we were mandated to use universal precautions for our protection as well as for the protection of the children. I am extremely aware.
Then you should be aware that it is standard precautions you would use when you worked in a pre school not universal precautions. Both terms having specific definitions which vary from each other. I seriously doubt that workers in a school environment are expected to apply universal protections with the CDC guidelines applying specifically to which type of barriers are to be used under universal precautions and why. There is a reason why I specifically used the term "standard precautions" instead of "universal precautions". Frequent hand washing, sanitation of surfaces susceptible to be contaminated etc are part of standard precautions. Universal precautions address exposure to blood born pathogens such as HIV, HP B and C. With far more complex barriers than wearing gloves and frequent hand washing and maintaining the sanitation of all surfaces susceptible to be contaminated.
I am extremely aware of what happens when there is an exposure, what meds are involved, what testing, what compromises any individual who has been POTENTIALLY exposed must make until they are cleared and it is demonstrated that their exposure to blood/body fluids did not involve an STI.
What you probably meant is that "their exposure to blood/bodily fluids did not involve a contagious/infectious disease" considering the reality of a variety of blood born pathogens which are not exclusively sexually transmittable. But of course when specifically applying your remark to sex workers, we go back to the same predominant vector prevailing with the "sexually transmittable" part of : multiple partners and anonymous.
Please note that those types of exposures account for far fewer transmissions of STIs than does sexual contact.
Exposure to blood born pathogens affecting health care workers due to a sharp is indeed extremely low. However, you seem to dismiss the reality that when we refer to HIV, it is not exclusively sexually transmitted. Further when it comes to a potential of exposure to HIV for health care workers, it is certainly not limited to being accidentally pricked by a sharp. Blood splatter on mucus membranes is another risk. the reason why we see zero case of blood splatter caused HIV exposure is because in any given circumstance where a procedure is susceptible to cause blood splatter, the attending medical personnel will be wearing a transparent facial barrier to prevent blood splattering in their eyes, nose and mouth.
I am also extremely aware that universal precautions do not convey 100% prevention of transmission of STIs all of the time. If they did, there would be no need for the follow up testing and follow up meds.
The reason for my reply was that you seemed to be treating sex workers(again) as a unique situation where testing does not protect them from exposure and further where the use of standard precautions would not eliminate 100% the risk of exposure. My point being that it is not a unique situation since my being tested does not protect me from exposure and standard precautions as well as universal precautions do not guarantee 100% elimination from the risk of exposure.
As it is, there are very, very few cases of transmission of STIs in health care settings which contrasts with the much increased rate of transmission in sex work. There are many reasons for this but one reason is that health care workers almost always are not working behind a closed, locked door with no likelihood of another individual walking in and observing lax precautions.
That is true in medical facilities but certainly not the case among the millions of home health care workers, whether they be skilled or non skilled nursing providers. The reason why as a home health care worker I never lax precautions is not because there is any "likelihood of another individual walking in and observing lax precautions" since I do work "behind closed doors" and often locked depending on our clients/patients preferences (it is their home, not mine), it is because I am a fully trained and educated health care worker who fully understands the severe implications of "cutting corners" resulting in affecting not just my health but our client/patient's health as well as the other clients/patients I will be assigned to in their home for the rest of my working day. No matter how minimal the risk is supposed to be, I will not lax on the Plan of Care and mandated precautions (whether it be infections or falls or any injuries I may incur as the result of my laxing over the training I received to keep me and my client/patient safe during a transfer).
The crucial support to sex workers is for them to be fully trained and educated. Which unfortunately is not the case for as long as there will be a mentality which vilifies sex services and views sex workers as morally deprived persons not worth the effort to equip them with education, training and knowledge of their rights.
Certainly you are aware that condoms break, that clients often insist on going without a condom and/or pay more to go bareback, creating an economic pressure that many prostitutes are unable to resist. And that neither the prostitute nor the brothel owner are licensed medical practitioners who are able to accurately assess the health status of either prostitute or client.
Neither am I yet as a Home Health Aide I do not deviate from relying on standard precautions designed for contagious/infectious diseases prevention and control.
