I don't think you can compare the two because almost everyone enters the food market whereas prostitution is only for a select few. The higher the risk to the general population, the more scrutiny the market requires.



The difference here is that no one is FORCING people to pay for sex whereas a lot of people NEED drugs/medications. In addition, it's VERY easy for folks to protect themselves from STDs to a high degree.

I have a PhD in Anime Tiddies.

I'm a dOcTOr.

The "Intentional Homicide " per capita in the US is right around 7 per 100,000 (not including abortion). The HIV per capita in Nevada is a bit over 19 in 100,000. HIV has no cure, and cost of treatment to not die ranges from $1500 to $4500 per month.

If anything, the claims by a very special user that prostitution is "safe" in Nevada has directly led people to believe they will not catch these diseases, and prostitution is "safe".

You justify the extreme regulation of medications because people NEED them, and yet extreme regulation combined with government protectionism makes those medications far more expensive and difficult to obtain. People don't NEED to either buy or sell sex at all, yet prostitution leads directly to the NEED for medications.

Kind of fun that you're completely okay with regulating NEEDS such as food and medication, yet believe there should be no regulation at all for sex work that can lead directly to your own death, brain damage, or need for lifelong medication.

How do you know that the HIV rate is from prostitution? Nevada has the 2nd highest LGBT population in the entire country and we know how much HIV spreads amongst the gays. Do you have stats on the other diseases and that they are coming from prostitution as opposed to it spreading among Hispanics and Native Americans?

Just wear a condom and you're almost certain to not get a STD. People should be expected to take reasonable protections and I think wearing a condom falls under that umbrella.

Syphilis is not primarily spread as a result of anal sex, and Nevada ranks top 5 per capita among all states there as well.

If your argument is correlation vs causation, I did not bring up Nevada. A very special user did. I'm simply using it as the base example.

Also, it's hilarious that you're laying the horrifically high rate of HIV in Nevada square at the feet of the rainbow community. Oregon has a very robust and healthy rainbow community, yet nowhere near the HIV rate per capita.

Just double checked the numbers, btw, and the Syphilis cases per capita in Nevada is #1 of all States period. They're ranked 5 in HIV. They're ranked 9th overall in all forms of STDs/STIs, many of which are spread via oral contact, not just vaginal/anal. Weird, huh?

So, while the theory of simply not regulating at all works just fine, I'd say it only works if you treat food, medicine, firearms, hell, pretty much everything else with the same disregard. As far as the "right" to regulate it, "Sex Work" does fall under commerce and can be regulated.

Also, it's interesting that some of the same people who screamed that we needed lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, etc. are now openly calling for the normalization of prostitution.

Oregon is also a very blue state with a lot of resources devoted to sexual health. I don't think the same could be made about Nevada. Also, I'm not telling you that you were WRONG but rather that we need more evidence that the higher STD rate is from prostitution. Your hypothesis is a very reasonable one and I'm coming up with competing hypotheses.

Covid spreads through the air whereas STDs don't. I don't think the two are comparable though I wouldn't be opposed to removing health insurance benefits from people who engage in prostitution, are LGBT, etc. since those are risky behaviors.

You're right that sex work counts as commerce and can be subject to regulation.

blacks, gays, whatever in red states = "just move if you dont like it"

rural white people in blue states = "oppressed second class citizens who must be protected at all costs"

Oregon is not a very blue state. Oregon is a state with a population majority in the metro, the rest of the state is extremely red. Western Washington, and Western Oregon should make a coastal state, and Eastern Washington, and Eastern Oregon should form a Easterly mountain state.

I don't really understand your contention on Nevada vs Oregon. Nevada is a blue State that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, Clinton in 2016, Biden in 2020, and has a Democratic Governor, and is easily the equal of Oregon when it comes to healthcare. Further, having such things as legal prostitution makes Nevada far more liberal leaning than Oregon.

As it stands, when you legalize prostitution without properly regulating it, the emphasis becomes on making it "normal" and "okay" rather than emphasizing and minimizing the risks associated. "Why should the government care if married couples use condoms? They shouldn't! Why then should prostitutes be any different? They shouldn't! Sex is just normal!"

As to the evidence you request, I suffer the same limit you do. I can only report on numbers that're actively tracked. And given clients of brothels are not included in those stats, nor are former employees who left due to testing positive and now prostitute themselves on the street tracked, how can I "prove" this to you?

That's literally every blue state though except for like Vermont. California is blue in the metro areas and the rest of the state is extremely red. The same applies to Illinois, New York, and Minnesota.



The definition of blue/purple/red typically refers to the margin of Presidential victories as opposed to how many times they voted for a candidate. Nevada is almost always close whereas a state like Oregon isn't. Since there are many degenerates who reside in Oregon's cities, they obviously need to promote sexual health.

I'm not opposed to PSA's telling people to use condoms as part of the regulatory measures. You can do that without forcing people to adhere to expensive regulations. If the cost of STD testing is footed by the tax payer, then I think it would be reasonable to require that kind of regulation since the cost per fuck wouldn't be affected that much.

I'm not asking you to prove it, just that you should be open to other possibilities just like how I'm open to your hypothesis being correct.