6 ms·

>What makes sexual labor so horrid? It is a really effective way to spread some pretty terrible diseases. And, no, condoms and dental dams etc aren't going to

>What makes sexual labor so horrid? It is a really effective way to spread some pretty terrible diseases. And, no, condoms and dental dams etc aren't going to be full protection. There are some that are not routinely tested for and many people don't know about. For example HTLV is a sexually transmitted virus that can stay dormant for decades before causing lymphoma all the while being passed to other people. In other instances it can lead to nerve damage. I wonder how many people have 'MS' when it is really just a nerve destroying virus nobody thought to test them for or that we haven't isolated yet... And that is one that we happen to know about (but isn't commonly regarded). What about all of those diseases that we haven't discovered yet? They are out there. Just because religion says its wrong doesn't mean it's not a bad idea. This is not an original idea but I think it is likely a lot of religious dogma comes from practical observation that was easier for observers to explain to lay-folk as the Will of God rather than as a probabilistic fact. It is dangerous to assume that people don't have a point because of the way that point is presented.

argonaut 10y ago
Putting thousands of chickens in a single pen (industrial mass food production) is also a really effective way to spread some terrible diseases (antibiotic resistance), and incubate new ones (avian flu). Suffice to say, while this is a valid effect, it is not the actual reason the public has such a moral aversion to legalized prostitution.
- clavalle 10y ago
  Which came first, the moral aversion or the danger?
  - argonaut 10y ago
    The "danger" may have been a motivation for the development of the religious motivation. But there were plenty of societies in history that had no problem with prostitution. That being said, its historical origin has no relevance today.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    Historically speaking, the moral aversion predated knowing about any danger.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      Aversion clearly predated correct attribution of the danger. It is not obvious to me that the aversion did not reflect a recognition of danger, incorrectly attributed to the supernatural. Any evidence or reasoning you can point to would be interesting.
      - bobwaycott 10y ago
        How exactly are you defining a "recognition of danger"? I ask because I'm trying to grant the greatest possible latitude to generously interpreting your statement. And that, for me, is quite a stretch, given that I feel you are moving the goalposts in a very significant fashion with the modifier of "incorrectly attributed to the supernatural". To quite a seemingly intellectually and rationally dishonest degree. I get the sense you are building your argumentative trenches behind your restatement of "correct attribution", which involves way too much application of modern knowledge (and forgiveness) to past errors.
        dllthomas 10y ago
        I'm not "building argumentative trenches" - you made a relatively strong statement that things happened a particular way and gave nothing in the way of explanation, evidence, or elaboration. As any of those would have been interesting, I asked for some. I didn't intend to say you were wrong. I'm not sure what definition I can give that would clarify matters, but an example of "a recognition of danger with incorrect attribution of cause" would be something like "a community was affected by a particularly visible STI; someone noticed that it was afflicting those who were more promiscuous; decided promiscuity was being punished and therefore bad." I don't see any reason to treat this as less likely than any other specific story, without evidence given in either direction. That doesn't mean it's likely - any specific story is unlikely, a priori.
- nostrebored 10y ago
  This is an extremely poor analogy. Chickens are not people, and I'm not alarmed by chickens getting sick. Prostitutes , however, are people and forcing them into hazardous situations out of desperation is not okay.
  - gizmo686 10y ago
    The issue with chickens is that the illnesses or resistances that are bred within the chicken population can transfer to the human population, which is a human health concern.
    - nostrebored 10y ago
      Right the literal consumption of the good and those who consume it are of the only concern, not the chicken. Seeing as the consumption of women (treated as objects) is a key facet of this discourse, it's a particularly bad analogy.
kafkaesq 10y ago
It is a really effective way to spread some pretty terrible diseases. But the thing is -- as demonstrated by the entirety of known human history -- people are going to find a way to engage in it, no matter what governing power structures may try do to try to prohibit it. So the bigger question is whether attempts at totalistic prohibition (as opposed to regulation) actually lessen the risks of disease transmission -- or make them worse.
CJKinni 10y ago
> And, no, condoms and dental dams etc aren't going to be full protection. There are some that are not routinely tested for and many people don't know about. Part of this was covered in the article: > Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, along with other groups that support decriminalization — U.N.AIDS, the World Health Organization, the Global Commission on H.I.V. and the Law and the Open Society Foundations — acknowledge that there can be grave harms associated with the sex industry, but say that they see changes in the law as a precondition to reducing them. Last year, an analysis[0] in The Lancet predicted[1] that “decriminalization of sex work could have the largest effect on the course of the H.I.V. epidemic,” by increasing access to condoms and medical treatment. Governments can free themselves to crack down on trafficking and under-age prostitution, human rights advocates argue, if they stop arresting consenting adults. So sure, awareness of condoms and dental dams might not be 'full protection.' But outreach efforts to improve safer sex along with legalization seems to be the better alternative to doing nothing. [0]: http://www.thelancet.com/series/hiv-and-sex-workers http://www.thelancet.com/series/hiv-and-sex-workers [1]: http://www.vox.com/2014/7/28/5944597/study-decriminalizing-prostitution-could-drastically-cut-hiv http://www.vox.com/2014/7/28/5944597/study-decriminalizing-p...