And of course I do not because I am fully aware that any "cutting corners" on my part may result in cross contaminating other patients as I would have exposed myself to a risk of infection by making the choice to not rely on standard precautions. Further I am fully aware like any other health care worker that non observation of standard precautions could result in termination of employment if not loss of certification or license.
I am certain that you wear gloves and other PPE when there is risk of exposure to blood/body fluids. Prostitutes are unlikely to be allowed to wear gloves or PPE. You face ZERO economic pressure to forego the gloves and PPE. Your clients WANT you to use them. You are not going to be promised a tip if you just go bare skin, just this once.
FYI I wear gloves and wash my hands after and before putting on a new pair of gloves any time I am coming in contact with my patients/clients skin. I wear gloves when I apply lotion as an example. I wear gloves when I shampoo their hair or assist them in washing whether it be shower, sponge bath or bed bath. Added barrier will be my wearing mask if the patient/client has a respiratory infection. And when I develop a respiratory infection such as flu or cold, I'better make sure I call in so I do not show up in our client/patient's home while exposing him/her to a risk of infection. That to include a non medically diagnosed rash and the highly infectious "pink eye". We just stay home until cleared.
"when there is a risk of exposure to blood/body fluids" : I wear gloves and as mandated by my company's policy any time I come in contact in the course of the Plan of Care with our client/patient's skin. I do not sit there assuming whether there is a risk or none.
As to your last phrasing, all due respect but I am far more aware of the instances when a client/patient threatened to send away a health care worker who refused to forego using barriers which you need to know that HHAs and CNAs working in home health care do not want to lose the hours (they are hourly wage dependent workers employed by home health care agencies) they were guaranteed to have when a client/patient tells you " do not come back..." and calls the agency to have you replaced. You are mistaken to *think* that there is no economical pressure home health care admitted clients/patients can exercise on an assigned to them CNA or HHA.
As to "economical pressure", once more, licensed legal businesses under the designation of "sex services providers" would have to comply with labor laws applicable in each State and take into account overtime as well as holiday pay for their employees. Sex workers tempted to deviate from Health Dept and OSHA regulations would have to contemplate the reality that it may mean the termination of their employment or/and suspension of their certification/license.
Sure. And I am certain I really am the sole heir of a recently deceased Nigerian millionaire whom I've never met.
OSHA and the Health Dept. are not going to be present in the rooms where prostitutes provide services. Prostitutes are still going to be pressured to provide sex without protection. Some will take the risk. Bribes and corruption will remain and will be even more prevalent than in the food industry.
It's a fantasy that prostitutes in legal brothels will be empowered to always use condoms which will never break and which will never allow any pregnancy or STI.
I suppose when anti slavery advocates fought to promote legislation which would end slavery, they were also told " it is a fantasy". I suppose when the Suffragettes fought for the right to vote as women, some thought of it as a "fantasy". I suppose when advocacy started supporting gay persons in the military to be liberated from the DNADNT, it was also viewed by some as a "fantasy". And MLK speech was also a "fantasy". And the advocacy groups who have won their plea via legislation in Washington State and Oregon to legalize Patient's Assisted Suicide , that too was viewed as a "fantasy". Who would have thought there would be such a change of mentalities?
You give up on it. I do not. And I usually do not waste my time when I join any advocacy group by *thinking" they are "fantasies".
So much advocated progress was often viewed as a "fantasy" by folks who are not willing to fight for their fellow human beings' rights while they sheltered behind all the "doom and gloom" argumentation they will dig up. Some give up, others do not no matter how much "fantasy" remarks and sarcastic comments will be thrown at them.
Also, I had specifically spoken of a measure which would prevent pregnancies : medically prescribed oral contraceptives. Not sure why your reply was "condoms....... which will never break and never allow pregnancies". I can see the validity of condoms not being a 100% preventative for STDs but as I specifically spoke of medically prescribed oral contraceptives regarding pregnancies, it appears you are responding with the "condom" bit related to "pregnancy" to a comment someone else may have made.
Indeed, weekly visits with health professionals for the sex workers do nothing at all--- NOTHING AT ALL--to eliminate their risk of contracting an STI but merely increase the likelihood that they will be diagnosed early (and removed from their work environment) and perhaps have access to treatment.
