4 ms·

> but there are no shortage of people who also end up with psychological damage from their jobs outside of sex work Not to labour the point but: cf Soldiers.

> but there are no shortage of people who also end up with psychological damage from their jobs outside of sex work Not to labour the point but: cf Soldiers. Men can take the emotional and physical toll but women can't? edit: just to expand on this, talk to people who have been on military tours about the horrors of draging dead bodies (that they might have killed) from the road side, the pain of loosing friends, being away from your family etc.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
I think you've missed the point here. The poster is saying that sex work is vulnerable to psychological damage, but isn't considered as legitimate as military-related careers which are also vulnerable to psychological damage. The poster is questioning society which determines sex work to be less legitimate as a career than military work or any other career.
- lkslkdjfsl 4y ago
  Yes, I am agreeing with this position.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    Ah ok, thanks for clarifying! I mistook agreement for disagreement even though your point was the same.
BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Not sure if you're intentionally stopping before the obvious elephant in the room. The army has always been glorified as a country without soldiers is free pickings. It's practically a necessity, as current day tensions show. Sex work isn't a necessity. Worse, regarding prostitution and porn, most of it's clientele remains secretive to avoid shame. Even if sex was considered a necessity, the stigma alone would prevent individuals from persuing services. The fact you specifically discriminate between men and women gives it away (women can be soldiers, men can be sexworkers). We consider both the purity of women and the willingness for men to sacrifice themselves and be assertive as virtues. Now turn it around and you have your answer as to the status quo for almost our entire existence across the entire globe.
- lkslkdjfsl 4y ago
  > The army has always been glorified as a country without soldiers is free pickings That is your own conlcusion. Historically armies were "staffed" by nobles. You couldn't be a soldier if you didn't have land or title, so it started out as something of prestigious and exclusive (as an alternative explanation why it was/is glorified). My point isn't that we should see sex work as important as being a soldier (though this is still somewhat subjective). My point is that people do things _as jobs_ that can have psycological impacts. Soldiers are not treated in some different class to other jobs. They are treated essentially the same: people have contracts, insurance, pensions, etc. why is sex work different? > The fact you specifically discriminate between men and women gives it away Thank you for pointing this out. > We consider both the purity of women and the willingness for men to sacrifice themselves and be assertive as virtues. Who is we? > Now turn it around and you have your answer as to the status quo for almost our entire existence across the entire globe. I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    >That is your own conlcusion. Historically armies were "staffed" by nobles If you as a man weren't willing to fight, be it the army or your home, good luck attracting a mate for most of history. Similar dynamics exist today. >why is sex work different? Already answered. History and cultural virtues. >Who is we? The far majority of your male and female ancestors, for one. The majority of cultures globally, for two. >I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The opposite of purity is lust and promiscuity. The opposite of being assertive is passivity and avoiding conflict. The opposite of wanting to fight is running away or freezing up. The vast majority of women aren't attracted to weak men who won't stand and fight for their hypothetical children. The vast majority of men aren't attracted to promiscuous women looking for the next meal ticket. No amount of reasoning changes dynamics that have existed for millions of years. Culture too originates from something. Now look back at what soldiers do and what sex workers and their clientele resemble. It has nothing to do with emotional burdens.
    - lkslkdjfsl 4y ago

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

I think you've missed the point here. The poster is saying that sex work is vulnerable to psychological damage, but isn't considered as legitimate as military-related careers which are also vulnerable to psychological damage. The poster is questioning society which determines sex work to be less legitimate as a career than military work or any other career.

lkslkdjfsl 4y ago
Yes, I am agreeing with this position.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  Ah ok, thanks for clarifying! I mistook agreement for disagreement even though your point was the same.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

Not sure if you're intentionally stopping before the obvious elephant in the room. The army has always been glorified as a country without soldiers is free pickings. It's practically a necessity, as current day tensions show. Sex work isn't a necessity. Worse, regarding prostitution and porn, most of it's clientele remains secretive to avoid shame. Even if sex was considered a necessity, the stigma alone would prevent individuals from persuing services. The fact you specifically discriminate between men and women gives it away (women can be soldiers, men can be sexworkers). We consider both the purity of women and the willingness for men to sacrifice themselves and be assertive as virtues. Now turn it around and you have your answer as to the status quo for almost our entire existence across the entire globe.

lkslkdjfsl 4y ago
> The army has always been glorified as a country without soldiers is free pickings That is your own conlcusion. Historically armies were "staffed" by nobles. You couldn't be a soldier if you didn't have land or title, so it started out as something of prestigious and exclusive (as an alternative explanation why it was/is glorified). My point isn't that we should see sex work as important as being a soldier (though this is still somewhat subjective). My point is that people do things _as jobs_ that can have psycological impacts. Soldiers are not treated in some different class to other jobs. They are treated essentially the same: people have contracts, insurance, pensions, etc. why is sex work different? > The fact you specifically discriminate between men and women gives it away Thank you for pointing this out. > We consider both the purity of women and the willingness for men to sacrifice themselves and be assertive as virtues. Who is we? > Now turn it around and you have your answer as to the status quo for almost our entire existence across the entire globe. I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  >That is your own conlcusion. Historically armies were "staffed" by nobles If you as a man weren't willing to fight, be it the army or your home, good luck attracting a mate for most of history. Similar dynamics exist today. >why is sex work different? Already answered. History and cultural virtues. >Who is we? The far majority of your male and female ancestors, for one. The majority of cultures globally, for two. >I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The opposite of purity is lust and promiscuity. The opposite of being assertive is passivity and avoiding conflict. The opposite of wanting to fight is running away or freezing up. The vast majority of women aren't attracted to weak men who won't stand and fight for their hypothetical children. The vast majority of men aren't attracted to promiscuous women looking for the next meal ticket. No amount of reasoning changes dynamics that have existed for millions of years. Culture too originates from something. Now look back at what soldiers do and what sex workers and their clientele resemble. It has nothing to do with emotional burdens.
  - lkslkdjfsl 4y ago