2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
In Australia, the rates of STDs in sex workers is half that of the general population.
tryitnow 10y ago
Are you kidding? Or are you serious? The probabilities of getting the diseases you refer to are much, much lower than the probability of suffering harm due to alcohol or tobacco use. Now if you're saying we should also ban the use of those items, then I can at least applaud you for being consistent, if rather extremely risk averse. But I'd bet that you wouldn't support banning labor involved in alcohol and tobacco assumption, would you? Nope. This is just irrational moral revulsion masquerading as a concern for public health. Life is full of risks. Some we can ban, but most we either can't or wouldn't want to ban. We need to educate and regulate.
- lake99 10y ago
  I was going to make a similar argument, except, I would have stayed with diseases. But your point is just as valid. >> What makes sexual labor so horrid? > It is a really effective way to spread some pretty terrible diseases. There are tons of diseases know to the ancients as spread through human action like typhoid, cholera, TB, etc. And yet, I can't recall coming across taboos against the infected. The only taboo I'm aware of is against lepers. STDs are spread by direct exchange of blood too. And yet, many cultures had taboo-free blood bonding[1]. That it can spread "pretty terrible diseases" comes across as a weak boogeyman. Contrast this with other, nearly universally entrenched, taboos against fraternizing with those who are not your ethnicity, race, caste, social standing, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_brother https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_brother
- clavalle 10y ago
  The thing about alcohol and tobacco is that it is a personal choice that affects the people making that choice directly. The diseases can be spread from generation to generation. And the problems tend to be worse for kids that are born with these diseases than if they contracted them in adulthood. I personally have no moral qualms with prostitution as long as prostitutes are making the decision freely and not coerced (even indirectly by lack of options to survive economically) into it. My point is that it is somewhat reasonable for people to have a default rule of thumb that says 'this activity is not a good idea and I feel some revulsion for it'. Kind of like swimming in stagnant, slimy water. Legalization has some definite appeal -- I mean, if it is going to happen anyway (and it will) it might as well be above board so we can at least exert some level control and have society offer legal protections to those invovled -- there is some level of danger reduction. But legalization cannot remove the inherent dangers of the activity and the dangers are real and lasting and not as fully understood as some seem to think.
zik 10y ago
Sex work is legal where I live, and prostitutes have less diseases that the general population due to regulation of the industry enforcing safe sex practices.
- tomp 10y ago
  I'm not sure that's a valid statistics. Simply requiring that prostitutes are disease-free would mean that as soon as a prostitute gets a STD, she can't be a prostitute any longer. To actually confirm that prostitues are protected/healthier, you'd need to track people who used to be prostitutes vs. people who never were, and measure incidence of STDs for e.g. 10 years.
waterhouse 10y ago
From a Reddit AMA with a prostitute at a legal brothel in Nevada: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/wxn5i/my_name_is_amy_page_and_iama_legal_prostitute_at https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/wxn5i/my_name_is_amy_... Q: "What is the process of being tested for STD's? Do all of your clients wear condoms all the time, or is it up to your discretion?" A: "Yes we get tested once a week. Customers wear condoms for oral and sex." One of the commenters says (about a different brothel): "You settle on a price, they inspect your junk for any visible diseases. Then you go to her room or a theme room if you pay extra for it." From an interview by Salon with the owner of the first brothel: ""At the Bunnyranch, our girls get tested for HIV every 30 days, every seven days for gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis," he told me. "Then it's all condom usage -- even for oral sex. They're also trained on how to inspect a client. We actually have the Health Department come in and tell a girl what to look for. It's not 100 percent -- but by inspecting a man and making him use a condom, it helps take the risk out of it." Hof said that the testing the brothel does is mandated by state law. And registered prostitutes are required to have cards signed by a health provider indicating that they're disease-free; otherwise, they don't work. Police check the cards once a week, and if the women are not cleared, Hof gets slapped with a substantial fine." One of the girls claims in a 2014 Q&A post: "61. How often does STD transmissions occur in Brothels? I encourage you to do your own research, I did. It's a documented fact that in more than 30 years of state record-keeping, not a single incidence of STD transmissions have occurred in a legal brothel here in Nevada. Not one! Again, you're astronomically safer here than in your neighborhood meat market." As we'll see, she seems to be not totally correct, but close: I was able to track down a study, referenced by a bunch of articles, comparing STD rates in the port industry versus Nevada brothels. For our purposes, the relevant quote is: "As of the late 1980s, brothel workers in Nevada have been required by state law to use condoms for every type of sex act and to be tested weekly for STIs. Since the implementation of these regulations, these brothel workers have not had a single case of HIV, and their STI rates are negligible." http://mobile.journals.lww.com/stdjournal/_layouts/15/oaks.journals.mobile/articleviewer.aspx?year=2012&issue=12000&article=00017&ContextualNavigationType=mostviewed http://mobile.journals.lww.com/stdjournal/_layouts/15/oaks.j...

