Hi All,

Found this on a rather neat site:

suing (http://www.scribd.com/doc/26896/SUING-FOR-TOO-MUCH-SEX)

Only in the USA :rofl:

Regards

Chris

Yup! only in the USA. I thought it couldn't get any sillier.

Why is this silly? Because sex is involved? Yeah, sex is a funny thing, but if the nature of her work required her to go through motions that caused physical damage, she has as much right to sue as any other worker. Whether suing as a whole is the right answer, is open to debate, and I won't discuss the morality or legitimacy of the "sex worker" trade, but I don't see her situation as fundamentally different from any other worker required to make repetitive motions.

Why is this silly? Because sex is involved? Yeah, sex is a funny thing, but if the nature of her work required her to go through motions that cased physical damage, she has as much right to sue as any other worker. Whether suing as a whole is the right answer, is open to debate, and I won't discuss the morality or legitimacy of the "sex worker" trade, but I don't see her situation as fundamentally different from any other worker required to make repetitive motions.


Your having a laugh:D

Chris

It's silly to me because we sue about many frivolous situations and maybe silly was the wrong word.

I do agree that her job may have caused Carpal tunnel, thats not good and maybe she should be compensated if her work was the cause. But she should take some resposibility because carpal tunnel does give signs before it becomes critical.

Up here in PA we have a situation where a couple is suing the city of Philly for improper supervision of their special needs child by child services and their child died. What infurates me is that the couple who's child died is the couple who starved the child to death.

It is actually quite ridiculous what the courts let people get away with concerning suing. If people didn't actually win frivolous lawsuits, they wouldn't be so popular... then again, there are a lot of stupid people in the U.S. (and every other country too), but I think our population density helps further the amount of dumb/silly/inane lawsuits; you know, more people = greater number of perceived loonies.

As to the sex worker... there are a lot of positions she could have utilized, so it's her own fault if she never changed it up any. Ok, okay, in er case she could have used some *other* accessories besides her hands; at least she was getting paid to, well, you know... :p

Your having a laugh:D

Chris

I don't know if Taylor is having a laugh or not, but to me it just looks like a regular worker's comp case. Repetitive stress injuries are supposed to be covered under worker's comp ... regardless of the type of work, but assuming that the trade is legal.

Generally, the employee pays into the worker's comp fund, so it's sad when they have to sue the employer in order to get coverage. The fact that it happened to be a sex trade worker doesn't automatically make it a frivolous lawsuit. If it were, it likely would have been thrown out of court.

I suppose the fact that it was a sex worker does make it funny, in a juvenile sort of way. However, I guess I've outgrown that sort of humor ... I much prefer the completely inane stuff .... on the job injuries just don't get a big laugh with me.

Hi All,

I am amazed at the genuine statements from you outside the UK. We have all seen this as a joke in the UK, but not for the barrack room sex angle. It just seems crazy that someone would genuinely sue a company for such an injury.

Please don't take offence as none is meant, but it does seem incredible.

Best regards

Chris

I'm in the Uk and don't find work-related injuries especially amusing. Sex workers clearly need a trade union.

Hi All,

I am amazed at the genuine statements from you outside the UK. We have all seen this as a joke in the UK, but not for the barrack room sex angle. It just seems crazy that someone would genuinely sue a company for such an injury.

Please don't take offence as none is meant, but it does seem incredible.

Best regards

Chris

Well, in this country (the US) we have a system called "workers compensation". I think it exists in every state in the US, although I could be wrong.

The idea behind worker's comp is that the employer either pays into the fund or portion of your paycheck goes into the worker's compensation fund (I think ... this is NOT my area of law), and then if you have a job related injury, your employer is supposed to provide for your medical care for that injury under worker's comp.

However, if the employer denies that it is a work related injury, and you don't have alternative medical insurance ... you are pretty much dead in the water unless you have the money to pay for medical care privately.

So, this particular woman had an on the job injury, and her employer denied that it was an on the job injury, so she had to take the employer to court in order to get payment for her medical care.

If the employer had simply agreed that it was a work related injury, there would have been no reason for the suit.

The article ... well, really, the title of the thing is just stupid and salacious. However, I suppose that if the title were merely, "Woman Sues Employer for Work Related Injury" ... no one would read it. Granted, it's a weird job, and I would not want to be doing it .... but, an on the job injury is just that, pure and simple.

