My first STD

[hobbier]

You seem to think SPs make a shit ton of money as if there wasn’t a massive physical and psychological cost to having countless strangers use their bodies every week. That mindset is fucked up.

hey..What a stupid and unrelated comment ......its their choice to play with strangers and It seems you dont know they have access to free tests...you better stay quiet if you dont know better

 

[x5fq]

hey..What a stupid and unrelated comment ......its their choice to play with strangers and It seems you dont know they have access to free tests...you better stay quiet if you dont know better

Calling my comment "unrelated" doesn't make it unrelated.

You're the one who brought up "high fees" in your initial argument for why testing should be more frequent, and then later shifted to "it's free" as if that removes the relevance of what you said before.

So the question is simple: why introduce income in the first place if your position is that cost doesn't actually matter in determining testing frequency ? Either it's a relevant factor in your reasoning, or it isn't. Right now it's being used selectively depending on what supports the point.

Exposure risk can justify more frequent screening. That part is not in dispute. But income has no medical relevance to how often testing is required, so using "they make good money" as a basis for "no excuse" is not a health argument, it's a value judgment.

And that's exactly why my original comment wasn't "unrelated". Once you start framing expectations around what people earn and what they "should be able to afford", you're no longer just talking about medical guidelines, you're also implicitly talking about pressure, assumptions, and how you view the people doing the work.

And "they chose it" is such an oversimplified argument. A lot of women in that industry are there because of financial desperation, coercion, abusive situations, trafficking, addiction, or lack of options.

 

[just_a_effing_guy]

Maaaan... We can tell you haven't spoken to SPs overall... They say that ignorance is a bliss but in your case, we can see that you need some proper education. Don't talk about things that you're clearly unaware of, because it'll look bad on you.

Honestly, here's my advice : don't presume ANYTHING from the sex work industry. We don't know jack shit from THEIR perspective so perhaps it's better for you to just close your mouth and listen to them, the SP. You might learn a thing or two, maybe.

 

[hobbier]

Calling my comment "unrelated" doesn't make it unrelated.

You're the one who brought up "high fees" in your initial argument for why testing should be more frequent, and then later shifted to "it's free" as if that removes the relevance of what you said before.

So the question is simple: why introduce income in the first place if your position is that cost doesn't actually matter in determining testing frequency ? Either it's a relevant factor in your reasoning, or it isn't. Right now it's being used selectively depending on what supports the point.

Exposure risk can justify more frequent screening. That part is not in dispute. But income has no medical relevance to how often testing is required, so using "they make good money" as a basis for "no excuse" is not a health argument, it's a value judgment.

And that's exactly why my original comment wasn't "unrelated". Once you start framing expectations around what people earn and what they "should be able to afford", you're no longer just talking about medical guidelines, you're also implicitly talking about pressure, assumptions, and how you view the people doing the work.

And "they chose it" is such an oversimplified argument. A lot of women in that industry are there because of financial desperation, coercion, abusive situations, trafficking, addiction, or lack of options.

anyhow..this is all non sense..not sure what you are doing in this board, as I could not found a single review from you...but, I could read that you are a strong defender for the sp...