argonaut 10y ago

Putting thousands of chickens in a single pen (industrial mass food production) is also a really effective way to spread some terrible diseases (antibiotic resistance), and incubate new ones (avian flu). Suffice to say, while this is a valid effect, it is not the actual reason the public has such a moral aversion to legalized prostitution.

clavalle 10y ago
Which came first, the moral aversion or the danger?
- argonaut 10y ago
  The "danger" may have been a motivation for the development of the religious motivation. But there were plenty of societies in history that had no problem with prostitution. That being said, its historical origin has no relevance today.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  Historically speaking, the moral aversion predated knowing about any danger.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    Aversion clearly predated correct attribution of the danger. It is not obvious to me that the aversion did not reflect a recognition of danger, incorrectly attributed to the supernatural. Any evidence or reasoning you can point to would be interesting.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      How exactly are you defining a "recognition of danger"? I ask because I'm trying to grant the greatest possible latitude to generously interpreting your statement. And that, for me, is quite a stretch, given that I feel you are moving the goalposts in a very significant fashion with the modifier of "incorrectly attributed to the supernatural". To quite a seemingly intellectually and rationally dishonest degree. I get the sense you are building your argumentative trenches behind your restatement of "correct attribution", which involves way too much application of modern knowledge (and forgiveness) to past errors.
      - dllthomas 10y ago
        I'm not "building argumentative trenches" - you made a relatively strong statement that things happened a particular way and gave nothing in the way of explanation, evidence, or elaboration. As any of those would have been interesting, I asked for some. I didn't intend to say you were wrong. I'm not sure what definition I can give that would clarify matters, but an example of "a recognition of danger with incorrect attribution of cause" would be something like "a community was affected by a particularly visible STI; someone noticed that it was afflicting those who were more promiscuous; decided promiscuity was being punished and therefore bad." I don't see any reason to treat this as less likely than any other specific story, without evidence given in either direction. That doesn't mean it's likely - any specific story is unlikely, a priori.
nostrebored 10y ago
This is an extremely poor analogy. Chickens are not people, and I'm not alarmed by chickens getting sick. Prostitutes , however, are people and forcing them into hazardous situations out of desperation is not okay.
- gizmo686 10y ago
  The issue with chickens is that the illnesses or resistances that are bred within the chicken population can transfer to the human population, which is a human health concern.
  - nostrebored 10y ago
    Right the literal consumption of the good and those who consume it are of the only concern, not the chicken. Seeing as the consumption of women (treated as objects) is a key facet of this discourse, it's a particularly bad analogy.

kafkaesq 10y ago

It is a really effective way to spread some pretty terrible diseases. But the thing is -- as demonstrated by the entirety of known human history -- people are going to find a way to engage in it, no matter what governing power structures may try do to try to prohibit it. So the bigger question is whether attempts at totalistic prohibition (as opposed to regulation) actually lessen the risks of disease transmission -- or make them worse.

CJKinni 10y ago

> And, no, condoms and dental dams etc aren't going to be full protection. There are some that are not routinely tested for and many people don't know about. Part of this was covered in the article: > Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, along with other groups that support decriminalization — U.N.AIDS, the World Health Organization, the Global Commission on H.I.V. and the Law and the Open Society Foundations — acknowledge that there can be grave harms associated with the sex industry, but say that they see changes in the law as a precondition to reducing them. Last year, an analysis[0] in The Lancet predicted[1] that “decriminalization of sex work could have the largest effect on the course of the H.I.V. epidemic,” by increasing access to condoms and medical treatment. Governments can free themselves to crack down on trafficking and under-age prostitution, human rights advocates argue, if they stop arresting consenting adults. So sure, awareness of condoms and dental dams might not be 'full protection.' But outreach efforts to improve safer sex along with legalization seems to be the better alternative to doing nothing. [0]: http://www.thelancet.com/series/hiv-and-sex-workers http://www.thelancet.com/series/hiv-and-sex-workers [1]: http://www.vox.com/2014/7/28/5944597/study-decriminalizing-prostitution-could-drastically-cut-hiv http://www.vox.com/2014/7/28/5944597/study-decriminalizing-p...

