Prostitution: the public health perspective.

[Eddie Dane]

There have been a number of threads about the issue of legalisation.
These discussions seem to come down with most people on this forum being in favour of legalising prostitution.

But an article I read recently got me thinking about the public health side of things.

I can't find the article now but the main theme was that when you sleep with someone, you by extension sleep with all the people they slept with. The article was aimed at students.

If you apply this logic to prostitution the following picture emerges:
A woman working as a prostitute has to have X number of clients to pay the bills. I don't know how many, but let's say she sleeps with 150 clients a year.

These clients are by definition the type that sleep with prostitutes, and I am inclined to assume that they shop around.

Now I admit to be rather ignorant about medical matters, that's why I'm asking.
But that's quite a scary picture right there isn't it?

I mean even if they all practice safe sex, other viruses and critters will still spread, won't they?
I'm thinking lice, crabs, TB.

I'm in principle for legal prostitution (just look at the alternative).
But on the other hand the trade looks like a major hub for disease.

Is this an actual problem and if so, do authorities focus on it beyond stimulating the practising of safe sex?

 

[firecoins]

It dies not need to be 150 men. It can be 3 men once a week. Although it would probably be 10 or 15 men who repeat less regularly. Johns usually are repeat customers. Elliot Spitzer went many times.

 

[drkitten]

I'm in principle for legal prostitution (just look at the alternative).
But on the other hand the trade looks like a major hub for disease.

Is this an actual problem and if so, do authorities focus on it beyond stimulating the practising of safe sex?

In most areas where prostitution is legal (e.g., Nevada, the Netherlands), prostitutes are required to get regular medical exams.

Example (from Elko, NV).

 

[madurobob]

I think the point is prostitution is going to happen anyway, and will not be more prevalent to any significant degree under a legalized regime.

Given that, isn't it better to have a regulated industry with health requirements, inspections, etc...?

 

[casebro]

Yeah, and every time a Catholic boy masturbates, he kills 100,000,000 babies. Oh, the humanity!

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

There's also the fact that you're dealing with adults who are making (one would hope) informed choices about their lifestyles. There are lots of legal activities that can result in death, maiming, or disease that adults agree to participate in. There's risk involved in many things, but I feel it's best to let people make choices for themselves in most cases. Others may disagree.

 

[cwalner]

Elliot Spitzer went many times.

Must ... resist ... urge ... for ... pithy ... 'correction'.

 

[drkitten]

There's also the fact that you're dealing with adults who are making (one would hope) informed choices about their lifestyles. There are lots of legal activities that can result in death, maiming, or disease that adults agree to participate in. There's risk involved in many things, but I feel it's best to let people make choices for themselves in most cases. Others may disagree.

"Others" in this case would include "the legal system."

If you offer a service to someone else (for money), you have a duty to make it as risk-free as practical. There's no way, for example, that you can make white-water rafting completely risk-free, but if you are a white-water rafting company and you don't give your clients life vests (or if you give them substandard vests), you can't simply say "hey, I feel it's best to let people make choices for themselves" when you get sued for a zillion dollars.

If you are renting an apartment and you don't check to make sure that the fire extinguishers work, you can't say "hey, I feel it's best to let people make choices for hemselves." If you're in charge of a car rental agency and you don't check to make sure the brakes on the car work, you can't say "hey, I feel it's best to let people make choices for themselves."

Again, Nevada has some illustrative and interesting laws. If a client catches an STD at a brothel, the brothel owner is explicitly liable. (I believe both civilly and criminally.) The brothel owner has just as much of a responsibility to make sure the girls are clean as Hertz has to make sure that the its cars are safe and drivable.

 

[cj.23]

Based on a couple of days watching the brothel next door to me, I think I worked out that two ladies serviced about 28 men a week, and most of their clientele were regulars. I would have asked the pimp but he is currently elsewhere, awaiting sentencing - which to be honest I felt was rather undeserved. He had declared he was running a massage parlour and told the police, and was paying tax, so raiding him was perhaps a bit harsh? Anyway likable fellow, he gave me a tour of the location ( and made tea for me, along with the little old lady who lived on the other side of the brothel) when he got closed down by the cops. The girls were very happy as far as I could tell, and fiercely protective of the pimp. I found it all vaguely depressing when he was raided, though living next door to a brothel has negatives in terms of weirdos hanging about, but then no burglaries as criminals are warned off. I have never wanted to pay for sex -- but I am not going to judge anyone who wants to either, or who works in the industry. Live and let live!

cj x

 

[Eddie Dane]

Yeah, and every time a Catholic boy masturbates, he kills 100,000,000 babies. Oh, the humanity!

Well thank you for that nugget of information.

I am not judgemental about prostitution at all.

If people want to pay for, or sell sex they can go right ahead.

But I wonder about public health implications, but you can read all about that in the OP.

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

"Others" in this case would include "the legal system."