There is no 100% elimination of exposure to a great variety of infectious/contagious diseases within the health care milieu. However, the use of standard precautions certainly reduces the risk of exposure to include reliance on barriers. To include sanitation and hygiene. I am not sure why similar measures in the context of sex services providers would not be applicable. As a health care worker what I share in common with a sex worker is direct physical contact with my clients'anatomy to include bodily fluids. The main difference being the vectors and route of the infection/contamination.
Without 100% effective prevention, there is risk. Sex workers incur unique and greater risks than do health care workers, of which I have been one.
About those routes of transmission. You are far less likely to contract any STI through any exposure through the contact you sustain with your client compared with the contact a prostitute will experience. YOU use gloves when exposed to blood and body fluids. Your clients do not insert their penis into any orifice, with or without condoms. Prostitutes do not use gloves, experience contact which, even with the 100% use of the world's best condoms represents a more serious threat of exposure to STIs than anything you do.
The reason why the risk of being exposed to blood born pathogens to include sexually transmittable ones is reduced for me is for the very reason that I comply with mandated barriers. And again, I wear gloves with the added precaution of hand washing prior and after the use of gloves any time I come in contact with with our clients/patients skin during the course of the assignments listed in the Plan of Care. I do not sit there dwelling on whether wearing gloves is mandated only if there is a risk to come in contact or/and exposure to blood and bodily fluids. Please, try to inform yourself as to which policies home health care agencies will expect their field employees to comply with, policies compatible with the Guidelines issued by the CDC which in turn govern the mandates issued by the Health Dept. in each State.
I am not minimizing your risks. They are not insignificant and they must be respected. I am acutely aware. Please do not suggest that your risks are the same or on the same level as a prostitute using condoms.
And there you do it again... you are the party who introduced analogies between sex workers and health care workers in terms of contagious/infectious diseases prevention and control. That is the same downfall you gave into when you propped up the stage for 2 female prostitutes in your earlier hypothetical and then turned around and hit Tom with 2 remarks implying he has a gender bias issue based on his reply to your hypothetical.
I am not suggesting that I incur any risk to be infected/exposed to blood born pathogens such as HIV via the sexually transmittable route. My point has been that a broad wide legalization of sex services will necessitate that all sex services providers be licensed and compliant with precautions similar to the ones addressing Infectious/ Contagious Diseases Prevention and Control. Because it is a matter of public health. No differently than health care workers are bound to compliance because it is a matter of public health. You see it as a "fantasy" to be able to set a system where all sex services providers would have to be compliant to maintain their license to include be compliant with labor laws. I do not.
Female prostitutes still become pregnant on occasion and may or may not terminate.
Which effective and medically prescribed oral contraceptives should reduce the risk of a pregnancy resulting from vaginal intercourse with their clients.
Reduce but not eliminate unless you are proposing hysterectomies for all female prostitutes. I am also acutely aware of the failure rate (theoretical and real world) of all forms of birth control, having been sexually active for many decades now, having raised to adulthood several children and having worked as a counselor providing information about birth control and the transmission of STIs, among other things.
Again, I stated "should reduce the risk". Your response(once more) dismisses the reducing effect as if it would not be a great improvement over the current situation. Again, whether it be contagious/infectious diseases prevention and control or reducing the pregnancy rate , it is always a great improvement to advocate and apply measures which will have a reducing effect instead of stagnating into a thought process based on....but...but...it cannot eliminate the risk 100%.
And of course your tone here where I would be somehow arguing that sex workers be sterilized. I am well aware that no matter how much thought has been put into setting a safe and non exploitative system, there will always be incidences of exploitation and unsafe conditions. However, I am moving on forward towards a betterment rather than expecting perfection.
As to getting with you into some sort of competition based on how long we have been sexually active , how many children we have raised to adulthood and which of the 2 of us would be better equipped to produce a 101 on birth control and contagious/infectious diseases control and prevention to include sexually transmittable ones., I will not play that game.