Hi Ricky,

Many thanks for the explanation, but you must try and take on board that we in the UK and I have now found some Americans see this as a joke through and through. To have someone sue for such an injury beggars belief to us.

But hey that's what makes us different.

I would certainly not call the title 'stupid', 'salacious' maybe, but as you can see I stole the title from the article.

So just chill out and take it for what it is, a bit of a laugh and no more.

Best regards

Chris

...we in the UK ... see this as a joke through and through. To have someone sue for such an injury beggars belief to us.

:shrug: Not me.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone should be equally entitled to legal protection.
Maybe the people who find this story amusing are laughing at the legal system rather than the claimant (but then why choose a sex worker case to demonstrate the point :rolleyes:).

I'm in the Uk and don't find work-related injuries especially amusing. Sex workers clearly need a trade union.

In England, they have one - the English Collective of Prostitutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Collective_of_Prostitutes).

Hi Sparrow,

Guess that makes you more American than Brit then:D

Honestly do you not find this amusing?

It is a very sad state of affairs when we find ourselves wanting to sue for all and anything. Some years ago I went to a restaurant for a curry in Bangor. I was staying with my Brother overnight at his University. By the morning it was obvious that I had food poisoning.

His friends where very keen that I should take legal action. However, by lunchtime the owner of the restaurant was aware of the food poisoning and took the decision to not have the curry night which was using his left over meat.

To me that was all that was required. So I lost a day of business. What was the point of going to the lengths of a legal action to achieve what he had agreed to do?

Best regards

Chris

Hi Sparrow,
Guess that makes you more American than Brit then:D
Honestly do you not find this amusing?

Not especially.
But that's not to say I object if you do :).
I wouldn't have commented; only your post was apparently speaking on behalf of everyone in the UK, so I thought I'd point out that wasn't actually the case.

Hi Sparrow,

Point taken.

Regards

Chris

Hi Sparrow,

Guess that makes you more American than Brit then:D

Honestly do you not find this amusing?

It is a very sad state of affairs when we find ourselves wanting to sue for all and anything.

But the point is, it isn't a frivolous suit. The woman has an injury, causing pain and the inability to work at her chosen profession. Perhaps she could have varied her routine enough so that the injury wouldn't have occurred. I just don't know the details. Her contention is that the employer required her to work in such a manner as to cause the injury. That isn't frivolous. It isn't suing "for all and anything". It's suing for damages caused by her work environment, and more particularly, as Ricky has pointed out, suing to get compensation that the employer is required, by law, to provide.

But the point is, it isn't a frivolous suit. The woman has an injury, causing pain and the inability to work at her chosen profession. Perhaps she could have varied her routine enough so that the injury wouldn't have occurred. I just don't know the details. Her contention is that the employer required her to work in such a manner as to cause the injury. That isn't frivolous. It isn't suing "for all and anything". It's suing for damages caused by her work environment, and more particularly, as Ricky has pointed out, suing to get compensation that the employer is required, by law, to provide.

:D:):rofl:

Hi Ricky,

Many thanks for the explanation, but you must try and take on board that we in the UK and I have now found some Americans see this as a joke through and through. To have someone sue for such an injury beggars belief to us.

But hey that's what makes us different.

I would certainly not call the title 'stupid', 'salacious' maybe, but as you can see I stole the title from the article.

So just chill out and take it for what it is, a bit of a laugh and no more.

Best regards

Chris

Chris, I was talking about the title of the article. That title I consider to be both stupid and salacious. The fact that you chose to take the title of your post from the article is not important.

So, to have someone sue for $30,000 of medical damages that should have come from a fund that they paid into as an employee to cover on the job injuries is something that beggars belief to you?? Well, maybe that's because you live in a country with socialized medicine. We don't have that in the US. I wish we did, but we don't.

I find nothing about $30,000 in medical bills caused by a work injury to be funny or a joke. Sorry, I just don't. If a logger had an on the job injury and cut off his hand, and had to sue the logging company for medical coverage ... I suppose you all would think that's a joke too??

What level of medical damages do there have to be before it isn't a joke anymore?? Is there a particular amount of pain that is a joke ... and one that isn't?? I've had carpal tunnel ... and I didn't find the pain to be very funny myself, but hey .... you find other people's physical pain to be funny, and I don't. We are indeed very different.

I found the title startling- and expected the thread to be about someone suing a spouse or former spouse for insisting on sex too often.

