//As for the sex for a 16 year old, that's a bad idea. Most kids probably will be excited for the idea. Instead of having the issue of kids thinking they have a responsibility if they get a girl pregnant//

Jesus, what sort of sex workers are you shagging that let you go bareback? Do they charge extra?

//That and a epidemic of STDs at a young age for men.//

No, actually, ladies of negotiable virtue have a very responsible approach to safe sex because they have to. You're probably less likely to catch something from a seamstress than you are from the general public.

//Bringing a prostitute into the situation will only spread sexual diseases.//

Nope:

http://www.sti.guidelines.org.au/populations-and-situations/sex-workers
http://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/monthly-sex-worker-tests-are-ridiculous-health-experts-say-20110530-1fctn.html
http://sti.bmj.com/content/81/5/434

But why let the evidence stand in the way of a bit of good old fashioned stigma?

//It would be worse then kids just shaking up together on their own because at least when kids do it they are relatively clean and not exposed to STDs.//

Oy vey.

This sort of thinking is exactly what leads to the spread of STIs. Remember, NNS... she may look clean, but looks can be deceiving.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/10/article-2339094-1A3EC689000005DC-391_306x474.jpg

Unless you've personally seen the results of an STI check, if it's not on it's not on.

Toni Lavis.

Think it through to the end. A 16 year old experiences sex for the first time (or not for the first time). Sex being something that feels great, would encourage the 16 year old to continue to have sex. The kid just learned from his dad that sex and love aren't the same thing. Move that to real life and the kid won't just have sex with sex workers and prostitutes, but will shack up on a much more regular basis as a general rule. This will spread disease. For the kid that just learned that sex has no meaning to a relationship they can just skip out when they get someone pregnant (who will likely not be a sex worker).

As for the logistics of safe sax among sex workers. If safe sex was 100% safe from contracting an STD, then disease would not be an issue. Since this isn't the case, then a higher rate of sex for the sex workers (all 16 year olds brought in by their dads, (and probably the dad too to have some fun) ) would translate to a higher rate of disease spread even with protection measures for the sex worker). On a side note, what do you think happens to the sex workers who get a disease? Their line of work is in jeopardy at that point. They would either find other work keeping the pool of sex workers disease free. Or they would find a way to lie about it or forge a test result to being clean. Thus making the whole process of testing become a fake means to assure the public and their coworkers that it's all good down there.

Think it through next time man. In the real world, more sex at an earlier age means more disease and more pregnancies. Moving on though there are other reasons to not do this besides the disease ratio. However regardless of respect for women, or differences of morals, the disease reason should stop everyone in their tracks when it comes to rationalizing their bad ideals.

Keep it in your pants. Unless your in a commited relationship, keep it in your pants.

Respect women and teach your kids to respect women. Taking your kid to a sex worker at 16 undermines their respect for the opposite sex, and instead feeds their desire for sex instead of their respect for another.

Sex is often emotional. You can try to teach that it isn't but it is. People are going to learn that sex and love are connected because that's how they feel. They'll also find out that sex isn't love because of breakups and the emotions of betrayal and anger. "Didn't it mean anything?" And even with these lessons learned once or twice, the lessons are learned over and over again. "This time's different." Or they will lose any respect for the other sex and not care for them. Sex is just a feel good drug.

So if started from the beginning to not have sex till there's commitment in the relationship, you can avoid the emotional roller coaster of finding out the hard way about sex and relationships. You can also avoid seeing sex as a prize, or a bought service, and lowering your respect for women as a whole.

//As for the logistics of safe sax among sex workers. If safe sex was 100% safe from contracting an STD, then disease would not be an issue. Since this isn't the case, then a higher rate of sex for the sex workers (all 16 year olds brought in by their dads, (and probably the dad too to have some fun) ) would translate to a higher rate of disease spread even with protection measures for the sex worker).//

Then how do you explain all these quotes away?

"Currently, there is no evidence that sex workers in Australia have higher rates of STIs than the general population."

"Health and human rights experts said it was ridiculous to force sex workers to have monthly tests when they were at extremely low risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections."

"Professor of Sexual Health at Melbourne University, Christopher Fairley, said research showed monthly testing was unnecessary and a waste of public health resources because sex workers have much lower rates of STIs than other people."

""You are at lower risk of catching an STI if you have sex with a sex worker than if you have sex with a member of the public," Professor Fairley said.

Professor Fairley said the monthly testing of legal sex workers also meant doctors were turning away thousands of patients seeking STI tests each year because they were tied up with low risk sex workers.

He said about 1200 people could not be tested at the centre in the first quarter of this year because it was tied up with monthly sex worker tests.

If the government approved three-monthly tests, he said the centre could see another 3000 patients a year who are likely to be at much higher risk of STIs."

"The incidence of STIs was low among decriminalised and regulated sex work and most infections were related to partners outside of work."

"Sex workers in legalised brothels generally have a low prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STI) and high levels of condom use."

Evidence trumps conjecture, dude.

//As for the logistics of safe sax//

Sorry, missed your little typo before.

There are two simple steps to practising safe sax:

* Don't share reeds, it's unyhgienic.
* Don't be Kenny G.

Yep, I think that pretty much covers it.

.......

Just to be clear Toni, you're ok to legally bring 16 year olds into the sex market? Or are you just defending sex workers and not actually commenting on the context of the issues.

Honestly as for sex workers I doubt the reports and would like to see the numbers myself. The only numbers I can find from your references are that 3% of sex workers have STIs, and a much higher rate of infection for gay sex among men.

However for a comparison there's no data for infections among the general public except being told that it's "much higher among the public. (Which is a fair point. Sex workers would lose their jobs if they get infected so the number stays low, possibly out of no other reason then they can't find work, making them part of the general public stat once discovered and fired). With the data in mind, is the general public at a rate of 4% STIs or 45%? What counts as a "much higher rate?"

That said 3% of sex workers having an STI is too high a rate to suggest a mandatory sex experience for your kids at 16. Three out of 100 kids getting a new STI, is two high a number to consider as a parent. To think that number wouldn't go up with a higher rate of costumers is unrealistic. At that rate and with the kids basically given the OK to have sex (because their parent took them to a sex worker), you can expect the rate of infection among the general public to increase dramatically.

Or is that also outside of what your willing to discuss Toni? That kids having sex at a younger age is going to increase the rate of STIs as a whole?