When hundreds of grass-roots women's rights organisations around the world support the Nordic Model, you think it's fake/regressive left? Fake regressive left is thinking men have a right to buy women's bodies, and that women enjoy it.
Thank you for answering the question: the money is to keep herself fed and a roof over her head. The transaction has absolutely nothing to do with women's sexuality, and everything to do with male fantasy. He's buying her consent because she has no other choice. He's bypassing consent with money.
You really think there are far worse jobs? How would you like to be anally raped 20 times a day? Can you think of a worse 'job' than having a strange man stick his penis up your anus not once, not twice, but twenty times a day.
You have been inculcated and manipulated by the regressive left media that panders to men and their rights to orgasm above all else. This is a good piece on why it's not a job 'just like any other': http://logosjournal.com/2014/watson/ This is what the MSM does not report, because it does not run with their narrative that prostitution is full of happy hookers. This is a snippet:
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) is responsible for overseeing worker safety and health in the U.S. They specify the standards for worker safety regarding in employment contexts that include exposure to blood borne pathogens and other potentially infectious materials (of which sperm counts)[19], as they are concerned with the potential transmission of HIV or Hepatitis, or other infectious diseases. The sexual acts that form the necessary working conditions for (persons) women selling sex means that routine “Occupational Exposure” is intrinsic to the “job”. Occupational exposure “means reasonably anticipated skin, eye, mucous membrane, or parenteral contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials that may result from the performance of an employee’s duties.”[20] Employers must “list … all tasks and procedures or groups of closely related task and procedures in which occupational exposure occurs…” and [t]his exposure determination shall be made without regard to the use of personal protective equipment.”[21] So, presumably, every potential sex act would need to be on the list, as “tasks”, in which occupational exposure occurs, and the list needs to be made without reference to condom use because the list is required list exposure threat without reference to personal protective equipment
Condom use certainly would be a minimum requirement for compliance with OSHA standards. However, condom use will not be sufficient to meet OSHA regulations, for: “All procedures involving blood or other potentially infectious materials shall be performed in such a manner as to minimize splashing, spraying, spattering, and generation of droplets of these substances.”[22] Condoms break, they are not foolproof. Moreover, condoms break more frequently in anal sex. The CDC states that receptive anal sex with an HIV positive person, even with a condom, represents a 100X greater risk for contracting HIV than oral sex with a condom.[23] Anal sex, with an HIV positive partner, without a condom puts the “recipient” at a 2000X greater risk for contracting HIV than oral sex with a condom.[24] Condoms, while reducing risk, does not eliminate it, nor arguably does it “minimize risk” per the OSHA standard; Condoms also don’t protect against all sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The CDC makes clear that, though condoms can reduce some STIs, they are not effective for all STIs, HPV and genital ulcers occur in places that condoms don’t cover, and hence condom use is not necessarily an effective prophylactic in all cases.[25] Moreover, we know that even where condoms are required by law, “clients” often prefer not to use them.[26] We also know that the most vulnerable among persons selling sex are the least likely to use condoms (to have the power to require purchasers of sex to use them), for example, transgendered persons and “migrant sex-workers.”[27]
view the rest of the comments →
Piscina ago
When hundreds of grass-roots women's rights organisations around the world support the Nordic Model, you think it's fake/regressive left? Fake regressive left is thinking men have a right to buy women's bodies, and that women enjoy it.
Thank you for answering the question: the money is to keep herself fed and a roof over her head. The transaction has absolutely nothing to do with women's sexuality, and everything to do with male fantasy. He's buying her consent because she has no other choice. He's bypassing consent with money.
You really think there are far worse jobs? How would you like to be anally raped 20 times a day? Can you think of a worse 'job' than having a strange man stick his penis up your anus not once, not twice, but twenty times a day.
You have been inculcated and manipulated by the regressive left media that panders to men and their rights to orgasm above all else. This is a good piece on why it's not a job 'just like any other': http://logosjournal.com/2014/watson/ This is what the MSM does not report, because it does not run with their narrative that prostitution is full of happy hookers. This is a snippet:
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) is responsible for overseeing worker safety and health in the U.S. They specify the standards for worker safety regarding in employment contexts that include exposure to blood borne pathogens and other potentially infectious materials (of which sperm counts)[19], as they are concerned with the potential transmission of HIV or Hepatitis, or other infectious diseases. The sexual acts that form the necessary working conditions for (persons) women selling sex means that routine “Occupational Exposure” is intrinsic to the “job”. Occupational exposure “means reasonably anticipated skin, eye, mucous membrane, or parenteral contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials that may result from the performance of an employee’s duties.”[20] Employers must “list … all tasks and procedures or groups of closely related task and procedures in which occupational exposure occurs…” and [t]his exposure determination shall be made without regard to the use of personal protective equipment.”[21] So, presumably, every potential sex act would need to be on the list, as “tasks”, in which occupational exposure occurs, and the list needs to be made without reference to condom use because the list is required list exposure threat without reference to personal protective equipment
Condom use certainly would be a minimum requirement for compliance with OSHA standards. However, condom use will not be sufficient to meet OSHA regulations, for: “All procedures involving blood or other potentially infectious materials shall be performed in such a manner as to minimize splashing, spraying, spattering, and generation of droplets of these substances.”[22] Condoms break, they are not foolproof. Moreover, condoms break more frequently in anal sex. The CDC states that receptive anal sex with an HIV positive person, even with a condom, represents a 100X greater risk for contracting HIV than oral sex with a condom.[23] Anal sex, with an HIV positive partner, without a condom puts the “recipient” at a 2000X greater risk for contracting HIV than oral sex with a condom.[24] Condoms, while reducing risk, does not eliminate it, nor arguably does it “minimize risk” per the OSHA standard; Condoms also don’t protect against all sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The CDC makes clear that, though condoms can reduce some STIs, they are not effective for all STIs, HPV and genital ulcers occur in places that condoms don’t cover, and hence condom use is not necessarily an effective prophylactic in all cases.[25] Moreover, we know that even where condoms are required by law, “clients” often prefer not to use them.[26] We also know that the most vulnerable among persons selling sex are the least likely to use condoms (to have the power to require purchasers of sex to use them), for example, transgendered persons and “migrant sex-workers.”[27]