Forgive me, but I had to laugh a bit.

The reason I knew prostitutes (at least some of them) do it for the money is that in the course of my former position (job development) I actually met a couple of prostitutes. They were people with a few other problems, but finding regular employment and getting out of the biz was a top priority since they weren't getting any younger. Trouble was that even with this big employment gap in their resumes they always wanted to interview for jobs that paid more than their skills justified?

Why?

Because they needed the money for drugs.

Let's examine this a bit. First of all, people need money for a minimum of rent/mortage, food, nonfancy clothing, and basic medical care. Everything else is gravy. Women don't need money for makeup. Men don't need money for sex. Nobody needs drugs.

Try this concept folks. Human desire and human needs are two separate things.

Anonymous, I am not getting a very pretty picture of you. You seem to be arguing that you have some sort of compulsive desire for sex and are willing to haunt schoolyards in order to satisfy it. You turn up your nose at the inexpensive sex that an inexpensive streetwalker could provide you because you have some sort of abnormal hang up about making sure the women you are with don't hate men. Methinks you are projecting a bit.

Anonymous, what difference does it make if the women you are with hate men if all you want from them is the service? If that is all you are after, why trouble the women at work who are just trying to do their jobs? If they don't want to date you, just get over it.

You said: "Could it be that the unpleasant actions of men with two entirely different motivations are being both called harassment? One is unwanted affection and the other is something on the road to rape."

You are no doubt right. That is why it is important that employers set forth clear rules/guidelines about employee harrassment and even about socializing.

Men and women misread each other all the time. People misread other people's intentions. What is annoying to one person is simple affection to another.

However, I think some people have problems separating sex from everything else. Take this dog I used to have. When he was about six months old he mistook people's legs for potential sexual pleasure. That there are also people like that is clearly indicated by just reading some of the comments in this discussion.

There will always be people too immature, too sociopathic, too narcissistic, too ill-bred, too lazy, too desperate, too something-or-other, to try to figure out and adhere to simple, common sense, appropriate behavior. That the bar requires one sort of behavior while the workplace requires another completely eludes them. There are both males and females who are always on the prowl. These people always bring trouble to the work environment.

Thank you for elaborating. However, what I think I hear you saying is that brain trauma is sometimes diagnosed as PTSD and that the physical aspects can then be overlooked in the quest to find a short term solution that probably will benefit the government financially.

Correct me if I am wrong: Brain trauma is one diagnosis. PTSD is another diagnosis. A person can have both PTSD and brain trauma? Or are you saying that a person with PTSD necessarily has brain trauma?

BTW, I have PTSD, although I have not had a serious flashback for a long time. However, I have not read too much about PTSD. Sometimes it is easier not to try to understand stuff when you are right in the middle of it.

Thank you for your detailed information.

You said: "When it doesn't work, often the people have been through prolonged horrific experiences, usually as a small child or held in prison for a long time. You must have a shred of a memory of or an experience of life with hope/safety in it to hold onto and work with. Without that life experience of safety or hope, recovery is very difficult. You can't recreate it afterward."

So in treatment, having a flashback is actually an advantage that the therapist can use to work with in increments to help the client recover?

You mention that childhood long term exposure and that prison are two things that seem to destroy memory. In other words, loss of hope negatively impacts memory?

Does that not argue that with each tour of duty and with fewer months between tours that our soldiers are more likely to get PTSD, more likely to lose hope, and maybe even less likely to maintain memories that will foster treatment?

(Just as an aside, what about "recovered memory?" Is this something you see as possible? Usable?)

Furthermore, looking at the global assessment thingy, doesn't that argue that perhaps we need to be making sure that the people we send to war have the sorts of backgrounds that can withstand the pressure? For instance, doesn't it make sense that they should have no previous depression, a supportive family environment, a history of some stable employment, no past abuse as children? Doesn't it further make sense that we should not be sending eighteen year olds who have not yet even formed a stable sense of values and a fully developed personality to war?

If we keep sending to war people who come from poverty and have fewer other options, doesn't that mean that these people by definition have less background stability to withstand the pressures of war?

I am also curious about how long people are usually in treatment. Is PTSD a chronic condition or something that can come back of its own or reoccur with further life trauma? When can we definitively call people "cured?"