Otherwise it sounds like a perfectly standard workers compensation case. The only thing I found a little surprising was the fact she was actually masturbating as I thought most such sex workers did not actually masturbate but rather imitated the sounds of masturbation.

Otherwise it's work says do 'x' -- employee is injured doing 'x' -- pretty straightforward.

I found the title startling- and expected the thread to be about someone suing a spouse or former spouse for insisting on sex too often.

Otherwise it sounds like a perfectly standard workers compensation case. The only thing I found a little surprising was the fact she was actually masturbating as I thought most such sex workers did not actually masturbate but rather imitated the sounds of masturbation.

Otherwise it's work says do 'x' -- employee is injured doing 'x' -- pretty straightforward.

I thought pretty much the same thing. It should have been a regular worker's comp case ... but apparently she had to sue the employer to get coverage. Which is just wrong.

For those who think of it as a joke ... I'd be really interested to find out why it's supposed to be a joke. The only thing that take it out of the ordinary is the fact that the woman was a sex worker.

So, if I understand the joke correctly, anytime a sex worker is injured, that is supposed to be funny. Is a serial killer who targets sex workers also funny? I mean, if an injured sex worker is funny, I would think a dead sex worker would be downright hilarious.

Jack the Ripper must have been one of the UK's greatest comics. Who knew?

:D:):rofl:

You do realize that replies such as yours are just a bit insulting? And as such, create a result where nothing else you post will be dignified with a thoughtful response?

You do realize that replies such as yours are just a bit insulting? And as such, create a result where nothing else you post will be dignified with a thoughtful response?

Nope, Taylor .... I don't think C6REW understands that at all.

Not even the tiniest bit. Sad really.

Blxxdy hell guys,

Aren't we getting just a teeny weenie bit offensive now!

For goodness sake back off. I have already made it clear that we obviously differ.

Of course pain and suffering are not a joke. But you still don't get the fact that here in the UK for most of us, this is funny. The fact that the original article was written by an American means some of you also find the same.

Lighten up a bit and do some serious chilling. For goodness sake don't start trying to make accusations about my character that you have absolutely no idea about. That is rather foolish for a forum that in general is for people who perhaps have a little more understanding and intelligence.

Go have a beer and if you are ever near Devizes, Wiltshire which is just down the road from Stonehenge, let me know and we can have a beer together.

Hopefully this will be the end of the matter, which makes me realise I best not put any jokes on mobile read in the future as I obviously do not understand the cultural differences between us. But hey that's life.

Best regards

Chris

I am afraid that nothing is funny in the USA right now. Mega Corporations that made a mantra out of "Keep the Government Off Our Backs" have just requested and received a Trillion dollar welfare payout from the taxpayers.

We all feel a bit like disgruntled sex workers at the moment.

Hi Donnageddon,

Many thanks for the explanation.

Regards

Chris

No problem C6Rew, I am always available for a quick and unreliable explanation. :)

I find nothing about $30,000 in medical bills caused by a work injury to be funny or a joke. Sorry, I just don't. If a logger had an on the job injury and cut off his hand, and had to sue the logging company for medical coverage ... I suppose you all would think that's a joke too??

As a general instance of a (so-called) daft lawsuit, this story might be considered funny (especially in the UK where we're still quite prudish about sex and sex workers).
If you think of the article as a specific instance of someone who is actually suffering, then it's not funny.

But then, is seeing someone with their arm trapped in a printing press entertaining? I watched it all the way through with a sort of gruesome fascination. Public executions attract enthusiastic crowds around the world. Sarah Palin enjoys shooting moose. Killing fish is a very popular hobby. Maybe, as a species, we just aren't as enlightened as we like to pretend we are (I know I'm not, but don't tell anyone :p).

"is seeing someone with their arm trapped in a printing press entertaining?"

Is it accompanied by a laugh track?

An old lady slipping on a banana peel is found by many people to be a laugh riot if accompanied by a professional laugh track.

Hi Sparrow,

Thanks for your input. You reminded me of when I taught electronics in another part of the world (not allowed to mention where!) and was walking in the town. Someone grabbed me and pulled me into a square where it turned out two men had raped a boy.

The parents have the right to how an execution would take place and in this instance it was a stoning. However, having thrown a couple of stones a large lorry then tipped the rest on them!

An awful site but then again they knew the punishment for such a crime.

Regards

Chris

My my, this thread has gone for a very morose turn.

"is seeing someone with their arm trapped in a printing press entertaining?"

