was the original notion. Can't resist throwing it into the arena.

immoral/fast

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2005-05-30 13:42:21 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

AMORAL

This is problematic because there is a sense in which the term is used for women who earn their living by some form of sex for money.

eg in Marijke Vandersypen, "Femmes libres de Kigali"
Abstract:
"Free women" in Kigali.- "Free women" are self-supporting single girls deriving their income, partly or totally, from the provision of company and sexual services. They can be divided into four categories, according to their haunts, the type of patrons they have, their age and social origin, etc. They are generally unpopular with other Rwanda women who feel threatened by their activities, and with the State authorities who try to curb or repress this kind of prostitution. On the whole, they tend to be more outward-looking and modern-oriented than the rest of the female population.


But the expression needn't have that overtone in every instance, as there is a book entitled Femmes Libres that covers women who have against all odds become real spokespersons for human rights in different countries; the French Radio Libertaire also has a regular programme under this title, devoted to women's issues.

Clearly it is not enough to say single women, as it has to be single women whose occupation puts them at risk to HIV/AIDS, etc. Therefore I would be inclined to use sex workers alone to cover both terms - other synonyms (prostitutes, call girls, etc) are either redundant if one has sex workers, or much more specific than "femmes libres".

a PC approach

libre, sans attaches=not married.

this seems appropriate

liberal(more latin..)