2muchcoffeeman 10y ago

In Australia, the rates of STDs in sex workers is half that of the general population.

tryitnow 10y ago

Are you kidding? Or are you serious? The probabilities of getting the diseases you refer to are much, much lower than the probability of suffering harm due to alcohol or tobacco use. Now if you're saying we should also ban the use of those items, then I can at least applaud you for being consistent, if rather extremely risk averse. But I'd bet that you wouldn't support banning labor involved in alcohol and tobacco assumption, would you? Nope. This is just irrational moral revulsion masquerading as a concern for public health. Life is full of risks. Some we can ban, but most we either can't or wouldn't want to ban. We need to educate and regulate.

lake99 10y ago
I was going to make a similar argument, except, I would have stayed with diseases. But your point is just as valid. >> What makes sexual labor so horrid? > It is a really effective way to spread some pretty terrible diseases. There are tons of diseases know to the ancients as spread through human action like typhoid, cholera, TB, etc. And yet, I can't recall coming across taboos against the infected. The only taboo I'm aware of is against lepers. STDs are spread by direct exchange of blood too. And yet, many cultures had taboo-free blood bonding[1]. That it can spread "pretty terrible diseases" comes across as a weak boogeyman. Contrast this with other, nearly universally entrenched, taboos against fraternizing with those who are not your ethnicity, race, caste, social standing, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_brother https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_brother
clavalle 10y ago
The thing about alcohol and tobacco is that it is a personal choice that affects the people making that choice directly. The diseases can be spread from generation to generation. And the problems tend to be worse for kids that are born with these diseases than if they contracted them in adulthood. I personally have no moral qualms with prostitution as long as prostitutes are making the decision freely and not coerced (even indirectly by lack of options to survive economically) into it. My point is that it is somewhat reasonable for people to have a default rule of thumb that says 'this activity is not a good idea and I feel some revulsion for it'. Kind of like swimming in stagnant, slimy water. Legalization has some definite appeal -- I mean, if it is going to happen anyway (and it will) it might as well be above board so we can at least exert some level control and have society offer legal protections to those invovled -- there is some level of danger reduction. But legalization cannot remove the inherent dangers of the activity and the dangers are real and lasting and not as fully understood as some seem to think.

zik 10y ago

Sex work is legal where I live, and prostitutes have less diseases that the general population due to regulation of the industry enforcing safe sex practices.

tomp 10y ago
I'm not sure that's a valid statistics. Simply requiring that prostitutes are disease-free would mean that as soon as a prostitute gets a STD, she can't be a prostitute any longer. To actually confirm that prostitues are protected/healthier, you'd need to track people who used to be prostitutes vs. people who never were, and measure incidence of STDs for e.g. 10 years.

waterhouse 10y ago

From a Reddit AMA with a prostitute at a legal brothel in Nevada: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/wxn5i/my_name_is_amy_page_and_iama_legal_prostitute_at https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/wxn5i/my_name_is_amy_... Q: "What is the process of being tested for STD's? Do all of your clients wear condoms all the time, or is it up to your discretion?" A: "Yes we get tested once a week. Customers wear condoms for oral and sex." One of the commenters says (about a different brothel): "You settle on a price, they inspect your junk for any visible diseases. Then you go to her room or a theme room if you pay extra for it." From an interview by Salon with the owner of the first brothel: ""At the Bunnyranch, our girls get tested for HIV every 30 days, every seven days for gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis," he told me. "Then it's all condom usage -- even for oral sex. They're also trained on how to inspect a client. We actually have the Health Department come in and tell a girl what to look for. It's not 100 percent -- but by inspecting a man and making him use a condom, it helps take the risk out of it." Hof said that the testing the brothel does is mandated by state law. And registered prostitutes are required to have cards signed by a health provider indicating that they're disease-free; otherwise, they don't work. Police check the cards once a week, and if the women are not cleared, Hof gets slapped with a substantial fine." One of the girls claims in a 2014 Q&A post: "61. How often does STD transmissions occur in Brothels? I encourage you to do your own research, I did. It's a documented fact that in more than 30 years of state record-keeping, not a single incidence of STD transmissions have occurred in a legal brothel here in Nevada. Not one! Again, you're astronomically safer here than in your neighborhood meat market." As we'll see, she seems to be not totally correct, but close: I was able to track down a study, referenced by a bunch of articles, comparing STD rates in the port industry versus Nevada brothels. For our purposes, the relevant quote is: "As of the late 1980s, brothel workers in Nevada have been required by state law to use condoms for every type of sex act and to be tested weekly for STIs. Since the implementation of these regulations, these brothel workers have not had a single case of HIV, and their STI rates are negligible." http://mobile.journals.lww.com/stdjournal/_layouts/15/oaks.journals.mobile/articleviewer.aspx?year=2012&issue=12000&article=00017&ContextualNavigationType=mostviewed http://mobile.journals.lww.com/stdjournal/_layouts/15/oaks.j...