Is it accompanied by a laugh track?

There was a 'grateful for his freedom from the press' joke at the end - just to lighten the mood.

Yes, Sparrow, I see the article as someone making fun of a person who was actually suffering.

I know there are a lot of people who find people being injured absolutely riotous. America's Funniest Home Videos seem to be mostly about people being injured in one way or another. I don't watch the show, because I don't find it funny in the least.

I also don't care if the entire population of the UK thinks that suing for medical damages is "daft." Of course, understanding that this is a cultural phenomenon in the UK, I will try my best to see the joke and laugh appropriately the next time I am in the UK and see someone injured or killed. It won't be easy for me, but when in Rome ... or London.

I guess it's just that I'm one of those types that doesn't care to attend public executions, or to hunt, or to try to get a good view when there's been an auto accident with fatalities. In the last example, I am much more likely to get out of my car and offer assistance ... but that's my training ... it's sort of automatic.

The fact that the article was written by an American just reminds me that there are a lot of callous and uncaring people in my own country. I am not proud of the fact that they exist ... but there you have it, they do and they do have the right to freedom of speech.

I also don't care if the entire population of the UK thinks that suing for medical damages is "daft." Of course, understanding that this is a cultural phenomenon in the UK,...

Rest assured, it isn't.
Actually, nobody has said (or even implied) that it is :rolleyes:.

Blxxdy hell guys,

Aren't we getting just a teeny weenie bit offensive now!

For goodness sake back off. I have already made it clear that we obviously differ.

Of course pain and suffering are not a joke. But you still don't get the fact that here in the UK for most of us, this is funny. The fact that the original article was written by an American means some of you also find the same.

Lighten up a bit and do some serious chilling. For goodness sake don't start trying to make accusations about my character that you have absolutely no idea about. That is rather foolish for a forum that in general is for people who perhaps have a little more understanding and intelligence.

Go have a beer and if you are ever near Devizes, Wiltshire which is just down the road from Stonehenge, let me know and we can have a beer together.

Hopefully this will be the end of the matter, which makes me realise I best not put any jokes on mobile read in the future as I obviously do not understand the cultural differences between us. But hey that's life.

Best regards

Chris

As a general instance of a (so-called) daft lawsuit, this story might be considered funny (especially in the UK where we're still quite prudish about sex and sex workers).
If you think of the article as a specific instance of someone who is actually suffering, then it's not funny.

But then, is seeing someone with their arm trapped in a printing press entertaining? I watched it all the way through with a sort of gruesome fascination. Public executions attract enthusiastic crowds around the world. Sarah Palin enjoys shooting moose. Killing fish is a very popular hobby. Maybe, as a species, we just aren't as enlightened as we like to pretend we are (I know I'm not, but don't tell anyone :p).

No one said it or even implied it?? Really??

The last time I remember someone telling me to "chill out" about something like this was in the 90s when I went to a party. A couple of men there thought it would be ever so funny to hold a kitten down on a lit barbeque. When I made a big deal about it and took the kitten away from them, I heard something to the effect of "oh, chill out, boys will be boys" or some such garbage. I took the kitten to the vet, and paid about $5,000 in medical costs for it. I never spoke to any of those people again, and don't plan to.

Now, C6REW thinks the story about the woman is funny. You apparently think the lawsuit was daft (unless I am missing what you were saying). I would just really love for one of you to tell me what part of it is funny??

I'm glad that laughing at someone else's pain is not a cultural phenomenon ... even though C6REW would have me believe that it is true of "most" of the people in the UK. It's probably true of a lot of the people here in the US as well, it was certainly true of those stupid jerks at that party.

And, no, C6REW, I don't think I would like spending time socially with people like that. So, you go ahead and drink any number of beers in Wiltshire with like minded people.

No one said it or even implied it?? Really??


Nope.

"As a general instance of a (so-called) daft lawsuit, this story might be considered funny (especially in the UK where we're still quite prudish about sex and sex workers)."

Does not imply:

"the entire population of the UK thinks that suing for medical damages is "daft." "

Nope.

"As a general instance of a (so-called) daft lawsuit, this story might be considered funny (especially in the UK where we're still quite prudish about sex and sex workers)."

Does not imply:

"the entire population of the UK thinks that suing for medical damages is "daft." "

OK .... that answers that question. So, ..... why?? Assume for a minute that you are not living in a country with a good socialized medical system. You pay into an insurance fund to cover your injuries, and then when you have an injury, they won't cover it.

