I'm willing to bet that non-commercial sex between men and women spreads far more disease than prostitution or gay sex.
In fact, I'd guarantee it.
Also, in localities with legal prostitution(provided there are basic health checks) the disease rate is almost nil. Contrast that with runaway disease rates in places where prostitution is illegal.
Did you know that prostitution was even legal in Singapore, that authoritarian paradise?
BTW, what you are essentially doing is deciding that because a person MIGHT be involved in a societally detrimental result, they are essentially guilty of it prior to commission.
Guess you feel the same way about guns too eh?
posted on 06/26/2003 8:58:47 PM PDT
"Did you know that prostitution was even legal in Singapore, that authoritarian paradise?"
I'm not sure what you mean by "was," but it was definitely absolutely illegal when I was there in 2000.
Also, in localities with legal prostitution(provided there are basic health checks) the disease rate is almost nil.
They have monthly health checks on prostitutes in Mexico --often done by new doctors working their year for the government, some of them have told me the prostitutes are full of diseases ---every month they shoot them up with penicillin and whatever, but as soon as it wears off, they've got all the STDs back.
posted on 06/26/2003 9:16:38 PM PDT
I'm willing to bet that monogamous heterosexual sex spreads no disease.
Married monogamous, heterosexual sex has been the favored relationship in law - and for a good reason - it is heathful for individuals and for society. Adulterous, and/or deviate sex is not, that is why society has constructed social and legal sanctions against it. Just as society has constructed sanctions against theft, deception, and aggression between individuals.
Sadly, the wisdom of previous generations is lost on the "whatever makes you feel good" generation.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson