To think that you can absolutely buy consent

So why not get paid to have strangers fuck you up the bum? It's just work, and I'm guessing the money's better.

Of course we can choose to put a monetary price on our consent. We do this all the time with work. I wouldn't consent to putting in a shift in Asda if I wasn't getting paid.

I suppose people who make that argument would say that organ donation has permanent consequences in a way sex doesn't, and that since sex is an everyday activity in a way organ donation isn't, the addition of money doesn't make it equivalent. Not convinced by that myself.

I think money makes a key difference to both. If someone wants to altruistically donate to a family member, (though still could be problematic) that's different from a poor person being paid to donate an organ.

I'm sick of all these supposed analogies to other kinds of paid work. Not just yours, Rainbows, I just hit critical mass at this point!

With other jobs, employers are buying your work. They aren't paying for direct access to your body - the inside of your body, at that.

There is another 'job' with similarities in this respect. Some men people pay to beat someone up. I'm not talking about fighters, but some geezer getting paid to let a richer geezer beat him to a pulp. This is okay, right, the punchbag consents after all?

Some here might need reminding of the lively trade in kidneys, other organs and excessive blood donations. If sovereignty over one's own body means purchased consent is always valid, nobody needs to worry about the Bangladeshi villagers who have, after all, signed consent forms and been paid. In fact, why isn't this legal everywhere?

You either believe a person - any person - is just a piece of meat for sale, or you think people have some responsibility not to treat others as meat. You don't get to claim special conditions because a man wants to ejaculate into it.

It us pretty common though. How can you know? It's not racist to say a type of business often trafficks certain nationalities of people.

It’s possible it’s not the same group.

I use Vietnamese nail salons and take them at face value (I think it’s incorrect and a bit racist to declare them ALL human trafficking hubs.)

I also don’t have an issue with women and men choosing to sell sex.

They’re not.

I think this can be said of many men in terms of any form of casual sex encounter. Whether paid or not. Look at the narrative surrounding “body counts” and slutshaming.

It’s not women who perpetuate that. It’s men who choose to believe that.

You are blaming women for men’s behaviour.

The existence of male strippers has never seen women viewing men solely as sex objects.

By that notion the work I do should be considered non consensual.

By that bar, huge numbers of jobs are non-consensual...

It’s not consent though. It’s the need for money for which you agree to do things you’d rather not.

Yes they may offer it and stealthing is a risk of the job you have to be on your guard

As we know, decrim advocates often say that brothels offer more safety to women with other people around, panic buttons etc (how would someone reach them tho?) but as we know there often more like slave establishments.

My instinct leans to the Nordic Model, but I do think criticisms should be scrutinised so we can make it as effective as possible.

When reading debates on this, some argue that measures like the Nordic Model actually hinder protective measures since it prosecuted brothels, and classifies women who sell sex together (in the same building etc) or people who stay in the same building during the 'transaction'/help screen clients etc as pimps/brothel facilitators, so drove women to sell sex alone, putting them in a more vulnerable position.

Another argument was that prosecuting sex buyers meant that clients who were more likely to agree to condoms etc didn't go, so the clients still coming were ones who would demand bareback, putting women in a harder negotiating position.

I need to check the facts on this. I know that some escorts here seem to use agencies which filter the clients to some degree. Not sure how effective they are.

And ofc while I don't think women working together should be automatically prosecuted, how do you differentiate between a helper and a controlling pimp/madam?

They do protect somewhat but yes, no completely. Condoms are actually better at protecting women than men from herpes but they are obvs not 100% effective for those.

Yes, but some may be poor, drug addicted etc and do it for more money. Or some customers stealth 😡

Only if the SW offers it!

Prostitution is legal (well it is where I am in the world)

I can’t see any clearer indication that consent can be paid for than a difference in the price of with-condom vs without-condom sex.

Don’t forget lice…

Also, condoms don't prevent skin to skin STDs for example herpes, syphilis and HPV.

Many punters insist and pay for bareback

Tbf a lot of sex workers will only work with condoms to avoid STDs.

I do agree that poverty and circumstances can lead people to take jobs as sherpas or join the military- army recruitment in poor areas is a real tactic.

But why a race to the bottom- sex work isn't suddenly safe because people die in the army? Criticise both...hope for better for young recruits and exploited children, not worse for sex workers.

Men's ejaculations are not more important than the health and safety of sex workers and treating it as legitimate work with acceptable risk is damaging to them, to me, to society.