You have three choices. One is to do nothing about the injury. The other is to pay the doctors what amounts to a year worth of your earnings. The last is to file suit.

So .... what exactly is daft about the lawsuit?? To me, the only thing that is daft is that the US doesn't have some kind of universal health care system.

I suppose I also think that it's pretty damn daft that the poor woman had to file suit, since her idiot employer should have covered the damages.

So ... could you please clarify? Is it simply because the woman was a sex worker?? Is that really the entire point of the "joke" ... that this woman had a degrading job??

I also don't care if the entire population of the UK thinks that suing for medical damages is "daft." Of course, understanding that this is a cultural phenomenon in the UK, I will try my best to see the joke and laugh appropriately the next time I am in the UK and see someone injured or killed. It won't be easy for me, but when in Rome ... or London.


Believe me, Ricky, they don't believe this. It is just not true. Perhaps a small number of men in Devizes think that industrial injuries are amusing. Even that is probably over-generalising.
It is NOT a cultural phenomenon in the UK. And it is noticeable that there has not been a rush of UK members agreeing with the original poster. That tells us something.
Personally, I entirely agree with you.

So .... what exactly is daft about the lawsuit??


I don't think it is daft. I wrote 'so called' to try to indicate that law suits reported as silly in the press often have valid foundations.

I was originally going to mention a BBC radio programme called 'Law in Action'; they often discuss topical legal issues and explain why 'daft' lawsuits are actually often perfectly reasonable.
I didn't include the comment, because I thought dragging in a BBC radio prog would be too parochial - but it may have made it clearer that I believe 'daft' lawsuits are often perceived as such due to misreporting, and aren't daft at all.

Believe me, Ricky, they don't believe this. It is just not true. Perhaps a small number of men in Devizes think that industrial injuries are amusing. Even that is probably over-generalising.
It is NOT a cultural phenomenon in the UK. And it is noticeable that there has not been a rush of UK members agreeing with the original poster. That tells us something.
Personally, I entirely agree with you.

Well, that's nice to know ... that's really nice to know. There are some things that, to me ... and it's good to know that I'm not the only one out there, are simply not funny.

I suppose it would be funny if the woman was not actually injured. And, I must admit I find those suits where burglar is robbing house, trips over something in the dark, and then tries to sue the homeowner for the "dangerous condition" they encountered while trying to commit the crime rather funny. Even given that they may have actually been injured, in those cases the irony is simply too much to bear.

But, woman in degrading job being shafted by her employer after a work related injury. Nothing ironic about that. Nothing frivolous about it either.

Honestly, the lack of universal health coverage in this country is deplorable. I can't afford insurance .... the last quote I got for medical coverage was for $5,000 in premiums ... every month. Wheeee.

But, if I was paying the premiums, had an injury and the company refused to cover me?? Trust me, I'd be dragging their asses to court faster than you could blink.

And it is noticeable that there has not been a rush of UK members agreeing with the original poster. That tells us something.
Personally, I entirely agree with you.

I think that's a bit hard on the OP.

This story seems to be in the same category of weirdness as the Bobbit story from a few years back (although there the injured party was male).
That gave rise to quite a lot of widespread amusement at the time (although I didn't think it funny personally), I remember women's programmes on TV making jokes about it.
Lots of people find these type of stories amusing or intriguing.

Hi Ricky,

Not sure that you have entered into the spirit of my post. I have tried my best to explain that it would in general be accepted as amusement. Please don't go on about injury etc. I fully understand that. Just learn to back off once someone has explained that they did not originally understand our cultural differences.

I am somewhat bemused by your continuing slur on my character which is founded on ONE thread. I would have thought that this is the mind of a very immature person, but I cannot possibly make that as a factual statement as I don't know you and feel obliged to suggest that we should end this nonsense right now.

Unless of course you are keen to keep this sort of discussion going. Perhaps that is what this about?

I must say it does remind me a little of school debates where the whole point was to keep the conversation heated and going for as long as possible!

So how about we call a truce and just let this one die a death. I have learnt not to post a joke on this forum again. And hopefully you have learnt that we are different. However, whatever you decide to do, please don't attempt to slur my character again. It is unfitting for this type of forum.

Hi Patricia,

Where in South Wales? Lived there for 13 years and learnt the lingo! You will find that some people have decided it is not worth getting into a debate like this. For what it is worth I have received a number of calls from people who know me and are shocked at the statements that have been made.

