I've seen a few guys here sort of exaggerate up the ideal of love sex and how it is some spiritual, height reaching thingie. I don't know about that. I am not sure romanticising sex (haha) is really necessary.
The pleasure from sexual activity is not tied to love at all. It is tied to chemicals released in the brain and psychology, I think. They always say that sex is mostly in your head. Some people (like the guys who posted above) may have fantasies, desires, ideals that revolve around this ultimate love sex and that's fine, but it is just a fantasy fulfilment like anything else, isn't it?
Some people can't get off unless they're being tied up, flogged, having nipples twisted and being called a frog, and on and on... There are 7 billion people in the world and the ideal sex is different for every one of us.
I'd say there is nothing at all 'spiritual' about sex and that, like eating, is an activity. We are sentient, so we assign meanings to things, but each person assigns different meanings. If one thinks it is spiritual, then that's just fine: it is their fantasy and people loves fantasies. But, the next does not assign that same fantasy to it. And the rest of the animals don't care at all.
Anyway, I don't understand putting sex on a pedestal. It is an activity that, thank you modern birth control, we mostly do for pleasure rather than reproduction.
For the 'can it harm you emotionally being a sex worker' question, again, I say maybe. But then, there are many jobs that can harm one emotionally. I listed several of the ones I thought of on the previous page. I know I am not alone in thinking at least some of those can be emotionally damaging because I've seen people here say so in other threads. But, emotionally damaging or twisting perspective is not 'spiritual damage'. I am not even sure what 'spiritual damage' is but a very emotional way to talk about the psyche. Also, this activity will go on no matter what people think about it.
If people mean a religious type of spirit, isn't a spirit supposed to be some immutable thing anyway? A representative of the whole? How can the whole damage the whole? Or, as Krishna says,
Know That, by which all this (universe) is pervaded, to be indestructible. No one can destroy the indestructible (Atma) . (2.17)
Bodies of the eternal, imperishable, and incomprehensible soul are said to be perishable. Therefore, fight, O Arjuna. (2.18)
The one who thinks that Atma is a slayer, and the one who thinks that Atma is slain, both are ignorant, because Atma neither slays nor is slain. (2.19)
The Atma is neither born nor does it die at any time, nor having been it will cease to exist again. It is unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval. The Atma is not destroyed when the body is destroyed. (2.20)
O Arjuna, how can a person who knows that the Atma is indestructible, eternal, unborn, and imperishable, kill anyone or cause anyone to be killed? (2.21)
Just as a person puts on new garments after discarding the old ones, similarly Atma acquires new bodies after casting away the old bodies. (2.22)
Weapons do not cut this Atma, fire does not burn it, water does not make it wet, and the wind does not make it dry. (2.23)
This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. (2.24)
The Atma is said to be unmanifest, unthinkable, and unchanging. Knowing this Atma as such you should not grieve. (2.25)