Each exposure to an STI, each unwanted pregnancy represents a significant health risk to prostitutes who almost always are in this profession because they lack any other real choice. Being the previous victim of sexual abuse is so common that it almost seems to be a job prerequisite.
Once a change of mentality occurs where we will talking of sex services providers instead of prostitutes and "whores" and other derogatory epithets targeting both male and female sex workers, it becomes a profession recognized as a benefit to the population. My approach to legalizing prostitution in fact considers it as a legitimate service and from a mental health angle.
Sure: there will be no mental health cost at all to sex workers who service 10 or more clients a day. Or health risks because all pregnancies, all STIs will be prevented as they are not currently in legal brothels which exist across the world today.
What I meant is that it is beneficial to the mental health of both genders to be able to release sexual tension/frustration resulting from the absence of a sexual partner. That is why I place sex services under the category of mental health benefits. And I can see it from a clinical angle rather than allowing opinions based on emotions or morality to take over.
Please conjure up a universal living wage along with affordable universal access to health care, education, housing and food while you are fantasizing.
I am hoping at this point that as you will have read my reply to the "fantasy" bit as well as your penchant towards sarcasms , you will make the effort to reflect a tad bit longer before giving in to including them in your future replies.
A prostitute, a pimp, a brothel operator, a nurse, a physician, cannot tell by looking which individuals are infected with STIs, although some infections, particularly herpes, may be detectable by visual sign.
And when it comes to nurses and physicians they are held accountable to maintain standard precautions in the exercise of their functions. Never are we instructed to assume any patient/client is free of any infectious/contagious disease.
Yes, but you are not a prostitute. I was speaking to the idea that in house health care workers would be able to on the spot adequately screen for any STIs that might be transmitted. They cannot, even if they were employed on site and screened each client.
Well, there is a tid bit known as the Patient's Bill of Rights which protects patients from being forced to submit to any medical procedure/testing/treatment they reject. That is the reason why as health care workers and health care professionals in the exercise of their functions involving patients, they would never be a scenario of "house health care workers" being able to "test on the spot" any admitted patient for a variety of contagious/infectious diseases unless the patient consents to such testing.
Fourth generation HIV screens still do not detect antigen until 10 days post infection, those first 10 days representing the most highly contagious period of infection. This is assuming that the test is performed correctly on a sample which has been collected correctly.
Again and since you brought up health care workers and professionals you need to know that we are ALL mandated to rely on standard precautions regardless of any observation or lack of of any symptoms of any infectious/contagious diseases.
Yes, but health care workers are not prostitutes and do NOT experience the same levels of risk or the same risks of exposure. Nor do they experience the same pressures to forego PPE.
The actual difference is that we have zero risk of being infected via a sexually transmittable route when it comes to a variety of blood born pathogens also present in specific bodily fluids. I need to note that to my knowledge sex workers are at a high risk to contract infections NOT related to a sexually transmittable route considering they come in close physical contact with the client's anatomy. They are certainly at high risk to be exposed to an airborne contamination. Certainly at high risk to be exposed to any infectious field located anywhere on the client's anatomy.
The risks to physical health and well being are borne by sex workers and are quite significant. However, that is not the only reason---or even the main reason that I object to any person, regardless of profession or status in life being required for any reason at all to provide sexual services to another person against their will.
I recall having specifically brought up to Tom much earlier the inevitable conflicts between society affirming that mutual informed consent is necessary for any sexual activity and compelling in any way anyone to engage in any sexual activity without their informed consent. However, when it comes to a legal and licensed business falling under the category of sex services providers, one would expect that sex workers are already informed from the get go that in order to be employed, they would have to comply with the business/company policies which I must add the majority of legal and licensed businesses in the US also inform employees about anti discrimination laws when it comes to the employees interactions with the company/business clientele.( as well as how such employees are also protected from discrimination initiated against them by the company).
Yes, the MAJORITY is not 100%. And there are exceptions. For example, a landlord is forbidden to discriminate on the basis of race when renting accommodations. Sadly, in some states, they can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. That should not be the case but it is and I fully advocate for eliminating such discrimination. However, in most locals, if I rent a room in my own home, I can discriminate on whatever basis I choose.