If you offer a service to someone else (for money), you have a duty to make it as risk-free as practical. There's no way, for example, that you can make white-water rafting completely risk-free, but if you are a white-water rafting company and you don't give your clients life vests (or if you give them substandard vests), you can't simply say "hey, I feel it's best to let people make choices for themselves" when you get sued for a zillion dollars.

If you are renting an apartment and you don't check to make sure that the fire extinguishers work, you can't say "hey, I feel it's best to let people make choices for hemselves." If you're in charge of a car rental agency and you don't check to make sure the brakes on the car work, you can't say "hey, I feel it's best to let people make choices for themselves."

Again, Nevada has some illustrative and interesting laws. If a client catches an STD at a brothel, the brothel owner is explicitly liable. (I believe both civilly and criminally.) The brothel owner has just as much of a responsibility to make sure the girls are clean as Hertz has to make sure that the its cars are safe and drivable.

I agree. That's why legal prostitution would ideally be done in bawdy houses. What I was saying is that saying that someone shouldn't be prevented from doing something solely because they might get sick or hurt (In most cases. I can't sit here and think of every hypothetical scenario.)


I don't believe that businesses have no responsibility toward their customers. I'm not sure why you seem to think I do.

 

[Eddie Dane]

"Others" in this case would include "the legal system."

If you offer a service to someone else (for money), you have a duty to make it as risk-free as practical. There's no way, for example, that you can make white-water rafting completely risk-free, but if you are a white-water rafting company and you don't give your clients life vests (or if you give them substandard vests), you can't simply say "hey, I feel it's best to let people make choices for themselves" when you get sued for a zillion dollars.

If you are renting an apartment and you don't check to make sure that the fire extinguishers work, you can't say "hey, I feel it's best to let people make choices for hemselves." If you're in charge of a car rental agency and you don't check to make sure the brakes on the car work, you can't say "hey, I feel it's best to let people make choices for themselves."

Again, Nevada has some illustrative and interesting laws. If a client catches an STD at a brothel, the brothel owner is explicitly liable. (I believe both civilly and criminally.) The brothel owner has just as much of a responsibility to make sure the girls are clean as Hertz has to make sure that the its cars are safe and drivable.

Cool. That sounds like a very good idea.

BTW it is obvious that risks can most effectively be minimized if prostitution is legal.

 

[Eddie Dane]

What about airborne diseases?

Is havng a bunch of people shag more dangerous than sticking people together on public transport?

 

[Earthborn]

In most areas where prostitution is legal (e.g., Nevada, the Netherlands), prostitutes are required to get regular medical exams.

Untrue for the Netherlands. Regular medical exams are offered free of charge, but are not mandatory.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The (IMO false) assumption is that legalising prostitution and making prostitutes who work in legal brothels have regular health checks reduces the demand for prostitutes who cannot or do not want to work in legal brothels.

 

[casebro]

the main theme was that when you sleep with someone, you by extension sleep with all the people they slept with.

This is what brought the anti-masturbation quote of the Catholic church to my mind. An infinite number of Johns do NOT carry an infinite number of diseases, any more than it is possible for one ejaculation to impregnate 100,000,000 women.

Any one prostitute is only going to get the usual diseases. So while sleeping with any particular new partner has it's risks, with a pro it is NOT infinitely higher. And if she sticks to her regular clientele, John's risk is also 'regular'.

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

The (IMO false) assumption is that legalising prostitution and making prostitutes who work in legal brothels have regular health checks reduces the demand for prostitutes who cannot or do not want to work in legal brothels.

There will always be a black market for things like sex. I think to certain extent the demand for cheap streetwalkers is lessened when prostitution is legal. Look at it this way. If I want sex, my only choice is to pick up a prostitute off the street corner. If there was a legal cathouse here, I would have the choice of paying more money for sex that didn't involve the risk of arrest, where the workers were regularly screened for sexually transmitted diseases, where there would be less chance of being robbed.


Sure, the guy who only has ten dollars is going to go to the streetwalker who'll work for that, but at least there would be a legitimate option for those who could pay more.

 

[Roma]

I don't know anything about what usually happens in brothels but the street prostitutes mainly give oral sex, I suppose a man could contract a sexually transmitted disease from a blow job, anything is possible.

 

[Puppycow]

The (IMO false) assumption is that legalising prostitution and making prostitutes who work in legal brothels have regular health checks reduces the demand for prostitutes who cannot or do not want to work in legal brothels.

Depends on how limited the legal supply is. If it is restricted to just a few areas that are difficult to get to, yes. The total demand in either case is probably the same, but it is doubtful that the amount of legal supply would be sufficient because people won't want brothels to be as common as convenience stores.

But every legal brothel would meet a certain amount of the demand.

 

[Eddie Dane]

The (IMO false) assumption is that legalising prostitution and making prostitutes who work in legal brothels have regular health checks reduces the demand for prostitutes who cannot or do not want to work in legal brothels.

But you'll agree with me that a government or city will be far more effective in setting/enforcing rules for a legal setting?

The government enforces safety standards on booze (legal), but not on cocaine (illegal).