Not sure if you're intentionally stopping before the obvious elephant in the room.
The army has always been glorified as a country without soldiers is free pickings. It's practically a necessity, as current day tensions show.
Sex work isn't a necessity. Worse, regarding prostitution and porn, most of it's clientele remains secretive to avoid shame. Even if sex was considered a necessity, the stigma alone would prevent individuals from persuing services.
The fact you specifically discriminate between men and women gives it away (women can be soldiers, men can be sexworkers). We consider both the purity of women and the willingness for men to sacrifice themselves and be assertive as virtues. Now turn it around and you have your answer as to the status quo for almost our entire existence across the entire globe.
> The army has always been glorified as a country without soldiers is free pickings
That is your own conlcusion. Historically armies were "staffed" by nobles. You couldn't be a soldier if you didn't have land or title, so it started out as something of prestigious and exclusive (as an alternative explanation why it was/is glorified).
My point isn't that we should see sex work as important as being a soldier (though this is still somewhat subjective). My point is that people do things _as jobs_ that can have psycological impacts. Soldiers are not treated in some different class to other jobs. They are treated essentially the same: people have contracts, insurance, pensions, etc.
why is sex work different?
> The fact you specifically discriminate between men and women gives it away
Thank you for pointing this out.
> We consider both the purity of women and the willingness for men to sacrifice themselves and be assertive as virtues.
Who is we?
> Now turn it around and you have your answer as to the status quo for almost our entire existence across the entire globe.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
>That is your own conlcusion. Historically armies were "staffed" by nobles
If you as a man weren't willing to fight, be it the army or your home, good luck attracting a mate for most of history. Similar dynamics exist today.
>why is sex work different?
Already answered. History and cultural virtues.
>Who is we?
The far majority of your male and female ancestors, for one. The majority of cultures globally, for two.
>I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
The opposite of purity is lust and promiscuity. The opposite of being assertive is passivity and avoiding conflict. The opposite of wanting to fight is running away or freezing up.
The vast majority of women aren't attracted to weak men who won't stand and fight for their hypothetical children.
The vast majority of men aren't attracted to promiscuous women looking for the next meal ticket.
No amount of reasoning changes dynamics that have existed for millions of years. Culture too originates from something.
Now look back at what soldiers do and what sex workers and their clientele resemble. It has nothing to do with emotional burdens.
> If you as a man weren't willing to fight, be it the army or your home, good luck attracting a mate for most of history
Most men, for significant parts of history, weew explicitly excluded from joining the army (e.g. Roman armies were only "staffed" by citizens). Where are you getting the idea that most men had to fight at home? Do you have any relevant sources for this?
> The vast majority of men aren't attracted to promiscuous women looking for the next meal ticket.
Ew. I generally prefer not to pass judgement, but this is an unpleasant turn of phrase in the exposition of your idea.
> No amount of reasoning changes dynamics that have existed for millions of years
Anatomically modern humans have only been around for ~300k years, civilisation ~5k. What millions of years of dynamics are you talking about exactly?
Examples of reasoning changing dynamics that have "existed for millions of years:"
- Money
- Democracy
- Contracts
- etc.
> what sex workers and their clientele resemble
What do they resemble to you? Is this a modern conception or one that has existed for millions of years?
Er, no. It was a path to citizenship. The Tartship Strippers quote "service guarantees citizenship" had real antecedents, and is even now a benefit of military service in the US.
It's not hard to argue that sex is a necessity. There are physical mechanisms that create a desire for sex in most humans. I'm sure just about any therapist would attest to the impact of sex on mental health (both positive and negative impacts).
Being gay used to be taboo and shameful too, it still is in many places... but this is changing. Sex work is already a little less taboo in places where it's regulated. Societal norms are much easier to change than biological compulsions.
Sex isn't a necessity the same way geopolitically showing you'll fight back the moment someone decides to invite your country is. Laws and mandatory drafts reflect this.
Despite being recognized as a necessity in many countries (mine included), you won't get subsidy or sexual assistance as an otherwise capable individual. For obvious reasons, this affects guys the most (the problems for women come after, generally). You'd need a really severe case for governments to make the wet dream of specific circles come true. The equivalent of your country's leader being at gunpoint by an opposing invading army.
If your country gets attacked, you bet mandatory draft will be reinstuted ASAP and executed. It's obvious, just look at Ukraine and Russia.
It's not the same. Actions speak louder.
That's not to mention, sex usually isn't the only thing lacking, making sex work a horrendous substitute or even exasperating the problem.
Honestly I think this weird binary comparison of a country's need for a military to an individual's need for sex (and/or other intimacy) has run its course... this isn't really making sense to me anymore, and it's off course from the original context.
To try to bring things back from this extreme tangent; my point was that on an individual level, trauma from sex work is no worse than trauma people face on the front lines, yet one is acceptable and one's not. That's a somewhat arbitrary construct.
As individuals both sex (and/or some adjacent intimacy) and safety are very low on the hierarchy of needs.
> trauma from sex work is no worse than trauma people face on the front lines, yet one is acceptable and one's not. That's a somewhat arbitrary construct.
The army has always been glorified as a country without soldiers is free pickings. It's practically a necessity, as current day tensions show.
Sex work isn't a necessity. Worse, regarding prostitution and porn, most of it's clientele remains secretive to avoid shame. Even if sex was considered a necessity, the stigma alone would prevent individuals from persuing services.
The fact you specifically discriminate between men and women gives it away (women can be soldiers, men can be sexworkers). We consider both the purity of women and the willingness for men to sacrifice themselves and be assertive as virtues. Now turn it around and you have your answer as to the status quo for almost our entire existence across the entire globe.