Was reading an article, that i do not agree with at all, and it stated a statistic:
In the United States, the rate of HIV infection among prostitutes varies from state to state. In New Jersey, 57 percent of prostitutes are HIV-positive, and in Atlanta, 12 percent of prostitutes are HIV-positive, Kelly and Farley report. This does not scare me off the hobby, but was wondering if anyone else had heard this or had thoughts?There are different types of escorts. There is the crack hoes who fuck behind a Long John Sliver's dumpster. Those ladies are likely to have HIV. This crowd makes up the majority of CDC's stats. The CDC literally buses crack hoes to be tested. They do this so they can say look providers are nasty and point to some meaningless numbers.
The higher tier provider take care of themselves. They also know how to use a fucking condom. Crack hoes will do BBFS and share needles.
Stick to well-reviewed ladies that charge more then $80 and you will have nothing to worry about.
but liars certainly figure, and this hack job is barely worth commenting on. I guess when the facts don't support your case you have to do what any good ambulance chaser does and "make some shit up" lol
please expound on your position which is interesting. I would like to fully hear your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks.
.
i agree... numbers without perspective are meaningless... while I dont agree with Wheelchairman's conclusion as to the CDC motive(because they want people to believe escorts are nasty) I do agree with GaGambler and Wheelchairman that not considering the full perspective of the numbers and target sample can lead to distorted results
plays a big part in final results....as well as many other things, including reliability and professionalism of the authors of the study. Also, follow the money trail to the source of funding, and whether that source has political agendas....makes scientific studies about as reliable as government polling.
I only read your summary of the study in your post, but like you it doesn't scare me from hobbying. I'm very comfortable with my own safety practices, due diligence and research, and those of the ladies I choose to see.
A quick read of the cited "study" for the article is all anyone should really need to see to draw their own conclusions.
It relies on data from two brief time periods in the early '80's and early 90's, states that it is only looking for negative outcomes and that it's intent is political change (major bias). It looks only at infection data, not transmission data (eg, it highlights high percentages of drug use but does not address HIV transmission as related to drug use or sexual activity, let alone type of sexual activity) and it seems to look only at a small segment of providers - the trafficked, pimped, abused, drugged, homeless "streetwalker". Not just old data, but an old study - written in the 90's and not published until 2000; I'm guessing they had a hard time finding any reputable journals that would publish it! A common measure of the power and acceptance of a study is the extent to which it is cited by others... in this case, not too many seem to take it seriously.
I think it would be nice if a feminist publication like womensenews could take a bit more of a sex-positive position, but I guess that would be counter to the power politics of many feminists. It's a shame (IMHO) that some of the loudest anti-sex-worker voices should come from women who are ostensibly "for" other women