Home
Infosaturated
rabble-rouser
Member: 13172
Joined: Feb 28 2006
November 3, 2009 - 10:53pm
#1

fortunate wrote:
I do not see what is vague about "sex" + "worker".   And it has been accepted here as a more accurate term, yes? 

No it hasn't been. In fact it was clarified that "sex worker" also applies to exotic dancers and other jobs. That means the term is inaccurate when referring solely to the act of prostitution. As I am not talking about "sex workers" in general the term is inaccurate.

fortunate wrote:
When you prefer to use a term that has been discontinued by others, explained as to how and why it is offensive to others, then yes, it is offensive & used intentionally.

"Others" don't get to discontinue a word that is still in common usage and broadly accepted as accurate. I have explained why the term "sex worker" is offensive to me but that doesn't seem to stop you from using it.

fortunate wrote:
It is, in addition, inaccurate and misleading without including context and explanation everytime you use it to ensure that we all know that you are not talking about any consensual sex worker.

It is more accurate than the term "sex worker" which includes women who are not prostitutes. 

The meaning of the term "prostitute" has not changed. There is no need for me to clarify anything.


  • Email this comment
At the UN, Dutch try to defend abject failure of liberalization of prostitution laws By: Infosaturated (63 replies) October 28, 2009 - 2:54pm
  • fortunate wrote:  But I can By: Infosaturated (Nov 3 2009 - 10:00pm)
  • Infosaturated By: fortunate (Nov 3 2009 - 9:46pm)
  • martin dufresne By: fortunate (Nov 3 2009 - 9:39pm)
  • "(How long can we keep By: remind (Nov 3 2009 - 3:56pm)
  • ...realistically you first By: martin dufresne (Nov 3 2009 - 9:41am)
  • fortunate wrote: The By: Infosaturated (Nov 3 2009 - 2:54am)
  • remind wrote: what sex By: fortunate (Nov 3 2009 - 1:40am)
  • I don't want to create yet By: martin dufresne (Nov 3 2009 - 12:12am)
  • susan davis By: Infosaturated (Nov 1 2009 - 12:35pm)
  • Infosaturated wrote: To get By: susan davis (Nov 1 2009 - 12:09pm)
  • Annie Temple wrote: I do not By: susan davis (Nov 1 2009 - 12:08pm)
  • To get back to the point, By: Infosaturated (Nov 1 2009 - 12:03pm)
  • I do not feel I have to By: Annie Temple (Nov 1 2009 - 11:24am)
  • so true babe!! By: susan davis (Oct 31 2009 - 7:56pm)
  • susan davis wrote: excuse By: fortunate (Oct 31 2009 - 6:02pm)
  • Links? By: remind (Oct 31 2009 - 3:23pm)
  • fortunate, ingrid......? By: susan davis (Oct 31 2009 - 3:11pm)
  • what sex workers who engage By: remind (Oct 31 2009 - 3:05pm)
  • excuse me, other sex workers By: susan davis (Oct 31 2009 - 12:23pm)
  • Trisha Baptie, jmartin, By: remind (Oct 31 2009 - 12:06pm)
  • 3 or 4? once again....i have By: susan davis (Oct 31 2009 - 10:53am)
  • Quote:Silencing people by By: remind (Oct 30 2009 - 6:17pm)
  • Silencing people by deeming By: Annie Temple (Oct 30 2009 - 5:47pm)
  • Annie Temple wrote:I'm By: remind (Oct 30 2009 - 1:11pm)
  • I'm confused.  You need two By: Annie Temple (Oct 30 2009 - 11:39am)
  • remind wrote: Don't see an By: susan davis (Oct 30 2009 - 11:25am)
  • Don't see an impasse at all, By: remind (Oct 30 2009 - 10:58am)
  • Bacchus, please don't tell By: Michelle (Oct 30 2009 - 5:58am)
  • Info, when I read the By: remind (Oct 29 2009 - 11:46pm)
  • Martin-Fuck off Info-If a By: Bacchus (Oct 29 2009 - 10:45pm)
  • Bacchus wrote: Isn't this By: Infosaturated (Oct 28 2009 - 11:26pm)
  • You might want to consult a By: martin dufresne (Oct 28 2009 - 9:54pm)
  • answer resides in this By: remind (Oct 28 2009 - 9:49pm)
  • Isn't this topic already in By: Bacchus (Oct 28 2009 - 9:19pm)
  • The Netherlands talks big on By: Infosaturated (Oct 28 2009 - 2:56pm)