Once more you seem to not distinguish between a betterment and the expectation it be 100% effective.
I see sex work as being entirely unique and believe that sex workers, along with every other human being in the entire world should be able to choose/accept sex partners using whatever criteria they wish, including for reasons that I find despicable and and find unacceptable in any other context. Period.
And I do not think that whether it be me or anyone else, we would resort to implying that there is an ulterior motive at play in your considering that sex workers should be able to discriminate based on the ethnicity of their prospective clients.However, you have implied that Tom's reply to the hypothetical where you chose to introduce 2 female characters was somehow influenced by gender bias. You attributed a prejudiced based ulterior motive to his position.
How would you feel if anyone were to attribute to you a racially prejudiced based ulterior motive?
I find racism to be despicable and rooted in ignorance and also in a desire to enforce and maintain a power structure which heavily benefits some over others.
Which then I am not sure why under the category of sex services providers as a legal and licensed business/company, they should relax their policies which would end up disadvantaging a Black person as a potential client versus potential clients of other ethnic groups. Why should Black persons be deprived of a benefit other ethnic groups benefit of?
Actually, my statement is not limited to blacks but applies equally to ALL.
As far as I am concerned, any person should be able to locate whatever legal service he or she desires. They just should not be able to require a sexual service from any INDIVIDUAL who declines to provide it, even if the reason is a bad reason.
I brought up "blacks" because that is the specific lead from the OP. And in your country when we speak of racial prejudice fueled by racism, the emphasis in on Black persons as having been been the primary targets.
I am also rather certain that when it comes to racial discrimination from employee targeting a customer, it is far more common that the employee is a Caucasian and the customer Black than the other way around.
You stated :
"I find racism to be despicable and rooted in ignorance and also in a desire to enforce and maintain a power structure which heavily benefits some over others."
To make my point more clear and avoid any further nitpicking on my use of the word "Black", why should any ethnic group member be disadvantaged and deprived from accessing a benefit afforded to another ethnic group member based on ethnicity?
So does forcing a certain group of persons to provide sexual services to others against their own wishes or judgment.
Again and again, in the context of legal and licensed sex services providers, no applicant looking to be hired as a sex worker is forced to provide sexual services to others against their own wishes or judgement. But in order to be hired they have to agree to abide to the company/business policy(ies). Which under the same legal and licensed context, you need to acknowledge that the policies have to be compatible with State Laws which apply to all legal companies/ businesses.
You contradict yourself: you say that no worker would be required to provide services to any client against their will but at the same time insist that in order to earn their livelihood, they must accept company policy which will require that they accept clients regardless of race. Even if they do not wish to do so.
Somehow I managed to find employment at a time I was in a severe dire situation right after my divorce and I had to do so to "earn my livelihood" without being restricted to becoming a sex worker to "earn my livelihood". What makes you believe that the only possible mean to "earn their livelihood" is for an unemployed person of either gender to be restricted to becoming a sex worker? As if such persons have no other option but be a sex worker to "earn their livelihood".
You see this as legitimate. I do not. Sex work is the only circumstance I can think of in which I believe there is a legitimate right to refuse to provide service to any client for any reason. This is not because I advocate racism but because I believe that ALL individuals have the right to refuse sex for ANY reason at all. Even despicable reasons.
I can relate to your sentiment as again I have brought up earlier the inevitable conflict between a society who will criminalize sexual activities where one party did not consent and a stance where sex workers would be expected by law to provide services to their prospective clients despite of the sex worker lack of will or consent to do so.
However we are speaking now of a profession where interactions/communications with customers/clients is inevitable and part of the job designation. Surely as someone applies for the said job which is a profession (under legalization as licensed sex services providers businesses), they do have the option to start looking for another job to "earn their livelihood" where their job assignment will never imply interactions/communications with members of the ethnicity they happen to dislike.
Although I have written a rather sharp toned reply, I mean no disrespect to you. I feel that this is one issue where you and I will simply have to agree to disagree as Tom and I have done.
If any disrespect, it was not towards me. Though I will urge you to reconsider the manner in which you attributed a prejudiced based ulterior motive to Tom in his reply to your hypothetical.