You may also be suprised to hear that on the other forums where I have posted this story, which are UK based, a good number of people have found the story amusing. Of course, they have not had the benefit of hearing how difficult these type of claims are in the US. We who have followed this thread can now see that the amusement is short lived and very regional. If I had realised this at the time I would most certainly not have put the article on this forum.

I have a reputation of being a kind and generous person who means no one any harm. To have this sort of thread go very sour is not good. As important, is for people not to judge others by something as trivial as the inclusion of an article in a forum. However bad the original story now appears to the average person from the US.

This reminds me of 'The Plague Dogs' by Richard Adams. The dogs escape from the hospital where they are being experimented on. The warden who was on duty on that night is in front of his boss. He thinks to himself, 'oh I wish life was like a game of chess and I could knock the King over and start again'!

But hey, I am a wiser person for the inclusion of this thread, so something has been gained.

Best regards

Chris

hi chris,
that is a very wise and mature reaction. i think you'll find that overall we do like a good joke around here ; but in this case you have hit on a rather touchy and complex subject. i'm glad you'd prefer to take this thread as a lesson and move on rather than keep a heated discussion going ; it's really appreciable to see everyone making an effort to maintain the pleasant ambiance on mobileread.

please do take a look around some of the other posts ; the lounge is full of silly threads for relaxing a bit (and you can get an idea of the tone of humour which is more appreciated here by reading a few of them) and there are also some really knowledgeable and helpful people on this forum for all your technical questions.

i hope your next joke will be more widely appreciated. ;)

No problem. I hope the next joke you post (or article you link to) is actually something that is generally funny. This one just wasn't, and it's nice to know that you are able to see it from a different perspective.

I will happily withdraw any statements that you felt were a slur on your character ... although, I still feel quite free to pound the author of that article into the ground until all you can see is the top of his head. :D

Hi Zelda and Ricky,

Good to be back on an even keel.

Now Ricky about that drink!

Regards

Chris

But, woman in degrading job being shafted by her employer after a work related injury. Nothing ironic about that. Nothing frivolous about it either.


Hi Ricky,

I have a couple of friends who work in the sex industry and, believe me, they think that they have the best job in the world. They are both independent women who work in the industry through their own choice and thoroughly enjoy it. Both are well-educated, and came to work in the industry after having professional careers. They'd certainly disagree with your view of the work as being "degrading", although I'd be the first to agree that there is a side to the industry which is appalling - street girls who are abused by pimps and more often than not dependent on drugs. That side of the industry needs to be stamped out, and the sooner it happens the better.

Many towns and cities in the UK take a very enlightened attitude to the industry these days, and operate all sorts of support services to ensure that abuse does not happen. I think there is a widespread realisation that it's going to happen no matter what, so it's a lot better to operate openly and properly run, rather than for it all to be driven underground and "criminalised" (it's not illegal in the UK - I understand that in some parts of the US it is). In the case of my friends, for example, they tell me that a nurse visits them once a month to carry out health checks.

One potential problem with sueing for industrial injuries is that it's normal in the sex industry for people to be independent contractors rather than employees. Both my friends have the legal status of "limited companies", for example.

It occurs to me to add, by the way, that I don't know either of these ladies in their "professional" capacies. One is a neighbour; the other a friend of my sister. Both are totally open and unashamed of what they do for a living.

Hi Ricky,

I have a couple of friends who work in the sex industry and, believe me, they think that they have the best job in the world. They are both independent women who work in the industry through their own choice and thoroughly enjoy it. Both are well-educated, and came to work in the industry after having professional careers. They'd certainly disagree with your view of the work as being "degrading", although I'd be the first to agree that there is a side to the industry which is appalling - street girls who are abused by pimps and more often than not dependent on drugs. That side of the industry needs to be stamped out, and the sooner it happens the better.

Many towns and cities in the UK take a very enlightened attitude to the industry these days, and operate all sorts of support services to ensure that abuse does not happen. I think there is a widespread realisation that it's going to happen no matter what, so it's a lot better to operate openly and properly run, rather than for it all to be driven underground and "criminalised" (it's not illegal in the UK - I understand that in some parts of the US it is). In the case of my friends, for example, they tell me that a nurse visits them once a month to carry out health checks.

One potential problem with sueing for industrial injuries is that it's normal in the sex industry for people to be independent contractors rather than employees. Both my friends have the legal status of "limited companies", for example.

