>Finally, your test case misses the point that matt already made: stigma.
>it's relative of course, but I think of a student i used to have who's
>family made her feel terrible because what she wanted to do was get jobs at
>mcdonald's and spend her time travling all over the world. There are other
>factors here than economic coercion. it's called social stigma. The rich
>don't choose to be sex workers the same way they don't choose to be
>mcdonald's workers or, as with another student, a zoo keeper, because
>they're families expect them to be doctors and wall st. brokers.
Very perceptive of you to have picked up on that, you're right and I can't deny it. Though I would have named the culprit "status", rather than "stigma". The problem is that prostitution is a low status occupation, rather than a high stigma occupation. I guess both are true though. One goes hand in glove with the other.
Of course, that raises another interesting aspect. Usually low status and high stigma occupations are associated with poor remuneration. Yet you argue that prostitution is able to attract those with professional qualification, which suggests it must be able to compete with these occupations in the remuneration stakes. It doesn't make sense that, in a capitalist society, an occupation attracting high remuneration could long remain a low status one.
I can't help wondering if someone is bullshitting about something. Either the remuneration isn't all its cracked up to be, or the stigma is somewhat overblown? If someone can make a damn good living at it, then status, in our society, will follow as night follows day.
What do you say to that?
>I think it telling, of course, that you bothered to respond to me. Tahir
>and Matt bore you? I undertand bill: you bore me -- and not in a good way.
I appreciate your understanding and don't feel bad about being bored. I'm not a very interesting fellow, to be honest.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas