The Economist Article on The World's Oldest Profession

Anybody read the August 9th edition of "The Economist"?

There is a piece entitled "Personal Choice" discussing the futility of governmental attempts to stamp out the world's oldest profession. The author also points out how the internet is making it easier and safer for the sex trade to conduct business.

I wonder how that meeting in the senior editor's office went with the journalist:
"I want an article on hookers. I don't want you quoting a bunch of statistics from the United Nations and the World Health Organization. Go out an do some personal research. Take this voucher over to Accounting and get some cash and get to work!"

More than likely the magazine's IT team saw a fucktard trolling for hookers on the web and brought it to his manager, the editor.

Link?

How lazy are you....post a query on an article, ask for comments and don't post a link...

http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...bang-your-buck

Anybody read the August 9th edition of "The Economist"?

There is a piece entitled "Personal Choice" discussing the futility of governmental attempts to stamp out the world's oldest profession. The author also points out how the internet is making it easier and safer for the sex trade to conduct business.

I wonder how that meeting in the senior editor's office went with the journalist:
"I want an article on hookers. I don't want you quoting a bunch of statistics from the United Nations and the World Health Organization. Go out an do some personal research. Take this voucher over to Accounting and get some cash and get to work!" Originally Posted by LucadeJure

Don't know what I was thinking by not including the link. My apologies.

[QUOTE=LucadeJure;1055658356]Anybody read the August 9th edition of "The Economist"?

There is a piece entitled "Personal Choice" discussing the futility of governmental attempts to stamp out the world's oldest profession.

My comment is about the term "world's oldest profession". If it is truly the world's oldest profession and these ladies got paid (thus making them professional)...how the hell did the guys paying them make a living and thus have disposable income to spend?

Did those guys not have a profession that earned them enough that they could spend it on the ladies?

If so, then they had to be professionals first to earn the money to pay the ladies to make them professional.

Therefore, the ladies would have been the 3rd, 4th oldest profession behind workers getting paid to tend animals, harvest crops, build mud huts, etc.

Trading a chicken for a session is bartering and not getting paid and thus cannot be called a professional. The person raising the chicken is not considered a professional chicken farmer any more than the lady gets to considered a professional. Unless the guy raising chickens gets paid for his work, then he is a professional. And then could spend his $ on the ladies, in turn making them a professional. Either way, the guy had to get paid first. IMHO

So, sorry ladies, but in order for you to have been paid, someone had to make the money first, then you got it.

A very interesting read...wonder if ECCIE and P411 declined the use of their names. Lots of familiar scenarios in the article.

Reading the Comments was a bit funny...some of those know-it-alls wouldn't last 20 minutes here.