Oh, I hear you Harry. Most of the girls I lived around in LA were your basic street hookers, and it was a degrading job to say the least. I was the neighbor that got called in the middle of the night to bail them out if their pimp wouldn't (or if they didn't have one).

I don't have any experience at all with the higher paid escorts and call girls. Most of my neighbors back in those days were making around $15 a trick, and then AIDS sort of started decimating them.

I am quite sure there are a few women (and men) in the industry who are really happy with their jobs. But I do think that the vast majority (at least in this country) are uneducated, often drug addicted, and not living in the best of circumstances.

Based on the facts of that case, my assumption would be that as a phone sex worker, the lady probably wasn't making much over minimum wage, but at least what she was doing was legal.

My thinking is that if a person is forced into an occupation because of lack of education or other circumstances, and it's low paying ... barely meet the cost of living sort of low paying ... well, I consider that degrading. If they are well educated and make a conscious choice, are making a good living and not breaking any laws in the process, then I don't consider the fact that they are a "sex worker" to be the least bit degrading.

Of course, there are a whole mass of people living around me who would disagree with me on that point ... they consider any and all sex outside of marriage to be degrading. It's something we just all don't talk about socially, because we will get into an argument, and most of the folks down here are still in shock from finding out I'm not a Christian.

My thinking is that if a person is forced into an occupation because of lack of education or other circumstances, and it's low paying ... barely meet the cost of living sort of low paying ... well, I consider that degrading. If they are well educated and make a conscious choice, are making a good living and not breaking any laws in the process, then I don't consider the fact that they are a "sex worker" to be the least bit degrading.


We are in complete agreement there!

My thinking is that if a person is forced into an occupation because of lack of education or other circumstances, and it's low paying ... barely meet the cost of living sort of low paying ... well, I consider that degrading.

Wouldn't that qualify any fast food cashier or busboy as being in a degrading job?

"Degrading" is in the eye of the beholder. I don't necessarily consider any job in the sex industry as being "degrading"... it depends on the person and what they are doing (or asked/forced to do). And even with lack of education and other circumstances in play, the work you may be "forced" into may not be considered "degrading." (Ask any Hollywood "trophy wife." :D)

On a side note: Can I sue to get too much sex?

I'm actually amazed that the woman was actually, well, doing something. My understanding was that the phone sex workers were all faking it.

I'm also genuinely surprised that a phone sex worker wasn't faking each and every orgasm...? (Or at least most.. :chinscratch:). That might be why the company is arguing that it's not, strictly speaking, in the line of business...?

Wouldn't that qualify any fast food cashier or busboy as being in a degrading job?

"Degrading" is in the eye of the beholder. I don't necessarily consider any job in the sex industry as being "degrading"... it depends on the person and what they are doing (or asked/forced to do). And even with lack of education and other circumstances in play, the work you may be "forced" into may not be considered "degrading." (Ask any Hollywood "trophy wife." :D)

On a side note: Can I sue to get too much sex?

Sometimes, yes.

If a Hollywood trophy wife is there by force and not by choice, then she's essentially living in slavery. Yes, I would consider that degrading.

Doesn't matter how well your master treats you ... if you are there by force, you are degraded.

I'm actually amazed that the woman was actually, well, doing something. My understanding was that the phone sex workers were all faking it.

I would have thought so too ... but apparently not. Who knew?? :blink:

If a Hollywood trophy wife is there by force and not by choice, then she's essentially living in slavery. Yes, I would consider that degrading.

Doesn't matter how well your master treats you ... if you are there by force, you are degraded.

True. On the other hand, I'd bet there are more than a few of those trophy wives who look around at the money, the attention, the mansions, the clothes, the cars, the plastic surgery and personal trainers, the spas, the backyard pools (and pool-boys)... and figure they can handle a bit of degradation for that.

On a more down-to-earth note, a person can have a degrading job (such as a maid--not that all maid's jobs are degrading, but just as an example), but if it provides enough money to benefit their family (say, bringing them to a better country, or making life better where they are), it may be considered by that person to be worth the degradation to benefit others.

Again, it's up to the individual to decide whether or not they are being degraded, and whether or not the degradation is worth what they get out of it. It's not always obvious enough for outsiders to judge.

I'm actually amazed that the woman was actually, well, doing something. My understanding was that the phone sex workers were all faking it.

You've never heard of "method acting"?